Warren Buffet speaks common sense; alarms most Republicans

[Jon Miller]

For example.

Person A and person B both need a car to get to work.

Person A is wealthy, afford insurance that replaces it right away. Person B does not.

When they crash their cars, they both need new cars to get to work.

Person B buys a new car. Person A gets a new car from his insurance. Person B was lacking and was worried and couldn't afford to pay for his kid to get tutored (and probably had to work extra work and spend less time with his kid). And of course he had to get a loan to pay for the new car, so is paying interest now.

According to your ideas, they have the same thing, and so should pay the same taxes.

According to my ideas, person A has definitely gotten more and so should pay more taxes.

JM

[KrazyHorse]

jon has a point buried in his posts, but he is not expressing it clearly, and it is not particularly important.

The structuring and administration of an insurance policy for an individual is itself a consumer good, and under a consumption tax regime should be taxed. NOT the payouts from insurance, but the difference between risk-neutral expected payouts and premiums. The same can be said about brokerage and financial advisory fees. Under a vat, it doesn't matter whether or not fees are paid by corporations in engaging in these transactions because intermediate taxes are rightly rebated.

As I said, it's not a particularly important point.

[Fake Boris]

The tax wedge placed between Warren Buffet's production and his (or his descendents') consumption is something well above 90%. "Income" is a meaningless measure, because it consists of both real production as well as the nominal change in a variable which leads to 0 change in risk-adjusted NPV. The fact that you had to ask demonstrates how fundamentally illiterate you are on this subject. The vast majority of Buffet's "income" has already been triple-taxed before it gets to him (at the earned income tax level, at the corporate tax level and at the unearned income tax level).

1. Yes, I am illiterate on this. Everyone is illiterate about something.

2. I'm not sure I understand this: "as well as the nominal change in a variable which leads to 0 change in risk-adjusted NPV". How can you be sure about the 0?

3. I also don't see why capital shouldn't be treated as "labor that you own", i.e. labor. (The answer to this is probably the answer to #2).

4. I don't see either why the general argument of "the middle class will have to face financial hardships to sustain long-term economic prospects" shouldn't apply to Buffet (the money is there, the gov needs it).

[DinoDoc]

Does Warren Buffet really want to pay more in taxes?

[Dinner]

So he says companies should pay less in taxes but individuals should pay more in personal income taxes... Yet you claim this logically inconsistent? I guess it's not surprising you're wrong again.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

So he says companies should pay less in taxes but individuals should pay more in personal income taxes... Yet you claim this logically inconsistent? I guess it's not surprising you're wrong again.

Buffet said nothing in the article. In fact the last line made it explicitly clear.

Berkshire Hathaway did not respond to a request for comment.

Munk said that Buffett himself had not been involved in any of the lobbying.

Thus attributing a taxation position to Buffet that he feels companies should pay less is disingenuous at best. Buffet however is on record as stating that companies also do not pay their fair share.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/27/warren-buffett-corporate-taxes_n_1304432.html

Thus Buffet is not advocating for lower corporate taxes, but actually the opposite. His holding companies however are not in lockstep with his opinions apparently.


Summary of entire post: Oerdin is wrong.

[DinoDoc]

Summary of entire post: Oerdin is wrong.

Shocking!

[DaShi]

DD, you're usually wrong more times that Oerdin.

[Tupac Shakur]

No one is wrong more than Oerdin.