Buffett's Birkshire Hathaway owes One Billion in taxes

[Bob Fechter]

Over the past decade Berkshire Hathaway has been engaged in a one billion dollar tax dispute with the federal government!

Certainly this is someone who should have a tax bill named after him.


http://netrightdaily.com/2011/08/warren-buffett’s-taxing-hypocrisy/

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

Bob, one of the comments below the story sums it up correctly I think.

This is idiotic. The man is one shareholder in a company that has a LEGAL duty to pay only the taxes owed. He cannot make unilateral decisions for his shareholders. He was speaking of his PERSONAL tax rate which he was only suggesting be raised back to the rate during the Clinton administration which was the greatest economic boom-time in America since the Industrial Revolution.

Berkshire Hathaway is not a sole proprietorship. He cannot make a decision to just "simply try paying the taxes" of a publicly traded company.

If you don't like the idea of taxes that's fine but this particular line of reasoning is ignorant and petty and I'm pretty sure Bill Wilson is smart enough to know that before he ever started typing. This story was about bending half-truths to stir the pot of the less intelligent. Nothing more.

 

[Jack]

Fair dinkum Pete!

 

[Bob Fechter]

You make him sound like a rank and file share holder. B H is run by Warren Buffett. It grew as large as it is because of his direction over many decades.

BH is fighting against the tax laws of this land. If Buffett is unwilling to pay those, how does he propose to pay any increases. Or is it that he can afford to avoid the taxes others can't.

 

[Jim Craik]

Pete,

You are a wise man!

Didn't blame Bob, his handlers always go after anyone who disagrees with them. We all know this only came up because Mr Buffet had the nerve to suggest that the rich should pay their share. Bob really does not know any better.

 

[Terry Oxandale]

May I pose a question, not to stir the pot, but an honest observation with a question seeking some honest forethought before comment, and absent ideological bias (yeah, right...)?
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com<img src=" /><o></o>
In our ever-increasing service economy here in the states, I’ve observed a troubling trend of those “small businesses” to accept cash payments for services provided at a discounted rate, watched the ever booming restaurant businesses frequently accepting payments without specifically entering the value on record in the cash register, and start-up businesses at home, claiming no gains on income taxes. The conclusion I’ve come to is that the only folks in this country that seem to be paying what they are supposed to pay, are those that have no choice. These others that I’ve observed (first-hand accounts mind you), misrepresent income, thus benefiting through lower tax responsibilities. I can only confidently speak for a third of the above examples, which represent stanch conservatism, yet has no problem with this practice of misrepresenting their incomes.<o></o>
<o></o>
My point is that without an accurate means of determining taxable income within our growing service-based economy, how can we, as a nation, be confident that we will ever have a solid measure of who pays what in regards to their fair share of taxes? It seems those that wish to spend tax revenue freely are just as inclined to cheat the nation’s revenue collection, as those that complain about the other’s free ride at taxpayer expense.<o></o>
<o></o>
It seems any more, the least important thing in our (Americans) lives are the welfare of our own country. We’ve instead, replaced that value with one of individual gain, individual ideology, and lack of common courtesy for other humans. As a wage earner with a very solid measureable income, and thus taxation, I feel I’m part of that segment of population with the target on his back that says “tax me more” so that the others that can pay, wont. In other words, my observations have jaded me so much so, that when I hear the words 'don't tax small business because they add jobs', I cringe, thinking, if only they paid what they really should.

I realize I'm painting with a pretty broad stroke here, but I can only go by what I see, and I see a revenue shortfall in our country, and perhaps some of it is because some of the folks screaming the loudest right now, are shirking their responsibilities in helping correct the problem.

 

[Bob Fechter]

May I pose a question, not to stir the pot, but an honest observation with a question seeking some honest forethought before comment, and absent ideological bias (yeah, right...)?
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com<img src=" /><o></o>
In our ever-increasing service economy here in the states, I’ve observed a troubling trend of those “small businesses” to accept cash payments for services provided at a discounted rate, watched the ever booming restaurant businesses frequently accepting payments without specifically entering the value on record in the cash register, and start-up businesses at home, claiming no gains on income taxes. The conclusion I’ve come to is that the only folks in this country that seem to be paying what they are supposed to pay, are those that have no choice. These others that I’ve observed (first-hand accounts mind you), misrepresent income, thus benefiting through lower tax responsibilities. I can only confidently speak for a third of the above examples, which represent stanch conservatism, yet has no problem with this practice of misrepresenting their incomes.<o></o>
<o></o>
My point is that without an accurate means of determining taxable income within our growing service-based economy, how can we, as a nation, be confident that we will ever have a solid measure of who pays what in regards to their fair share of taxes? It seems those that wish to spend tax revenue freely are just as inclined to cheat the nation’s revenue collection, as those that complain about the other’s free ride at taxpayer expense.<o></o>
<o></o>
It seems any more, the least important thing in our (Americans) lives are the welfare of our own country. We’ve instead, replaced that value with one of individual gain, individual ideology, and lack of common courtesy for other humans. As a wage earner with a very solid measureable income, and thus taxation, I feel I’m part of that segment of population with the target on his back that says “tax me more” so that the others that can pay, wont. In other words, my observations have jaded me so much so, that when I hear the words 'don't tax small business because they add jobs', I cringe, thinking, if only they paid what they really should.

I realize I'm painting with a pretty broad stroke here, but I can only go by what I see, and I see a revenue shortfall in our country, and perhaps some of it is because some of the folks screaming the loudest right now, are shirking their responsibilities in helping correct the problem.

True, Terry. The more difficult it becomes to pay taxes, the more resistance to it there is. Some can hide, others like you can't. Its like the old saying, "If no one obeys a law, is it a law anymore?" There comes a point where people won't pay. Witness the British tax refugees of the Sixties.

And like a broken record I have to say, why doesn't the government ever have to economize? Fine, audit the Pentagon. Audit it all. The waste is beyond our comprehension. The budget is automatically raised by about 7% each year and attempts at reducing the automatic raise are considered a budget cut. No politician ever worries whether we can afford a tax increase, but just try to cut the budget and see what they say.

 

[Bob Fechter]

Pete,

You are a wise man!

Didn't blame Bob, his handlers always go after anyone who disagrees with them. We all know this only came up because Mr Buffet had the nerve to suggest that the rich should pay their share. Bob really does not know any better.

Come on now Craik. We know you're not clever (the 'lazy slaves" post proves that), but if you don't stretch your mind to come up with something a little fresher than " his handlers always go after anyone who disagrees with them," your gray matter is going to keep on shriveling. You can do it, I think!

 

[Mark]

If I am correct, Jim openly corrected the lazy slaves comment. You Bob, cannot let go. Further evidence of your entrenched, blinkered stance. I had a record once that was equally scratched and would go on forever until forced to stop.

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

If I am correct, Jim openly corrected the lazy slaves comment. You Bob, cannot let go. Further evidence of your entrenched, blinkered stance. I had a record once that was equally scratched and would go on forever until forced to stop.

Shit howdy Mark so did I, it was from a bunch from Liverpool, I think they called it The Taxman.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Maz9ddxEQnM

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

True, Terry. The more difficult it becomes to pay taxes, the more resistance to it there is. Some can hide, others like you can't. Its like the old saying, "If no one obeys a law, is it a law anymore?" There comes a point where people won't pay. Witness the British tax refugees of the Sixties.

And like a broken record I have to say, why doesn't the government ever have to economize? Fine, audit the Pentagon. Audit it all. The waste is beyond our comprehension. The budget is automatically raised by about 7% each year and attempts at reducing the automatic raise are considered a budget cut. No politician ever worries whether we can afford a tax increase, but just try to cut the budget and see what they say.

Bob, here we are in complete agreement, "why doesn't the government ever have to economize?" Answer because it can't, and it doesn't matter which side left or right, they can't. It will cost them votes, from the people earning the Government dollar,(our taxes) and these days that is where the balance of power is. The majority of people are on the government payroll and depend
on government to subsist or make millions depending on the socio economic parameters. We need a revolution:evil: Or at least a Statesman who cares more about his/her country than votes.

 

[domtoni]

Pete,

You are a wise man!

Didn't blame Bob, his handlers always go after anyone who disagrees with them. We all know this only came up because Mr Buffet had the nerve to suggest that the rich should pay their share. Bob really does not know any better.

From Larry Kudlow's article today:
Pause a moment on the Buffett Rule. Almost all of Warren Buffett’s income comes from capital gains taxed at 15 percent. He only pays himself $100,000 a year, which would be taxed at the top rate. Most of his wealth is untaxed as unrealized capital gains. So his effective income-tax rate is lower than his secretary’s.

So what?

The vast majority of millionaires pay a 35 percent current tax rate on personal income from salaries, bonuses, and small-business income. Their effective tax rate is around 30 percent, much higher than the roughly 20 percent effective rate for the so-called middle class (depending, of course, on how you define the middle class).

Remember that the top 1 percent of income-tax payers shoulders 40 percent of all income taxes. They are paying their fair share. Then remember that 50 percent of income-tax filers don’t pay any income tax at all.

 

[domtoni]

Bob, here we are in complete agreement, "why doesn't the government ever have to economize?" Answer because it can't, and it doesn't matter which side left or right, they can't. It will cost them votes, from the people earning the Government dollar,(our taxes) and these days that is where the balance of power is. The majority of people are on the government payroll and depend
on government to subsist or make millions depending on the socio economic parameters. We need a revolution:evil: Or at least a Statesman who cares more about his/her country than votes.

Last week a link was posted regarding IBM's offer to the White House to help reduce fraud in Medicare and Medicaid. IBM calculated the savings at $900B (presumably over 10 years), and the White House said "No Thanks".

 

[Grady]

Here here Domtoni! To top it off your flying and English flag. You have a great understanding of our tax system. One thing that is different for WB and those of the 3% bracket, we have to pay the amount in dispute and then challenge the IRS. In the end, the winners are the accountants and lawyers.
Birkshire Hathaway should have paid the tax then challenged the tax. They keep a staff of lawyers on call. If I remember correctly, the company only has 7 or so employees.

The whole argument was another divisive play by an administration bent on the destruction of the country. O says he will create 1.9 million new jobs with this round of stimulus.....of which 50 will be in the US. I can hardly wait until November 2012.

 

[tom pritchett]

There is an underlying thread here that says that the rich should pay their fair share. What exactly is fair? What is the percentage that anyone should pay?

We didn't have to have an income tax until WW1. That was instituted for only a short time, then made more permanent for WW2. What did we do as a nation before that? Hummm, personal responsibility comes to mind.

Now, back to our discussion. God placed the example of what He thought would be fair in the bible. He feels that everyone should pay the same percentage. Rich or poor, everyone is equal and therefore it is fair.

We don't have a fair tax system because a flat percentage tax cannot be manipulated by those wanting more. (politicians).

 

[Bob Fechter]

If I am correct, Jim openly corrected the lazy slaves comment. You Bob, cannot let go. Further evidence of your entrenched, blinkered stance. I had a record once that was equally scratched and would go on forever until forced to stop.

The "lazy slave" post was the classic Liberal attitude towards the "little people." "They are downtrodden, they will never rise above their pitiful existence, their not as smart as we are, they need our superior intellect to even have a chance."

Hence the "Welfare Plantation."

HIs weak rebuttal on the whole mess didn't convince me of anything except a late realization that he screwed up by revealing his real thoughts.

Remember he even prefaced the whole thing by saying, "I know I'll probably take flak for this, but........" The classic Liberal Elitist needing to show how clever he is.

 

[Bob Fechter]

Bob, here we are in complete agreement, "why doesn't the government ever have to economize?" Answer because it can't, and it doesn't matter which side left or right, they can't. It will cost them votes, from the people earning the Government dollar,(our taxes) and these days that is where the balance of power is. The majority of people are on the government payroll and depend
on government to subsist or make millions depending on the socio economic parameters. We need a revolution:evil: Or at least a Statesman who cares more about his/her country than votes.

Leaving the whole government payroll mess aside, there is waste and fraud all over the government. Anyone who has dealt with the GSA (General Services Administration in the US) knows what a pack of thieves resides within.

With the world roiling in debt, at least put a freeze on budget increases! But that would be considered a budget cut with these profligate spenders.

 

[Bob Fechter]

Thanks to Dom, Grady, and Tom for some additional logic on a subject that has been allowed to go insane.

 

[domtoni]

Here here Domtoni! To top it off your flying and English flag. You have a great understanding of our tax system. One thing that is different for WB and those of the 3% bracket, we have to pay the amount in dispute and then challenge the IRS. In the end, the winners are the accountants and lawyers.
Birkshire Hathaway should have paid the tax then challenged the tax. They keep a staff of lawyers on call. If I remember correctly, the company only has 7 or so employees.

The whole argument was another divisive play by an administration bent on the destruction of the country. O says he will create 1.9 million new jobs with this round of stimulus.....of which 50 will be in the US. I can hardly wait until November 2012.

Grady I am a Yank from the Chicago area (Park Ridge if that rings any bells). I have lived in EU for 26 years and with the internet and Obama's election, have become very interested in the future of the country, and the whole western world.

The beauty of living here is I saw under the old Blair/Brown governments the blue print of Obama's administration. And we see what happened here in the UK. Now the center in the UK is still a good deal left of the US center, but we are not all the same.

 

[Chris P.]

the classic Liberal attitude towards the "little people." "They are downtrodden, they will never rise above their pitiful existence, their not as smart as we are, they need our superior intellect to even have a chance."

Bob, really, where do you get this stuff?