nice try

Post #346,246 by beepster 8/16/11 8:02:57 AM Reply	nice try what I'm saying is that Pat called him out specifically, and not those others, because Warren wrote an op-ed saying he was not taxed appropriately. And also notice you ignored the remainder of the post. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #346,247 by drook 8/16/11 9:32:12 AM Reply	Yes, I did ignore it Because I just want to clarify one point. Beep: Instead of putting pen to paper to write an op-ed..how about just cutting a check to the Fed...$5B was Pat's suggestion. Not a bad idea. Lincoln: Why doesn't he challenge multi-millionaires Romney and Issa to write some checks to Uncle Sam? Beep: cause they're not writing op-eds telling government to charge them more I read that as you agreeing with Robertson that Buffett should literally put his money where his mouth is. When lincoln asks why Robertson doesn't suggest Romney and Issa should also make those payments, you say that it's because Romney and Issa aren't the ones suggesting rich people should pay more. This isn't hard. You're saying that if someone wants to suggest what the law should require of other people, that person should voluntarily take that action themselves. Is that, or is that not, what you're saying? -- Drew
Post #346,264 by beepster 8/16/11 7:05:55 PM Reply	Re: Yes, I did ignore it Still not there. He is suggesting in that piece what he feels should be his own treatment. He feels like he should be paying more. So, pat says just go ahead and do it. I agree. And certainly, if you feel you are under taxed..by all means feel free to cut a check yourself. And it is a nice effort you are on to paint me into that corner but it ain't gonna work with this one. Feel free to try again later. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #346,268 by drook 8/16/11 10:14:46 PM Reply	Buffett wasn't talking just about himself -- Drew
Post #346,270 by boxley 8/16/11 10:17:28 PM Reply	leadership is not just words Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #346,273 by beepster 8/17/11 4:06:02 AM Reply	Re: Buffett wasn't talking just about himself Last year my federal tax bill Â the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf Â was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income Â and thatÂs actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent. Sure seems like he feels a bit guilty about that..and that he should pay more (he and his superwealthy friends). and I've already stated my position on taxes for people earning over 1M and on the carried interest rule. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #346,271 by Another Scott 8/17/11 2:19:54 AM Reply	It's called advocacy. Buffett is advocating that the rich pay more in taxes. Buchanan and the rest are ignoring that advocacy and trying to turn it into something about Buffett. The issue with comments that amount to "just shut up and pay more if you want to" is that contributions to the upkeep of civil society shouldn't be based on the voluntary whims of the few. Governments need to be able to plan a budget, so they need stable, predictable incomes. You don't get that by passing the plate around every Sunday. You get that by having sensible tax rates. Corporate taxes as a percentage of the economy and as a percentage of the federal budget have been falling for a long time. The rich have overwhelmingly benefited in the US for the last 20+ years while the middle-class has stagnated. There is nothing objectively controversial or radical about those facts or about Buffett's opinion piece. FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #346,274 by beepster 8/17/11 4:13:23 AM Reply	Re: It's called advocacy. "Governments need to be able to plan a budget" really? might want to tell that the current and prior congress. and I don't disagree. and he does it the exact same way I've actually been arguing should be the way. 200k is not the number. 1M is the number. But, back to PB's point (and box's)...if he feels guilty about it..which it seems like he does...he could lead by example...this governments as good a charity case as there is now...a check for $5B would fund some good public works. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #346,287 by mmoffitt 8/17/11 10:17:29 AM 8/17/11 1:50:05 PM Reply	He could do a lot better than 5 billion. If 6.9 million was only 17.4% of his "taxable income" (which, I take to mean his total income minus an inordinate amount of deductions), then his "taxable income" was north of 39 million. How about he sends in 20 billion? That would be less than 1/2 his net worth, leaving him 25 billion to help him through the tough times. I'm sure if he tries really, really, really, hard and tightens his belt a little, he can somehow survive on 19 million for the year. Seriously, these numbers would be laughable if they weren't so obscene. Edit: Confusion of ideas. Too busy at work. Edited by mmoffitt Aug. 17, 2011, 01:50:05 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #346,289 by drook 8/17/11 11:11:03 AM Reply	Think you transposed m / b in there -- Drew
Post #346,292 by beepster 8/17/11 1:13:33 PM Reply	Forget it, he's rolling... Good time for an animal house reference Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #346,293 by mmoffitt 8/17/11 1:47:34 PM Reply	Holy Crap! That was sentence spaghetti! I had two thoughts going through my head as I wrote that, first, Buffet had about 40 million in taxable income. Second, his net worth is 45 Billion.
Post #346,299 by drook 8/17/11 4:22:01 PM Reply	Hah! Confusion of ideas. Too busy at work. "Gee, sorry guys. I was too busy at work to pay sufficient attention to this non-work-related discussion I was trying to have." -- Drew
Post #346,300 by mmoffitt 8/17/11 4:28:29 PM Reply	:0)

Welcome to IWETHEY!