No wonder he's out there asking for higher taxes

his tax bill in 2011 was $6,938,744. (http://www.forbes.co...nge-tax-argument/)

There's a huge argument going on regarding Berkshire Hathaway. They admit to certain tax discrepancies going back to 2002. (http://www.nypost.co...yjJ#ixzz1WRoIlYSf)

But both Forbes and the NYPost ignore that Berkshire Hathaway isn't owned exclusively by Buffet. (And Berkshire has been paying taxes - http://www.huffingto...way_n_941099.html)

What The Post hence assumes is that Berkshire Hathaway pays taxes at the top marginal rate of 35 percent. The corporation's effective tax rate was last put at 29 percent, according to Forbes.

(http://finance.yahoo...-pay-taxes-forbes)

So how to make sense of GE's taxes? The outcry seems to focus on the $5 billion in profits GE made in the U.S. Now if GE were to pay the 35% statutory federal corporate tax rate on that, it would come to $1.75 billion. Yet, as the Times trumpeted, GE has recorded a $3.25 billion tax benefit for the year on its U.S. operations. It's important to understand that this "benefit" is not a refund (which is why the Associated Press should be doubly embarrassed for being fooled Wednesday by a bogus GE press release concocted by the Yes Men that said the conglomerate intended to return its $3.2 billion tax "refund" to the U.S. Treasury). It just represents an amount GE will balance out against other tax obligations.

But why does GE get this benefit? Simple: its finance arm, GE Capital, lost a lot of money during the financial meltdown (roughly $30 billion) and it's still carrying those losses forward and deducting them from current income. As GE spokesman Gary Sheffer wrote in his response to the Times story: "Without these financial crisis losses at GE Capital, GE's tax rate would have been near the average of other multinational corporations." He added, "In short, when you lose money, you don't pay taxes."

(http://finance.yahoo...-pay-taxes-forbes)

Post #346,924 by beepster 8/29/11 4:11:09 PM Reply	No wonder he's out there asking for higher taxes more gov money means more bailouts means a few more billion in his pocket... http://campaign2012....ting-bank-bailout Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #346,926 by mmoffitt 8/29/11 4:33:49 PM Reply	No, no, no. Haven't you been paying attention? This is all the fault of the Congress and the Senate. </smirk>
Post #346,931 by boxley 8/29/11 5:51:40 PM Reply	I understand he hasnt paid taxes since 2002 and is disputing how much he owes 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 #347,010 by S1mon_Jester 8/30/11 1:37:14 PM Reply	Warren's paid them his tax bill in 2011 was $6,938,744. (http://www.forbes.co...nge-tax-argument/) There's a huge argument going on regarding Berkshire Hathaway. They admit to certain tax discrepancies going back to 2002. (http://www.nypost.co...yjJ#ixzz1WRoIlYSf) But both Forbes and the NYPost ignore that Berkshire Hathaway isn't owned exclusively by Buffet. (And Berkshire has been paying taxes - http://www.huffingto...way_n_941099.html) What The Post hence assumes is that Berkshire Hathaway pays taxes at the top marginal rate of 35 percent. The corporation's effective tax rate was last put at 29 percent, according to Forbes. (http://finance.yahoo...-pay-taxes-forbes) So how to make sense of GE's taxes? The outcry seems to focus on the $5 billion in profits GE made in the U.S. Now if GE were to pay the 35% statutory federal corporate tax rate on that, it would come to $1.75 billion. Yet, as the Times trumpeted, GE has recorded a $3.25 billion tax benefit for the year on its U.S. operations. It's important to understand that this "benefit" is not a refund (which is why the Associated Press should be doubly embarrassed for being fooled Wednesday by a bogus GE press release concocted by the Yes Men that said the conglomerate intended to return its $3.2 billion tax "refund" to the U.S. Treasury). It just represents an amount GE will balance out against other tax obligations. But why does GE get this benefit? Simple: its finance arm, GE Capital, lost a lot of money during the financial meltdown (roughly $30 billion) and it's still carrying those losses forward and deducting them from current income. As GE spokesman Gary Sheffer wrote in his response to the Times story: "Without these financial crisis losses at GE Capital, GE's tax rate would have been near the average of other multinational corporations." He added, "In short, when you lose money, you don't pay taxes." (http://finance.yahoo...-pay-taxes-forbes)

Welcome to IWETHEY!