Some thoughts from Warren Buffet

[Amp1]

I haven't finished reading this thread but who-wee from post #14 insists Warren's company as opposed to the man pays billions in taxes. I wonder if its billions a year, every ten years, a decade, what is the amount his company pays per year? How much would it be without the tax accountants? Maybe his accounts are not as good as G.E.'s and that's why his company pays BILLIONS probably.

 

[mheslep]

Really? That’s not what I have heard:
...

Do you have another source?

For instance:
http://v1.theglobeandmail.com/v5/content/pdf/CONCORD.pdf, Figure 1, page 11. Or google medical outcomes for various medical treatments of disease, traumatic injury, waiting times for operations, etc, i.e. actual metrics of the medical system.

There couldn't be a less reliable stat than life expectancy on that issue. Cultural and government bias issues play such a huge role that the relatively tiny differences are swamped by the noise.

Yep. If one doesn't get killed at 23 in, say, a car wreck or by gunshot then US lifespan looks pretty good.

 

[CAC1001]

In theory, maybe yes, in practice – I say it all depends on how you do it. If you do investments in infrastructure, education, research, new technology, startups, etc – high taxes can actually mean a growing economy.

The thing is, we already pretty much have all of that. We aren't an under-developed country. We have lots of infrastructure as is, it just needs repairing. Education, we are at a point where we tend to just be spending more and more money at something growing more and more problematic. Research, well we've done that for years and continue to do so.

I can’t help laughing when I see (the same old freaks) going baloney over taxes, as it was some form of communist virus from hell.

It is when they are used to spend the nation into oblivion and for purposes of wealth redistribution.

I live in a country which has one of the highest taxes in the world, as a percentage of GDP:

As you can see, we have twice as much tax revenues as the United States, TWICE!

Do we walk around in Karl Marx beards and fight over the one and only loaf in the supermarket?

No.

You have a a smarter government there that is wiser with its fiscal policy.

At the moment, we are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_economy#Economies_of_member_states", 5.54% annual change of GDP, and United States has 2.8%.

This means you have a *HUGE* opportunity (i.e. margin) to fix your economy in a fairly simple way, if you could just relax a little bit, and realize that taxes are not equal to Stalinism.

The view that raising taxes will fix the USA's problems is just as simplistic as the view that the solution is to massively reduce the size of the government. As for Sweden itself, you're talking about a country much different to a country like the U.S. One big difference is that Sweden has a relatively efficient government with fairly low levels of corruption. Usually countries with high levels of social trust have decent public institutions, and Sweden is just such a country. The thing is that the conditions for having such a high-level of trust in a society are that it usually is relatively homogenous ethnically, religiously, linguisticallly, etc...and rather small. Sweden has a little less than 10 million people. You'll find about that same amount in either Los Angeles or New York City alone over here in the states. And if you notice, cities like LA and NY are not ethnically, religiously, linguistically, homogenous, but instead are a whole mix of those things, which has created all sorts of complexities within those cities over the years. Comparing Sweden to a nation like the United States which is immensely more complex in terms of the mix of cultures, ethnicities, religions, languages, and so forth, with a population of more than 300 million people, well it's just not a proper comparison.

Really? That’s not what I have heard:

Life Expectancy vs Health Care Spending in 2007 for OECD Countries. The data source is http://www.oecd.org

Life expectancy unto itself is inaccurate, because America has two major causes of deaths: car accidents and homicides (much of which take place in our inner-cities, which tend to be governed by very far-Left politicians). You have to compare life expectancy based on the quality of the healthcare system alone, not just the life expectancy overall, so that would mean removing the deaths from auto accidents and homicides. There are other problems with measuring these things as well.

EDIT: mheslep beat me to it

 

[WhoWee]

I haven't finished reading this thread but who-wee from post #14 insists Warren's company as opposed to the man pays billions in taxes. I wonder if its billions a year, every ten years, a decade, what is the amount his company pays per year? How much would it be without the tax accountants? Maybe his accounts are not as good as G.E.'s and that's why his company pays BILLIONS probably.

A real quick search - the numbers look a bit high - $30 Billion in taxes paid from 2002 through 2010.

****
For years 2002, 2003, and 2004 - Berkshire Hathaway paid $7.337Billion - see page 69.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1067983/000095012905002423/a06623e10vk.htm

------------------------

For Years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 - see page 105 - it income taxes total $23.222Billion.

http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/2010ar/201010-K.pdf

*********
Interestingly, given the total is about $30Billion (not counting 2005) for years 2002 - 2010 - I found this article - apparently, he'll receive about $30Billion in tax credits for giving away his shares. my bold
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/27/business/27berkshire.html

"Tax experts said the charitable gift essentially provides $30 billion in income tax credits — something that Mr. Buffett is unlikely to use in his lifetime. It will also allow him to avoid about $4.5 billion in capital gains tax. And giving away the shares will also help avoid taxes on his estate. Estate planning experts called it a simple and pragmatic approach, true to form for Mr. Buffett."

 

[MarcoD]

Comparing Sweden to a nation like the United States which is immensely more complex in terms of the mix of cultures, ethnicities, religions, languages, and so forth, with a population of more than 300 million people, well it's just not a proper comparison.

I agree with that. But sometimes conservatives in the US state postulates as if they are axioms. Sweden has 50% taxation, a 33% GDP government deficit, and 33% of the population is employed by the government - and the country works.

If you borrow 40 cents on the dollar, everybody know you need to cut spending and increase revenue. It is a no-brainer.

Whatever, Sweden is a socialist country in US terms, and the US is an experiment in anarchy in EU terms. To each it's own.

 

[Amp1]

Thanks, Who-wee. So his multi-billion $ company pays ~ 4 billion a year give or take. Thats out of (rough addition of nets) ~ 463 billion over the same period of time. So the company still netted after tax revenue of ~ 430 billion, not bad.

 

[CAC1001]

I agree with that. But sometimes conservatives in the US state postulates as if they are axioms. Sweden has 50% taxation, a 33% GDP government deficit, and 33% of the population is employed by the government - and the country works.

Well I think the U.S. government is something like 40% of the U.S. GDP in terms of its spending at least.

If you borrow 40 cents on the dollar, everybody know you need to cut spending and increase revenue. It is a no-brainer.

Yeah, but that's like saying if you want a yacht, all you need to do is make more money, it's a no-brainer. I mean YEAH, but the big problem is how to go about cutting spending and how to go about increasing revenue.

Whatever, Sweden is a socialist country in US terms, and the US is an experiment in anarchy in EU terms. To each it's own.

I wouldn't call Sweden "socialist" so much as a social democracy.

 

[WhoWee]

Thanks, Who-wee. So his multi-billion $ company pays ~ 4 billion a year give or take. Thats out of (rough addition of nets) ~ 463 billion over the same period of time. So the company still netted after tax revenue of ~ 430 billion, not bad.

The $463Billion might be revenues. The earnings from years 2002-2004 total $19.745B and 2006 - 2010 total $42.244B = total earnings $61.989 Billion. I also noticed in the 02-04 filing an entry for approximately $20Billion in deferred tax liability on page 55. Again, the $30B sounded a little high (on $62B in earnings) - but the consolidated financials are very complicated (and I took a real quick look).

 

[Physics-Learner]

well, we could raise taxes on the rich. or .. we could raise taxes on the middle class, so that the rich could provide us jobs. or .. we could cut spending. or .. we could better our infrastructure. or.. or..

i forgot - that is what we have been doing and talking about for the past 100 years.

the only thing i wonder about is will people ever get smart enough to realize the graft, corruption, complications, and total inefficiency of their govt ! now that is the 64,000 dollar question.

i digress - keep on discussing what the govt should do next - LOL.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

There couldn't be a less reliable stat than life expectancy on that issue. Cultural and government bias issues play such a huge role that the relatively tiny differences are swamped by the noise.

Eh... government bias issues...?

Look, I’m not pointing any fingers here, I’m just saying that you have the most expensive healthcare in the world, and that maybe you can do something about it. mheslep thought that the explanation for this is because U.S. "yields considerably better medical outcomes" and that this "is a fact".

My point is that if you spend between 100% and 50% more on healthcare then all the other countries in OECD, and if what mheslep say is true (that you do better), one would not expect U.S. to be behind when it comes life expectancy, right?

Please, check the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_systems#Cross-country_comparisons" again. U.S. is not best at Life expectancy, Infant mortality, Physicians per 1000 people, Nurses per 1000 people. You are only best when it comes to costs...

But okay, let’s say this is "noisy & biased", how about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHO%27s_ranking_of_health_care_systems" ? Of 190 countries, U.S. has the highest expenditure per capita, but you’re only ranked as 37 compared to other health systems around the world.

Is this "noisy & biased" too??

I know this a 'hot potato', but wouldn’t it be wise to at least acknowledge that you’ve got a problem* there? That could probably be solved (just steal everything from #1 France! ;) and you would save A LOT of budget money!


*probably administrative overhead

 

[DevilsAvocado]

For instance:
http://v1.theglobeandmail.com/v5/content/pdf/CONCORD.pdf, Figure 1, page 11.

Okay, I see U.S. on top in only one of these tables, and we are talking a few %... and U.S. has costs between 100% and 50% more compared to others...

See my previous post.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

The thing is, we already pretty much have all of that. We aren't an under-developed country.

Oh no, that’s not what I meant (sorry if I gave that impression). U.S. is still in many aspects the greatest country in the world, and it would be real sad if that changed in a far too near future. I’m absolutely not 'pointing fingers'...

We have lots of infrastructure as is, it just needs repairing.

Yes I know, but frankly, do you think "repairing" will do it if you want to stay #1?

One of these trains runs on the only "high-speed" rail in U.S. between Boston and D.C. (quotes because the average speed is 68 mph [109 km/h]). It isn’t that hard to tell which is the U.S. train, right?

(The others are Germany, France, Japan and China)

And while you are repairing the "68 mph train", Germany is developing the next generation of magnetic levitation high-speed trains doing 500 km/h (311 mph):

That won’t work, will it? :uhh:

You have a a smarter government there that is wiser with its fiscal policy.

I’m not sure about that. I’m not saying that this little 'banana republic' of ours is paradise in any way, only that we do things slightly different and it works, sometimes...

The view that raising taxes will fix the USA's problems is just as simplistic as the view that the solution is to massively reduce the size of the government. As for Sweden itself, you're talking about a country much different to a country like the U.S. One big difference is that Sweden has a relatively efficient government with fairly low levels of corruption. Usually countries with high levels of social trust have decent public institutions, and Sweden is just such a country. The thing is that the conditions for having such a high-level of trust in a society are that it usually is relatively homogenous ethnically, religiously, linguisticallly, etc...and rather small. Sweden has a little less than 10 million people. You'll find about that same amount in either Los Angeles or New York City alone over here in the states. And if you notice, cities like LA and NY are not ethnically, religiously, linguistically, homogenous, but instead are a whole mix of those things, which has created all sorts of complexities within those cities over the years. Comparing Sweden to a nation like the United States which is immensely more complex in terms of the mix of cultures, ethnicities, religions, languages, and so forth, with a population of more than 300 million people, well it's just not a proper comparison.

Yes I know you’re right, except maybe for the "relatively homogenous". That’s the old view of "blondes & blue eyes". It isn’t true anymore; we have one city, alone, that has received more refugees from Iraq than the U.S. and Canada, together.

My point is that "taxes will automatically kill you" is maybe not true, depending on how you do it.

Not being an 'expert' in any way, but AFAIK if you 'strangle' the economy in times of none or very low growth, you risk going down in a recession (or worse, real depression) that is not that easy to recover from. This is not any made-up 'fear propaganda' of mine. Listen to what Bruce Bartlett, that held senior policy roles in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, has to say:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/are-we-about-to-repeat-the-mistakes-of-1937/"

I have to ask you; what do you expect to happen if (only) large tax cuts are implemented? U.S. companies are sitting on $1.9 trillion right now. Will they start acting if they get $2.9 trillion, $3.9 trillion, $4.9 trillion, or what??

You guys went to the Moon, and there’s apparently a lot to fix in your country, so what are you waiting for, the Moon to fall down??

Come on, I know you guys can do much better than this!

Life expectancy unto itself is inaccurate

See my previous post.

 

[turbo]

One thing that flies under the radar over and over is the hidden, regressive taxes that hit lower wage-earners. It's all well and good to pontificate about marginal rates, capital gains, etc, but let's consider reality with one simple example.

When our government subsidizes the blending of ethanol into our gasoline supply, they are taking after-tax money from all of us tax-payers and giving it to agribusinesses and energy companies. Those big businesses and their investors and lobbyists all benefit. Who pays for those benefits? When farmland is taken out of food production to benefit big businesses, the price of staple foods rise. The price of feed for livestock rises, increasing the price of meats. The price of fuel increases, and fuel-efficiency decreases. People in the lower and middle-income levels cannot escape these hidden taxes. As such they are regressive. Wealthy people do not have to eat more food, nor do they have to buy more gasoline to commute to their jobs. People in low-wage jobs generally cannot escape these hidden taxes, and the people in our government are loathe to admit that such hidden cost shifting is taxation, and is regressive.

 

[WhoWee]

Are we still talking about Warren Buffet and his taxes?

 

[DevilsAvocado]

I agree with that. But sometimes conservatives in the US state postulates as if they are axioms. Sweden has 50% taxation, a 33% GDP government deficit, and 33% of the population is employed by the government - and the country works.

Yup, mostly. (once we had 500% interest rate... )

If you borrow 40 cents on the dollar, everybody know you need to cut spending and increase revenue. It is a no-brainer.

Yup, a no-brainer it is!

Whatever, Sweden is a socialist country in US terms, and the US is an experiment in anarchy in EU terms. To each it's own.

That’s the 'Hollywood version'... actually, in some ways we are more capitalists than you could ever dreamt of – we [the politicians] has 'invested' the whole damned pension system in the stock market, so when the market goes down, so do the (active) pensions.

 

[turbo]

Are we still talking about Warren Buffet and his taxes?

Yes. Buffet and other billionaires do not have to worry about the regressive hidden taxes that are foisted upon the US populace by misguided tax policies. The taxes that he writes about publicly, including income taxes, payroll taxes, estate taxes, and capital gains taxes don't hold a candle to the regressive hidden taxes (in the form of higher prices) that the middle-class and lower-class are nailed with in order to supply subsidies and tax-breaks to mega-businesses, including the ethanol industry. There is probably no way to get this complex situation across in a prime-time news program, but the story needs to be told.

I have friends that are retired and are trying to get by on their SS benefits, savings, etc. There has been no SS COLA increase in years, despite the fact that heating fuel and food are becoming increasingly expensive. At some point, we need to put some adults in DC or put vulnerable people increasingly at risk. I have a neighbor that is not in the best of health, but at 70+ years old, he has to take on jobs mowing, raking snow off roofs, etc to supplement his SS.

 

[WhoWee]

Yes. Buffet and other billionaires do not have to worry about the regressive hidden taxes that are foisted upon the US populace by misguided tax policies. The taxes that he writes about publicly, including income taxes, payroll taxes, estate taxes, and capital gains taxes don't hold a candle to the regressive hidden taxes (in the form of higher prices) that the middle-class and lower-class are nailed with in order to supply subsidies and tax-breaks to mega-businesses, including the ethanol industry. There is probably no way to get this complex situation across in a prime-time news program, but the story needs to be told.

I have friends that are retired and are trying to get by on their SS benefits, savings, etc. There has been no SS COLA increase in years, despite the fact that heating fuel and food are becoming increasingly expensive. At some point, we need to put some adults in DC or put vulnerable people increasingly at risk. I have a neighbor that is not in the best of health, but at 70+ years old, he has to take on jobs mowing, raking snow off roofs, etc to supplement his SS.

How much have Government (some are union) wages increased - including the Postal Service that loses $Billions - over the past decade?

 

[DevilsAvocado]

I have a neighbor that is not in the best of health, but at 70+ years old, he has to take on jobs mowing, raking snow off roofs, etc to supplement his SS.

While gazillionaire’s get tax reduction for private jets... this can’t be right.

Besides this old man’s troubles, what does this do to the moral of younger people working?

It can’t be a 'booster'...

 

[WhoWee]

While gazillionaire’s get tax reduction for private jets... this can’t be right.

 

[edward]

Here is a good clip from 60 minutes. We need to have a competitive corporate tax rate to bring companies back to the USA. And yes that includes those who never really left except for a small office in Zug Switzerland.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7360932n&tag=contentBody;storyMediaBox

There is one commercial near the start of the video. Go get a snack.

 

[apeiron]

Some arguments backed by relevant facts from the Tax Policy Center...

Buffett is Right: Raise Taxes on the Wealthy

Households in the top 1% of the distribution can afford to contribute. They have done enormously well during the past 30-plus years. In 1979, their income accounted for 10% of total income. According to the most recent data (from 2008), their share of total household income more than doubled to 21%. In contrast, real income for middle-class workers has remained roughly constant over the same time frame.

One good place to start? High-income households: Limit the rate at which itemized deductions can occur to 28%. This would affect only households in the highest income ranges, it would not raise their official marginal tax rate, and it would raise $293 billion over the next decade, relative to how much money would be raised according to current law, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Eventually, the nation will need to deal with the ballooning costs of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security... There are good options there as well, including a value-added tax – the equivalent of a national consumption tax and a feature of the tax system of every industrialized country except the U.S. – and higher energy taxes, to promote a cleaner environment as well as raise revenues.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=901442

 

[WhoWee]

Some arguments backed by relevant facts from the Tax Policy Center...

If everyone agrees - it raises $29.3 Billion per year - now what?

 

[apeiron]

If everyone agrees - it raises $29.3 Billion per year - now what?

Err, that was $293b. And that's just for tackling the most egregious 'gazillionaire’s get tax reduction for private jets' type stuff.

Then there is all the serious wealth distribution that could follow.

But if like turkeys voting for Xmas, US people favour policies that mean 5% of their population owns 50% of the wealth, then I guess it's their business.

 

[WhoWee]

Err, that was $293b. And that's just for tackling the most egregious 'gazillionaire’s get tax reduction for private jets' type stuff.

From your post: "and it would raise $293 billion over the next decade" - hence $29.3Billion per year. We have a gap of $1.5Trillion (approx).

 

[mheslep]

That was $293B/10 years, $29.3B/yr against a $1600B deficit per year. So the question was relevant: then what?

 

[apeiron]

That was $293B/10 years, $29.3B/yr against a $1600B deficit per year. So the question was relevant: then what?

If you are talking about equitable tax policies, go after the 50% owned by the 5%. If you are talking about dealing with the vast borrowing against tomorrow's earnings, then I agree that even soaking the rich is just going to be tinkering at the edges.

 

[drankin]

This is just a political diversion from the REAL problems we have with gov't spending.

 

[Proton Soup]

Here is a good clip from 60 minutes. We need to have a competitive corporate tax rate to bring companies back to the USA. And yes that includes those who never really left except for a small office in Zug Switzerland.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7360932n&tag=contentBody;storyMediaBox

There is one commercial near the start of the video. Go get a snack.

corporate taxes will go up in europe when the US pulls out of NATO and stops giving military welfare to the EU. then, europe will have its own aircraft carriers, can bomb libya on its own dime, and US corporate tax rates will be more competitive.

 

[russ_watters]

Some arguments backed by relevant facts from the Tax Policy Center...

That's a pretty common argument, with commonly cited facts. It argues that since the rich are making more than they used to, they should pay more. And since the "everyone else" aren't, they shouldn't. Fine. Are they? Those facts would seem to me to be critical to reaching the conclusion -- in fact, the conclusion kinda implies something about that, doesn't it...?

So before we look up the facts, let's agree on the logic: if the "everyone else" is paying the same or less taxes than they were before and the rich were paying a lot more, then the recommended correction has already happened, right...?

 

[russ_watters]

Also, a simple mathematical truth, just as food for thought: if government services in $ per capita were held constant, while gdp per capita rose, tax revenue per capita - andthe thus rates -- could drop.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Agree 1000%.

The answer to everything is jobs jobs jobs jobs jobs jobs jobs jobs jobs and more jobs.

It’s when things starts going backward you run into a 'destructive spiral' = less revenues + more outflow = nervous market = lesser jobs = lesser revenues + further outflow, etc, etc.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

corporate taxes will go up in europe when the US pulls out of NATO and stops giving military welfare to the EU. then, europe will have its own aircraft carriers, can bomb libya on its own dime, and US corporate tax rates will be more competitive.

That’s some really deep thoughts you’ve got there PS...

 

[WhoWee]

In an effort to get back on topic - Buffet plans to give his fortune away and has encouraged other wealthy people to contribute 50% of their holdings to charity as well.

Given this point - why are we surprised the most accomplished M&A player in the history of the world proclaims he should pay more in taxes? We should also note his acts of charity have created a major tax credit (some may call it a loophole) for him and he derives the majority of his income from capital gains.

 

[mheslep]

... mheslep thought that the explanation for this is because U.S. "yields considerably better medical outcomes" and that this "is a fact".

My point is that if you spend between 100% and 50% more on healthcare then all the other countries in OECD, and if what mheslep say is true (that you do better), one would not expect U.S. to be behind when it comes life expectancy, right?

If one corrects for auto accidents, homicides, life style and the like, US life expectancy is at or close to the highest in the world.

Please, check the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_systems#Cross-country_comparisons" again. U.S. is not best at Life expectancy, Infant mortality, Physicians per 1000 people, Nurses per 1000 people. You are only best when it comes to costs...

But okay, let’s say this is "noisy & biased", how about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHO%27s_ranking_of_health_care_systems" ? Of 190 countries, U.S. has the highest expenditure per capita, but you’re only ranked as 37 compared to other health systems around the world.

Why continue to go down this road? It amounts to a mountain of confirmation bias. It has already been pointed out that, yes, US medical care is expensive, and that there are metrics drawn directly from medical outcome data in peer reviewed literature showing the outcomes are about the best in the world. These metrics give one a good idea of you or your family's chances of a good outcome should you actually need medical treatment. Yet you go looking to Wikipedia for a non peer reviewed 'ranking', which as it turns out is based not directly on medical outcomes at all but again on life expectancy, financial 'fairness', etc.

...The report indicates – clearly – the attributes of a good health system in relation to the elements of the performance measure, given below.
...
WHO has chosen to use the measure of disability- adjusted life expectancy (DALE). This has the advantage of being directly comparable to life expectancy and is readily compared across populations. The report provides estimates for all countries of disability- adjusted life
...
Distribution of Financing: There are good and bad ways to raise the resources for a health system, but they are more or less good primarily as they affect how fairly the financial burden is shared. Fair financing, as the name suggests, is only concerned with distribution...

http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre/press_release/en/index.html

 

[mheslep]

WSJ Editorial board took Buffet apart today
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...0.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecondo The double tax oversight. Buffet's income is taxed twice, first his companies pay business tax and then he pays the cap-gains/dividend tax on what's left. So the government really takes ~45% of Buffet's adjusted gross income stream. On the other hand his famous secretary pays tax once, on income.

o Middle-class bait-and-switch. First, Democrats are pushing for a tax increase on $200k/$250k and up, not just on Buffet's friends making millions annually. Second, and as https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3452865&postcount=8":

Mr. Buffett says it's only "fair" to raise his taxes, but he's lending his credibility to raising taxes on millions of middle-class earners for whom a few extra thousand dollars in after-tax income is a big deal. Unlike Mr. Buffett, those middle-class earners aren't rich and may earn $250,000 for only a few years of their working lives. How is that fair?

o Charity loophole

For billionaires like Mr. Buffett, the single most important deduction in the tax code is for charitable giving. Middle-class earners can't give nearly as much money away to reduce their overall tax burden. Yet we don't hear Mr. Buffett calling for the elimination of that deduction in the name of fairness.