Speaking of Buffet

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-09-2011
Speaking of Buffet
17
Tue, 08-30-2011 - 4:11pm

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-09-2011
Wed, 08-31-2011 - 8:25pm

"Um, a case would not be 'disputed' or be in litigation if they admitted they owe the money. "

Buffet admits they owe the money.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-09-2011
Wed, 08-31-2011 - 8:34pm
".Any evidence they aren't following the laws?" Sure there is, it's Buffet's back taxes. "Sorry... but calling him a socialist is silly. You don't like what he says, so you call him names" I don't cal him names, I call him by what he sells, socialism. What's funny is the socialists eat up what he has to say when the truth of the matter is he's a carpet bagger as are most of the socialist icons, Gates, Jobs, etc. and the socialist are too unsophisticated to know any better. "The fact is this country's taxes were fine until the Bush cuts" Hahahahaha. Oh, wait.... You were serious.... When Bush walked into office Social Insecurity had $75 Trillion in undeclared debt. How does that in any way suggest 'taxes were fine' and while we're on the subject, companies had been fleeing the US's abusive tax code for other countries for over 20 years at the time, how does that also qualify as taxes being 'just fine'? "this country prospered even when the top rate was 70%" Oh yes, the good old days when corp CEO could install private golf courses in their backyards and claim them as business expenses. I'm suprised you'd want to return to those days. Of course it would be very good for the economy, young attractive executive escorts charge CEOs $20-30K a month for their companion services. It would be nice to see those expenses become tax deductible again wouldn't it? And look at all the jobs it would create.
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-09-2011
Wed, 08-31-2011 - 8:43pm
"if costs are higher, you charge more, and that falls on the rest of us, but I'd rather pay more than see our jobs disappear, and whether left or right, believe we can agree on that point" Yes, I'm reminded of the old union motto used years ago, 'Buy American'. I guess for some reason most Americans decided not to buy over-price, lower quality American goods. How unpatriotic of them to want quality products. It was only about 3 years ago when Ford's new advertising campaign was to announce that their quality had risen to finally match that of Toyota. I can't imagine the fool that came up with that one. Anywho, I know socialism expects people to be overly nationalistic and all, expecting them to buy lower quality products at a higher price in order to keep their union thugs employed, but at some point people simply choose to stop funding such corruption. Can you explain to us why it's good for America that we pay union members $8,000 more a year to put together lower quality cars than their nonunion competitors? How does that help America?
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2011
Thu, 09-01-2011 - 9:26am

Not good enough...the existence of a tax liability does not mean it is accurate. You on the right who decry government and taxes and so on suddenly claiming the government is always right??? The bill will be paid, once an agreement is reached.

On another note... if you all call Buffett a hypocrite, you have a reasonable argument... but when you add in the word 'socialist' your argument heads south in one heck of a hurry. Stick to solid ground. I'd not defend the guy to the end, and I'd only defend him to the extent that a) his argument that the wealthy should pay more taxes is an accurate assessment, and b) there is zero evidence one of the most famous *capitalists* in this world is a socialist. You have a better chance of convincing me GWB was a socialist.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-09-2011
Thu, 09-01-2011 - 1:25pm

"...the existence of a tax liability does not mean it is accurate."

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-22-2003
Fri, 09-02-2011 - 2:15pm

These are the types of news that really does a disservice to the common people. All companies have something called deferred taxes based on IRS tax code for certain assets. The tax on the financial statement is different from the actual tax the company pays (legally) because of certain IRS rules. This deferred tax is liability which is losely termed as back taxes. This doesn't mean Buffet's company didn't pay taxes. I have explained one such deduction to my response on CEO salary.

Although, I so understand how such news can sound so convincing to people who has

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-09-2011
Sat, 09-03-2011 - 4:33pm

Deferred and back taxes are not the same. Deferred taxes are

Pages