SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN)
AMZN 235.70+0.7%1:07 PM EST
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (157657)6/4/2003 3:39:51 PM
From: Oeconomicus  Read Replies (1) of 164684
 
I didn't misunderstand a thing, bug. Buffett said he could get a $310 million dividend and not pay taxes on it, which saves him at most $122 million in taxes (at the old top marginal rate). He then says the gov't could instead spread that $310 million out ($1k ea. to 310k families). Is he saying dividends should be taxed at 100% or did he make a mistake like I said? In reality, he overstated the tax revenue available for such a redistribution program three-fold. Here's the quote from the article if you still think I'm lying:

"Suppose this measure goes through and the directors of Berkshire Hathaway (which does not now pay a dividend) therefore decide to pay $1 billion in dividends next year. Owning 31 percent of Berkshire, I would receive $310 million in additional income, owe not another dime in federal tax, and see my tax rate plunge to 3 percent."

As for the rest of your babble about his secretary paying his taxes and asking if that's fair, I'm sure you can find some twisted logic where you personally pay George Bush's taxes, too, but you can't change the fact that this tax cut returns much more money to the middle classes than any other group and removes another 3 million lower income people from the tax rolls altogether.

PS: If his secretary pays an average tax rate of 30%, then she's filling out the forms wrong or she's rich herself (which she probably is if she's worked for him for very long). The average tax rate for a $50k earner in 2001, before any tax cuts, was only about 10%.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News