• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Warren Buffett releases tax figures to GOP

Catawba said:
Or, he's patriotic and cares about his country and fellow citizens.
Click to expand...
We have all these Partisan Hacks suggesting he's "gaming the system."
Buffett, Like $1 Jobs, takes pride increasing his wealth to the same degree his Shareholders do, in Increased Stock price/divs; the way many CEOs should.
If he was greedy he could easily pay himself, in Addition, any salary he wanted 10-50 Mil+ and just pay the 35% taxes on it.

He's Got $40 Billion and pledged the vast majority to the Gates Foundation.
Yet you Ignorant Partisan Hacks, who don't want to deal with his altruistic tax stance, suggest he's "gaming the system" for what ? 5 mil? 10?
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
We have all these Partisan Hacks suggesting he's "gaming the system."
Buffett, Like $1 Jobs, takes pride increasing his wealth to the same degree his Shareholders do, in Increased Stock price/divs; the way many CEOs should.
If he was greedy he could easily pay himself, in Addition, any salary he wanted 10-50 Mil+ and just pay the 35% taxes on it.

He's Got $40 Billion and pledged the vast majority to the Gates Foundation.
Yet you Ignorant Partisan Hacks, who don't want to deal with his altruistic tax stance, suggest he's "gaming the system" for what ? 5 mil? 10?
Click to expand...

If government is so good at managing the money, to the point where someone like Buffet can tell you to pay more while he avoids, then why is he not giving his money to government?

Some libs believe anything.


J-mac
 
j-mac said:
If government is so good at managing the money, to the point where someone like Buffet can tell you to pay more while he avoids, then why is he not giving his money to government?

Some libs believe anything.


J-mac
Click to expand...
1. He's not asking us or you to pay more (unless you earn much more than your poorly worded posts are letting on). He's asking the government to tax people that are as wealthy as him at at least the same rate that normal people (ahh, there we are. Normal people not earning millions) get taxed.

2. You're making the same argument that people make when politicians were accepting stimulus funds even after bashing the stimulus. Well you can think it was a bad idea but you'd be stupid to let the funds go elsewhere, that doesn't make you a hypocrite, just like Buffett isn't a hypocrite. He'd be stupid to just hand over a bunch of money but he does think the country would be better off raising tax rates on capital gains and those making over a million a year.

3. Just Buffett paying more in taxes wouldn't do much in reducing the deficit. Making everyone that makes over a million bucks a year pay alittle more would do a good bit to help the deficit.
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
We have all these Partisan Hacks suggesting he's "gaming the system."
Buffett, Like $1 Jobs, takes pride increasing his wealth to the same degree his Shareholders do, in Increased Stock price/divs; the way many CEOs should.
If he was greedy he could easily pay himself, in Addition, any salary he wanted 10-50 Mil+ and just pay the 35% taxes on it.

He's Got $40 Billion and pledged the vast majority to the Gates Foundation.
Yet you Ignorant Partisan Hacks, who don't want to deal with his altruistic tax stance, suggest he's "gaming the system" for what ? 5 mil? 10?
Click to expand...

I do not think he is gaming the system, but I do think he is gaming the numbers he uses when saying his secretary pays about 30% in taxes. That might be the marginal tax bracket the person is in, but how does he know what the deductions are for taxes, charities, medical expenses, exemptions, etc. I think he uses both sides of the payroll taxes which seems to be disingenuous as most employers would not give people an automatic raise if these taxes went away.
 
MaggieD said:
He's playing the system. I know, I've done it myself. Here's how it works: You pay yourself a pittance in salary, thus exposing a very small amount of money to ordinary income tax, social security and medicare. He only pays himself a salary of $100,000 a year. Warren Buffett's Effective Federal Income Tax Rate Was Just 11% - Forbes
Click to expand...

This is not exactly accurate. If a company pays its CEO with stock instead of salary, the value of the stock is still taxed at the normal income rate. If that stock later appreciates in value, then that increase is taxed at the capital gains rate. In other words, there is no difference between a CEO receiving $1,000,000 in stock as compensation, versus a CEO receiving a check for $1,000,000 and buying the stock on his own.

Regarding social security tax, there would be no reason for him to keep a low salary if your theory was true. You stop paying social security taxes beyond your first $106,800 of income anyway, so it doesn't really matter if he earns more than that.

Regarding medicare tax, it's roughly the same story as the federal income tax. Your taxable income for medicare is just your AGI from your income tax, minus certain deductions and exemptions. You still have to pay medicare tax on stock compensation that you receive in exchange for your labor.

He takes his income from Berkshire Hathaway in the form of dividends rather than salary, thus avoiding payroll taxes on the bulk of his earnings.
Click to expand...

Dividends are paid out to shareholders; it is impossible "take income in the form of dividends." He receives stock (which is taxed at the normal income rate), and then that stock produces dividends depending on the company's performance (which is taxed as income just like for every other shareholder).

The average CEO of a Fortune 500 company in the U.S. is $1.09 million. Buffett's? $100,000. :rofl Berkshire Hathaway ranks #19 in The Global 500 (largest companies in the world) and its CEO earns $100,000. Talk about playing the system!
Click to expand...

This is a very odd criticism, because it is generally considered a GOOD thing when CEOs take their compensation in the form of stock rather than salary (because it shows they are more invested in the success of the company, and because it shows that they are compensated based on their actual performance). Furthermore, the information Buffett released explicitly contradicts your claims. His taxable income was nearly $63 million, so clearly it includes more than just his $100,000 salary.

Suggested New Buffett Rule:

Actually, the IRS should be on this guy in a New York Minute. The IRS has rules against paying yourself a pittance like this to avoid payroll taxes. I think the code reads something like "usual and customary." I wouldn't be surprised that they begin an investigation....just because they are embarrassed. That $15,000 number on $100,000? Social Security alone would be $6,200. So he's paying income tax of $8,800 on $100,000. I'd say a full audit of his personal return is coming down the road...
Click to expand...


At first glance there doesn't appear to be anything unusual in the information he released. Still, I would agree that it was probably not a good idea for him to release it simply because any wealthy person is going to have some stuff that his critics will attack him for. Which is exactly why the Republicans wanted him to release his tax information in the first place; not because they were actually interested in examining the problem with the tax code, but because they wanted to nickel-and-dime his deductions in order to discredit him.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
This is not exactly accurate. If a company pays its CEO with stock instead of salary, the value of the stock is still taxed at the normal income rate. If that stock later appreciates in value, then that increase is taxed at the capital gains rate. In other words, there is no difference between a CEO receiving $1,000,000 in stock as compensation, versus a CEO receiving a check for $1,000,000 and buying the stock on his own.

Regarding social security tax, there would be no reason for him to keep a low salary if your theory was true. You stop paying social security taxes beyond your first $106,800 of income anyway, so it doesn't really matter if he earns more than that.

Regarding medicare tax, it's roughly the same story as the federal income tax. Your taxable income for medicare is just your AGI from your income tax, minus certain deductions and exemptions. You still have to pay medicare tax on stock compensation that you receive in exchange for your labor.



Dividends are paid out to shareholders; it is impossible "take income in the form of dividends." He receives stock (which is taxed at the normal income rate), and then that stock produces dividends depending on the company's performance (which is taxed as income just like for every other shareholder).



This is a very odd criticism, because it is generally considered a GOOD thing when CEOs take their compensation in the form of stock rather than salary (because it shows they are more invested in the success of the company). Furthermore, the information Buffett released explicitly contradicts your claims. His taxable income was nearly $7 million, so clearly it includes more than just his $100,000 salary.



At first glance there doesn't appear to be anything unusual in the information he released. Still, I would agree that it was probably not a good idea for him to release it simply because any wealthy person is going to have some stuff that his critics will attack him for. Which is exactly why the Republicans wanted him to release his tax information in the first place; not because they were actually interested in examining the problem with the tax code, but because they wanted to nickel-and-dime his deductions in order to use it to discredit him.
Click to expand...

Don't any of you no that Berkshire PAYS NO DIVIDENDS! Also that his return showed that he had about $42 million in taxable income and then paid $7 million in Taxes.

How can there be a debate on a topic when people know so little about the topic being discussed.

Buffet has a POV that is worthy of discussion, but it is not worth discussing when people have so little understanding of the basic facts presented.
 
washunut said:
Don't any of you no that Berkshire PAYS NO DIVIDENDS!
Click to expand...

OK, but not really relevant to my point: He still pays income taxes on his compensation for his labor, regardless of whether that compensation is in the form of a salary or stock.

Also that his return showed that he had about $42 million in taxable income and then paid $7 million in Taxes.
Click to expand...

Mm-hmm...

How can there be a debate on a topic when people know so little about the topic being discussed.

Buffet has a POV that is worthy of discussion, but it is not worth discussing when people have so little understanding of the basic facts presented.
Click to expand...

It's really not worth discussing with people who are so rude about a trivial point...especially when they don't bother to explain how it's even relevant. ;)
Whether or not Berkshire pays dividends has no bearing on Buffett's compensation as an employee. Dividends are paid to shareholders, salaries or stock are paid to employees.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
OK, but not really relevant to my point: He still pays income taxes on his compensation for his labor, regardless of whether that compensation is in the form of a salary or stock.



Mm-hmm...



It's really not worth discussing with people who are so rude about a trivial point...especially when they don't bother to explain how it's even relevant. ;)
Whether or not Berkshire pays dividends has no bearing on Buffett's compensation as an employee. Dividends are paid to shareholders, salaries or stock are paid to employees.
Click to expand...

OK we agree.
 
Ockham said:
Tell me how he's being patriotic.
Click to expand...

By wanting his country's economy and his fellow citizens to prosper. You see, he is smart enough to know that a consumer based economy cannot prosper when too much of the country's wealth is concentrated at the top.
 
Catawba said:
By wanting his country's economy and his fellow citizens to prosper. You see, he is smart enough to know that a consumer based economy cannot prosper when too much of the country's wealth is concentrated at the top.
Click to expand...

Yet he's hypocritical enough to not pay his "fair share", and spend a lot of money to avoid it.

irony.jpg
 
If Buffet wanted that, he should pay his back taxes first.
 
Reg said:
If Buffet wanted that, he should pay his back taxes first.
Click to expand...

Ockham said:
Yet he's hypocritical enough to not pay his "fair share", and spend a lot of money to avoid it.
Click to expand...

I know you two are too partisan to even understand this but I'll give it a shot anyways. There is a HUGE distinction between Buffett's personal income tax debt and that of Berkshire Hathaway. One is the tax obligation of a private citizen and the other is that of a corporation owned by shareholders. Two completely different and separate entities under the law.

Berkshire Hathaway's fiduciary responsibility to it's SHAREHOLDERS is to MAXIMIZE returns under current tax law. That doesn't mean that current tax law is fair or that Warren Buffett is a hypocrite for calling to make tax law more equitable. It only means that he's fullfilling his moral and business obligation to his shareholders. What it demonstrates is a decades-long pattern of shrewd business dealings and fighting for his shareholders WITHIN the limits of the law. That's why Berkshire Hathaway's share price is $104,000.00 per share.

Bottom line is that Warren Buffett's personal income tax obligation is a completely different animal from Berkshire Hathaway's and minimizing costs in the interest of shareholders is just plain old good business practice.

Warren Buffett isn't a hypocrite simply because he thinks the rich should pay there fair share. He wants his own tax rate to go up. He'd be a hypocrite if he wanted everyone making millions, except for him, to pay more in taxes. His company that he is CEO of has a responsibility to it's share holder's to make money and unless they are doing something illegal he has every right to ask for tax adjustments if they think they are being over taxed in one area. Even if he thinks tax rates should go up that he can go and voluntarily give away a bunch of money from Berkshire Hathaway to the government, and if he did he probably wouldn't be CEO for very long.

What his publicly traded company pays in taxes and what he himself pays in taxes are two different issues. You two and any other ill-informed conservative would do well to learn the difference.
 
Buffet could direct Berkshire to pay its taxes if he wanted it so.
 
Reg said:
Buffet could direct Berkshire to pay its taxes if he wanted it so.
Click to expand...

Doesn't Berkshire owe the IRS a billion dollars and some change?
 
Yes, and Warren Buffet could make that go away and direct Berkshire to pay it, if he wanted it so.
 
roughdraft274 said:
I know you two are too partisan to even understand this but I'll give it a shot anyways. There is a HUGE distinction between Buffett's personal income tax debt and that of Berkshire Hathaway. One is the tax obligation of a private citizen and the other is that of a corporation owned by shareholders. Two completely different and separate entities under the law.

Berkshire Hathaway's fiduciary responsibility to it's SHAREHOLDERS is to MAXIMIZE returns under current tax law. That doesn't mean that current tax law is fair or that Warren Buffett is a hypocrite for calling to make tax law more equitable. It only means that he's fullfilling his moral and business obligation to his shareholders. What it demonstrates is a decades-long pattern of shrewd business dealings and fighting for his shareholders WITHIN the limits of the law. That's why Berkshire Hathaway's share price is $104,000.00 per share.

Bottom line is that Warren Buffett's personal income tax obligation is a completely different animal from Berkshire Hathaway's and minimizing costs in the interest of shareholders is just plain old good business practice.
Click to expand...
While a very good explaination, it's irrelevant to my charge that he's a hypocrite. I know very well the difference between corporate and personal tax obligations.

roughdraft274 said:
Warren Buffett isn't a hypocrite simply because he thinks the rich should pay there fair share. He wants his own tax rate to go up.
Click to expand...
If that were to be true, why then does he only pay 15%? The answer is, because he has CPA's, and lawyers and people who's job it is to utilize the existing tax code to lower his person tax rate. His tax rate is ALREADY higher ... yet he doesn't pay the higher rate. THAT is why he's a hypocrite.


roughdraft274 said:
He'd be a hypocrite if he wanted everyone making millions, except for him, to pay more in taxes.
Click to expand...
That's certainly a second way he'd be a hypocrite yes.
 
Ockham said:
If that were to be true, why then does he only pay 15%? The answer is, because he has CPA's, and lawyers and people who's job it is to utilize the existing tax code to lower his person tax rate. His tax rate is ALREADY higher ... yet he doesn't pay the higher rate. THAT is why he's a hypocrite.
Click to expand...

No one is under any moral obligation to pay more taxes than they are legally required to pay. I think it's stupid that our tax code is littered with deductions, credits, and exemptions, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to claim every single one of them that I'm entitled to claim. It's hard to fault Buffett for doing the same. You play by the existing rules and work to change them.
 
Ockham said:
Yet he's hypocritical enough to not pay his "fair share", and spend a lot of money to avoid it.
Click to expand...

That statement is void of even a shred of logic. Why would Buffet petition to have his taxes raised if we were trying to avoid paying taxes?
 
Catawba said:
That statement is void of even a shred of logic. Why would Buffet petition to have his taxes raised if we were trying to avoid paying taxes?
Click to expand...

Wrong question --- the correct question is why would Buffet pay people to find tax loopholes if he weren't trying to avoid taxes?
 
Ockham said:
Wrong question --- the correct question is why would Buffet pay people to find tax loopholes if he weren't trying to avoid taxes?
Click to expand...

Let's just stick with the facts that can be verified.
 
Why the cult of personality for Warren Bluffer? Is he untouchable since he sings the right hymns?
 
Ockham said:
So you're saying he doesn't employ CPA's and tax lawyers?
Click to expand...

I am saying there is zero evidence that he has illegally avoided taxes, while there is verifiable evidence that he has petitioned to have his taxes increased.
 
Catawba said:
I am saying there is zero evidence that he has illegally avoided taxes, while there is verifiable evidence that he has petitioned to have his taxes increased.
Click to expand...

There is verifiable evidence that he has petitioned to have his non legally avoidable taxes increased.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom