Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (157664)	6/5/2003 8:28:28 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to 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? neither. you misunderstood. those aren't the only two options. if you didn't misunderstand, you wouldn't limit it to the two options. policy option A - put $310 million in buffets hands. policy options B - put $310 million in hands of 310k families. a link between option A and B was never established nor implied in buffets piece. you ASSUMED it. you ASSUMED in incorrectly, hence, you misunderstood. In reality, he overstated the tax revenue available for such a redistribution program three-fold. that wasn't his point. nowhere did he mention or imply that option B was limited by the taxes on option A. you ASSUMED that, set up a straw house and then burned it. you ASSUMED wrong. 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." nobody said you lied, you just didn't understand the point. yes, that's option A he then goes on to mention option B AND NEVER EVEN ATTEMPTS TO LINK OPTION A AND B. you ASSUMED that's what he was doing. again, you ASSUMED wrong. 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. rd, here are the two reasons your logic doesn't hold water. 1. just b/c a corporation pays taxes doesn't mean the owner of the corporation pays taxes. in fact, the corporation is a 100% seperate entity. your logic is inconsistent and flawed. on the one hand, WHEN IT SUITS YOUR PURPOSE, you argue buffet has already paid taxes through his corporation but, you would also argue the exact opposite premise - that the liabilities of that distinct and seperate entity are not related to buffet at all, WHEN THAT SUITS YOUR PURPOSE. 2. you argue as though double taxation is fundamentally wrong. how many times is a car taxed when it has been sold 8 times? 8 times. that's much worse than double taxation, but it happens all the time. in addition, social security tax is a double tax, too. you pay ss on money you will send to the govt. the bottom line is that you believe the ultra rich ought to have a chance to pay 3% tax rates BUT YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE COURAGE TO JUST SAY IT. why is that? 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%.** rd, i'm really questioning your comprehension skills here. buffet made it very clear he included all taxes - including payroll taxes like social secuirty - in his analysis. payroll taxes are very near 15% ALONE. add that to the 10% you cite and considering buffet's secretary is likely very well paid - HE'S RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN. notice a trend?