I know nothing but go read about Boeing and unions.
This is a discussion on Listen to Warren Buffet!!! within the The Political and Social Snake Pit forums, part of the Current Happenings category; I know nothing but go read about Boeing and unions....
I know nothing but go read about Boeing and unions.
Ok i'm going to disagree with this. Gasoline taxes are an effective tax for a couple of reasons. First, while a new gas tax will be seen immediately inflate the gallon price of gas, that price will quickly be brought back to the pre-tax price, based on supply and demand. Arguing that raising the gasoline tax drives up the price is contradictive to the supply/demand argument about the gallon price of gasoline.Originally Posted by Nynus
In fact, I would argue that raises in the tax on gasoline are the most effective at getting at the oil companies' profits.
Now do you really think Moab is smart enough to grasp what you said?
Where oh where is our resident wacko theorist .. If Obama could have enough forethought to pull that off ... Ooh wait from when he was a boy of 5 he planed the whole thing .. Hahahahahahahahaha!
I don't see where Obama would need to forethought for that.
It's common knowledge that Obama wants to raise corporate taxes. Immelt being the 'Jobs Czar' knows that higher corporate taxes and elimination of loopholes are coming down the pipe. Of course he's going to have to cut expenses in order to keep the G.E. board of directors happy. Since he's looking to move jobs to China, the only place he could move job's from WITHOUT pissing off his crony Obama would be to move them from Wisconsin.
So if Obama's hand picked 'Jobs Czar' is bailing out on the U.S.A. what makes anyone think that other corporations aren't going to do the same.
What are their choices? Stay in the U.S. and face the prospect of Obama trying to raise taxes; close loopholes; forcing them to pay for overpriced bloated government health care; and losing profits -- or bailing out to Asia, Central America, or South America? Right now, it may cost a bit more to maintain their business in the U.S., but it would cost more to relocate. Between Obama Care, the failing economy, rising gas prices, and now increasing taxes and closing loopholes -- it's now more cost efficient to move.
The shitty part comes if your business isn't a multinational. If you're still making a profit during this economy, you're going to hang on to the profits instead of hiring or expanding in case it gets worse. If you aren't making a profit, you either fold the business or lay off employees. In any case, you aren't gonna do shit to help the economy while Obama's in office because he's threatening your livelihood.
Now flip that around. If the President and Congress are making noises that they aren't going to raise taxes and regulations, then businesses know their profits are secure. Then those profits get invested in expansion and new employees so they can make more profits.
Which one of those scenarios produces more revenues for the Federal Government? Raising taxes and contraction of revenue or don't raise taxes and expansion of revenue?
How can we even think about raising taxes when we tax at the highest rate in the world now. A company like Cisco has 4 billion overseas it would like to bring back here, but won't because of the taxes. That being said, even if we lower the rates and companies brought the money back over here, they still wouldn't spend it, but hoard it just like they do now...so what's the answer?
http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/16/am...rate-in-april/
Nynus thanked for this post
well I saw today where Obama is meeting with Jeff Immelt, and the other co-chairman on creating jobs. I am sure Jeff can tell him how he created jobs in Chins, move one of his divisions there. Only problem it creates jobs in china. Just shows the mentality in Washington !!
Warren Buffett's $5bn (£3.1bn) lifeline for Bank of America has earned the Sage of Omaha a paper profit of $280m in just 24 hours.....
coupon alone will cost the bank's shareholders five cents per share a year in lost earnings.
telegraph
Ahhhh yes, "Do as I say, not as I do!"
Forbes Magazine:
So is 26 billion in increased revenues really going to fix the deficit, or are the rich a pinata that the Left put out there for the ignorant to bash on and blame?Warren Buffett, hypocrite
This one’s truly, uh ... rich: Billionaire Warren Buffett says folks like him should have to pay more taxes -- but it turns out his firm, Berkshire Hathaway, hasn’t paid what it’s already owed for years.
That’s right: As Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson notes, the company openly admits that it owes back taxes since as long ago as 2002. “We anticipate that we will resolve all adjustments proposed by the US Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) for the 2002 through 2004 tax years ... within the next 12 months,” the firm’s annual report says.
It also cites outstanding tax issues for 2005 through 2009.
Obvious question: If Buffett really thinks he and his “mega-rich friends” should pay higher taxes, why doesn’t his firm fork over what it already owes under current rates?
Likely answer: He cares more about shilling for President Obama -- who’s practically made socking “millionaires and billionaires” his re-election theme song -- than about kicking in more himself.
Buffett’s free to back Obama, of course. And if his firm wants to keep its tax bill low, well, that’s its right, too. But it would be nice if this “pro-tax-hike” tycoon were a bit more honest about it.
Start, for example, with his grossly disingenuous recent claim that, as he wrote in The New York Times, he paid only 17 percent of his income last year to the government -- even as many working stiffs who make far less than him coughed up higher percentages.
Fact is, unlike most other folks, Warren Buffett gets most of his income from dividends and capital gains, which are nominally taxed at 15 percent.
Left unsaid is that much of that is taxed at 35 percent (via the corporate income tax) before he even gets his hands on it. So in effect, he’s paying taxes twice (that is, when his companies actually pay, anyway). Counting both taxes, his effective rate would really be well north of 40 percent for a big chunk of his income.
There’s more. Obama, and co-conspirators like Buffett, claim to want to slap only “millionaires and billionaires.” But in 2009, for instance, fewer than a quarter-million taxpayers (less than two tenths of 1 percent) reported income over $1 million -- and their combined bill was less than $200 billion. Raise the top tax rate on them by 13 percent, as Obama wants (from 35 percent to 39.6 percent) and you bring in only another $26 billion, tops -- and that’s if your tax hike doesn’t stifle the economy and kill jobs (which it surely would). Yet what’s $26 billion in a world of $4 trillion federal budgets with trillion-dollar-plus deficits?
No wonder Obama’s hikes on “millionaires and billionaires” actually start with folks earning as little as $200,000. Looks like Buffett’s not the only disingenuous one here. But again, that’s clear from their individual behavior: Obama, Buffett and Democrats like Bill Clinton keep saying they want to pay more taxes.
^^^^^^ just read a conservative estimate of what he owes is $1.5 billion- so increase the tax by 10% so that's will be $1.65billion the Govt. won't get!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks