• 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's Berkshire Hathaway Owes Taxes Going Back To 2002 [edited]

LaMidRighter said:
Economics lesson for you, when his company gets the **** taxed out of it the company will have less money, less money means less to divide up to investors. That's fine in Buffett's case because that piece of trash deserves to reap what he sows personally and anyone who can entertain that piece of **** also deserves the loss. Now, Buffett goes grand scale and says everyone in his bracket should pay more in taxes, those taxes come from profits which means the companies have less, less is the opposite of more which means that the people who have money in other companies will suffer from a smaller pie(less money in their coffers more in the government's remember). Since less will never be more than more and Buffett is an advocate of less, he fails in his fiduciary duty.

Now, legal or not, which is NOT what anyone has said, Buffett has come out for MORE taxes while he and his company try to pay LESS. If you can't see a problem I can't help you.
Click to expand...


Well, you should help yourself first. Why use so many emotional appeals? Are you angry at Buffet or do you not have actual arguement to make? Buffet talked about capital gain tax. And if he wants to raise the corporate income tax, again he's entitled to his opinion, and his company would not be put at a disadvantage since the rule will apply to all companies.

Legality very much matter, if you want to argue that Buffet should go against the law to pay taxes his company is disputing, then you are not arguing like a sane person.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Doesn't matter. In lieu of Mr. Buffett's comments anything owed is on his shoulders independent of the payor. Fiduciary responsibility be damned in this case because he is already arguing for the opposite of his shareholders best interests by advocating for higher taxes on the wealthy. Every dollar the company loses comes out of a shareholders pocket and his decisions are responsible.
Click to expand...

His arguements for higher taxes are made by him as a private individual and if I am not mistaken are directed towards more private individuals rather then companies

Buffets comments about taxes being too low is independant of the taxes owed or not owed by BH
 
LaMidRighter said:
Doesn't matter. In lieu of Mr. Buffett's comments anything owed is on his shoulders independent of the payor. Fiduciary responsibility be damned in this case because he is already arguing for the opposite of his shareholders best interests by advocating for higher taxes on the wealthy. Every dollar the company loses comes out of a shareholders pocket and his decisions are responsible.
Click to expand...


Buffet doesn't have a Fiduciary duty to make sure people who own shares in his company pay less tax, his responsibility is to maximise the returns on the shares they own of his company within the boundary of the law.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
His arguements for higher taxes are made by him as a private individual and if I am not mistaken are directed towards more private individuals rather then companies

Buffets comments about taxes being too low is independant of the taxes owed or not owed by BH
Click to expand...
That doesn't matter. Plenty of individuals have their money tied into small businesses profits and they aren't seperable. I don't care where Buffett was going he is a hypocrite.

nonpareil said:
Well, you should help yourself first. Why use so many emotional appeals? Are you angry at Buffet or do you not have actual arguement to make? Buffet talked about capital gain tax. And if he wants to raise the corporate income tax, again he's entitled to his opinion, and his company would not be put at a disadvantage since the rule will apply to all companies.

Legality very much matter, if you want to argue that Buffet should go against the law to pay taxes his company is disputing, then you are not arguing like a sane person.
Click to expand...
Hardly an emotional appeal. The fact is he's arguing for less, that is quantifyable once the data is known. An emotional appeal would require an unprovable position based on how I feel. I am using logic.
 
nonpareil said:
Buffet doesn't have a Fiduciary duty to make sure people who own shares in his company pay less tax, his responsibility is to maximise the returns on the shares they own of his company within the boundary of the law.
Click to expand...
If his company loses money due to taxes they MAKE less, not pay less is the point. He does have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize their return.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Makes even more of my point though. If it costs that much per share then the investors get screwed even more when they lose value to overtaxation that Buffett is going on about.
Click to expand...


You are not making sense. The value of the shares doesn't matter, what matters is capital gain. And Buffet is not responsible for their tax burden, he is only responsible for ensuring that he maximise the captital gain (the shares will go up in value). Given whatever level of capital gain the shareholders are still better off with a higher capital again, i.e. even if the tax rate rise, if the company is growing, it's worth more to shareholders, the share value will rise.
 
LaMidRighter said:
If his company loses money due to taxes they MAKE less, not pay less is the point. He does have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize their return.
Click to expand...

I dont recall Buffet calling for higher corporate taxes, but generally for private individual taxes.
 
LaMidRighter said:
If his company loses money due to taxes they MAKE less, not pay less is the point. He does have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize their return.
Click to expand...

And do you have evidence that his company will loss money?
 
nonpareil said:
You are not making sense. The value of the shares doesn't matter, what matters is capital gain.
Click to expand...
Are you serious? What you pay for the share means quite a bit if you go stagnant and have to pay the taxes or even worse....take a loss and have to pay the taxes. What part of that doesn't make sense?
And Buffet is not responsible for their tax burden, he is only responsible for ensuring that he maximise the captital gain (the shares will go up in value). Given whatever level of capital gain the shareholders are still better off with a higher capital again, i.e. even if the tax rate rise, if the company is growing, it's worth more to shareholders, the share value will rise.
Click to expand...
He is responsible for his speech, end of story, period, no excuses. He is responsible for tax related losses due to his actions and postition related to taxes. There is no spin that changes that, period, no excuses, end of story.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Are you serious? What you pay for the share means quite a bit if you go stagnant and have to pay the taxes or even worse....take a loss and have to pay the taxes. What part of that doesn't make sense? He is responsible for his speech, end of story, period, no excuses. He is responsible for tax related losses due to his actions and postition related to taxes. There is no spin that changes that, period, no excuses, end of story.
Click to expand...

No he is not responsible for the tax rates that people have to pay, nor does his support of higher tax rates effect his responsibility to BH and its shareholders as his support of higher tax rates is that of a private individual and that that of BH

If he as manager of BH had BH pay more in taxes then it was legally required to then he would be responsible for the loss's to the shareholders of BH
 
LaMidRighter said:
That doesn't matter. Plenty of individuals have their money tied into small businesses profits and they aren't seperable. I don't care where Buffett was going he is a hypocrite.
Click to expand...

You are now making the arguements of a child. It doesn't matter if you care or not. Facts are facts.


Hardly an emotional appeal. The fact is he's arguing for less, that is quantifyable once the data is known. An emotional appeal would require an unprovable position based on how I feel. I am using logic.
Click to expand...


Your post was full of emotional appeal, like this gem: That's fine in Buffett's case because that piece of trash deserves to reap what he sows personally and anyone who can entertain that piece of **** also deserves the loss.

You are not using logic. You don't seem able to even differentiate between capital gain tax and corporate income tax.

And why don't provide the support for the claim that higher capital gain tax will result in less profits for Berkshire Hathaway or any company.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Are you serious? What you pay for the share means quite a bit if you go stagnant and have to pay the taxes or even worse....take a loss and have to pay the taxes. What part of that doesn't make sense? He is responsible for his speech, end of story, period, no excuses.
Click to expand...

If you take a loss then you don't have to pay any capital gain tax. Which part of "capital gain" don't you understand?

He is responsible for tax related losses due to his actions and postition related to taxes. There is no spin that changes that, period, no excuses, end of story.
Click to expand...


Why don't you provide actual evidence that his company has taken any losses as a result of his actions and position related to tax policy?


The irony is that you were just arguing that he should make his company pay out money that the company is disputing.
 
nonpareil said:
If you take a loss then you don't have to pay any capital gain tax. Which part of "capital gain" don't you understand?
Click to expand...
You pay on the value of the stock, not whether you win or lose. If you lose your principle you still owe tax on any dividends and first year is considered an income. Capital gains kick in during year 2 and afterward. So yes, you can lose and still pay taxes.




Why don't you provide actual evidence that his company has taken any losses as a result of his actions and position related to tax policy?
Click to expand...
Okay, I'll just pull out my crystal ball. Get serious man, I know what will probably happen, it doesn't mean there is evidence, but if the taxes are increased there won't be as much money in the fund. You don't get additional money from subtraction.


The irony is that you were just arguing that he should make his company pay out money that the company is disputing.
Click to expand...
If they OWE it then yes, they have to pay it out. Thought I was clear on that.
 
LaMidRighter said:
You pay on the value of the stock, not whether you win or lose. If you lose your principle you still owe tax on any dividends and first year is considered an income. Capital gains kick in during year 2 and afterward. So yes, you can lose and still pay taxes.
Click to expand...

Not capital gain tax which is the object of the discussion.

You pay capital gain tax on the profit you make, you don't pay capital gain tax on any losses.


Okay, I'll just pull out my crystal ball. Get serious man, I know what will probably happen, it doesn't mean there is evidence, but if the taxes are increased there won't be as much money in the fund. You don't get additional money from subtraction.
Click to expand...

I'm being serious. You don't know, that's the point, unless you have the crystal ball, so stop speculating as if you do.


If they OWE it then yes, they have to pay it out. Thought I was clear on that.
Click to expand...

No you weren't. There was no "if" in your previous posts.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
His arguements for higher taxes are made by him as a private individual and if I am not mistaken are directed towards more private individuals rather then companies

Buffets comments about taxes being too low is independant of the taxes owed or not owed by BH
Click to expand...

Not in the political arena its not !!

"The company that I own and run is a tax cheat, but I am not" ............... fail.
 
Buffet is a business and an investing genius. Who ever heard of such a wealth made by pure investments?

However, his political hypocrisy is staggering
 
Proud South Korean said:
Buffet is a business and an investing genius. Who ever heard of such a wealth made by pure investments?

However, his political hypocrisy is staggering
Click to expand...

As the CEO of a corportion his allegience is to shareholders. As a citizen his allegience is to his country.

I don't see any hypocrisy, I see a guy that wears two hats based on his responsibilities.
 
iliveonramen said:
As the CEO of a corportion his allegience is to shareholders. As a citizen his allegience is to his country.

I don't see any hypocrisy, I see a guy that wears two hats based on his responsibilities.
Click to expand...

If he hadn't said what he said about taxes (which is actually a very different arguement than Obama is making) he would be slammed by the left for simply being another greedy corporation.
 
1Perry said:
If he hadn't said what he said about taxes (which is actually a very different arguement than Obama is making) he would be slammed by the left for simply being another greedy corporation.
Click to expand...
If he hadnt lied about his taxes this would have never been an issue and he wouldnt be a hypocrite. Of course, then his bedbuddy wouldnt have been able to use him as his justification for increased taxes on the wealthy.
 
LaMidRighter said:
He shapes policy for the company and I believe he is a principle. So yes, he does owe money.
Click to expand...
Part of the purpose of having a corporation is to separate personal and business finances.
The corporation is it's own entity.

But the officers of the corporation are responsible for that company's actions, (and inaction).
Aunt Spiker said:
You know - in mah town. We close down businesses who don't pay up.
And we puts a sign on their doorsthat says "closed due to non payment of taxes" - nice bigole letters sos yous can see.
Click to expand...
LaMidRighter said:
Then do explain how a tax cheat...
Click to expand...
It's not clear that he is a tax cheat. Owing taxes is not the same thing as failing to pay taxes. There're legitimate ways to owe taxes that you have not yet paid.

According to MaggieD's site, the money is a "potential future obligation to the IRS and other taxing authorities."
That's actually a lot different than being a deadbeat in re your taxes as some people seem to think.
 
VanceMack said:
If he hadnt lied about his taxes this would have never been an issue and he wouldnt be a hypocrite. Of course, then his bedbuddy wouldnt have been able to use him as his justification for increased taxes on the wealthy.
Click to expand...

I don't recall the lie about his taxes.
 
1Perry said:
If he hadn't said what he said about taxes (which is actually a very different arguement than Obama is making) he would be slammed by the left for simply being another greedy corporation.
Click to expand...

I don't see why the two can't be separate issues.

Are corporations structurally greedy and hold maximization of shareholder wealth as their top priority? Of course. Does that make them bad people? I would argue no, people with my leaning may disagree.

When his own wealth which he is solely responsible for is in question, he's already donating vritually everything to charity on his death and is willing to pay much higher taxes.

Don't get me wrong, I see why the right wants to smear his character. The guy is a brilliant capitalist, the JP Morgan of generation. The guy lives according to real conservative values, he's not flashy, has the same house since the 70's drives the same car for over a decade. Invests based on real conservative fundamentals. If he wasn't saying this people would point to him as WHY America is great. When his views fly in the face of conservative ideology you want to silence him or ignore his point.
 
iliveonramen said:
I don't see why the two can't be separate issues.

Are corporations structurally greedy and hold maximization of shareholder wealth as their top priority? Of course. Does that make them bad people? I would argue no, people with my leaning may disagree.
Click to expand...

With my position being that many would.

When his own wealth which he is solely responsible for is in question, he's already donating vritually everything to charity on his death and is willing to pay much higher taxes.
Click to expand...

I wonder to myself.......I'm not saying it out loud mind you......Is it easy to take this position when you know that what you are argueing for has almost no chance of happening? D.C. is so reliant on money derived from capital gains, so would they ever piss of those who would be hit with higher taxes?

Don't get me wrong, I see why the right wants to smear his character. The guy is a brilliant capitalist, the JP Morgan of generation. The guy lives according to real conservative values, he's not flashy, has the same house since the 70's drives the same car for over a decade. Invests based on real conservative fundamentals. If he wasn't saying this people would point to him as WHY America is great. When his views fly in the face of conservative ideology you want to silence him or ignore his point.
Click to expand...

Right now, neither side is taking any sort of actual actions that shows they are interested in his arguements.
 
I wonder to myself.......I'm not saying it out loud mind you......Is it easy to take this position when you know that what you are argueing for has almost no chance of happening? D.C. is so reliant on money derived from capital gains, so would they ever piss of those who would be hit with higher taxes?
Click to expand...

That's a good point. Is he saying this for posterity? Carnegie would say the same sort of things then his right hand man would break heads during labor strikes. It's possible. I'd like to think there are decent people out there instead of always having an ulterior motive.

Right now, neither side is taking any sort of actual actions that shows they are interested in his arguements.
Click to expand...

I agree with this but frankly there's decades of BS floating around to dispel. I always feel that when times are good, people don't really care about politics (in general). When times are bad, like now, is when people start asking questions and expect answers.
 
iliveonramen said:
As the CEO of a corportion his allegience is to shareholders. As a citizen his allegience is to his country.

I don't see any hypocrisy, I see a guy that wears two hats based on his responsibilities.
Click to expand...

What if those interests conflict?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom