Breaking News

Friday, October 24, 2014 - 1:35pm

News Alert

Monday, October 20, 2014 - 11:06am
Neal Barton's POV

Warren Buffet: Former Conservative

POV

POSTED: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 - 7:18pm

UPDATED: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 - 9:22am

I asked a well- known regional tv anchor many of you know if you grew up the dallas area why he loved covering politics so much.

He leaned back in his chair and said the hypocrisy is the best part. People say one thing..and then do another"

And this week....i thought if my friend when this rolled across the wire.

Warren Buffet...former conservative who all of the sudden felt guilt pangs about those who didn't do as well as he had in life..and the last few years has become a democrat.

Fine.

He also has been lecturing hs former conservative friend that what us wrong with he world is that the rich do not pay enough taxes.

His mantra has been soak the rich and comparing his tax bracket to that of his secretary.

I thought now a days you were supposed to call them administrative assistants..

I digress.

Well...come to find out uncle Warren..the "oracle of Omaha" has not been paying his taxes.

That's right.

The self righteous money man from the heartland..is behind with uncle sugar.

What is it about this administration and its supporters that have no problem with
nagging me for more money when they don't pay their fair share.

Case and point..treasury secretary Tim Giethner.

The head of treasury..come to fin out was behind on his taxes too.

This is like al gore showing up top lecture about carbon footprints in a limo entourage,.

And he has.

Berkshire Hathaway, the eighth-largest public company in the world according to Forbes, openly admits to still owing taxes for years 2002 through 2004 and 2005 through 2009, according to the New York Post. The company says it expects to "resolve all adjustments proposed by the US Internal Revenue Service" within the next year.

Really?
Rules for thee but not for thee.

That's my point of view what's yours?

You can email me at pov@ketknbc.com
 

Comments News Comments

In the 1990s, under a higher overall tax structure, the economy expanded, jobs were created, and budget deficits became budget surpluses. This is not opinion, it's just what happened.

I know it's beyond leftists' abilities to see the whole picture. Clinton raised taxes on the elderly and businesses while opening the door for businesses to move money overseas tax free. The Contract with America countered some of that. We were in a industrial boom driven by the new internet with the 56k modem and the CPU invented in '85 manned by hungry down-sided opprotunists. And a Fed that failed to raise interest rates as their Keynsian economics would have demanded.

A higher tax structure, as seen in the 1990s, did not result in high unemployment. The country of Norway, one of the most highly taxed nations, had a June 2011 unemployment rate of 3.3%. The US, one of the lowest taxed nations, has unemployment of 9.1% (http://www.ssb.no/akumnd_en/, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/22...).

A 60 Minutes report stated the U.S. corp. tax is near 30%, while Ireland, Switzerland, and other Euro nations are15% or less. Assuming your premiss about Norway is true, which I doubt, you need to look deeper as to why. Economies are more complex than their tax rates.

Please see the link in my post, where Norway is #13 in the world in taxes as percentage of GDP, while the US is #186.

Republican leaders repeatedly state that modest tax increases, even on the wealthiest, will increase unemployment. However, with lower taxes today than in 1999, we have higher unemployment. Once again, the facts (whether in 1999 or today) demonstrate that a higher overall progressive tax structure does not equate to higher unemployment.

And Clinton gets the credit for it in spite of everything he did to try to stop it.

Tax increases create jobs. By that logic if I step on the brakes, my car will go faster. If I step on them really hard, the car will go really fast.

I have heard many critics contend that any tax increase will “kill jobs.” However, during the Clinton administration, jobs were created at a remarkable rate under a higher overall tax structure. “Under Bush, the economy produced 3.7 million new jobs from January 2001 through December [2006] . . . When Clinton was in the White House, the economy generated 17.6 million jobs during the corresponding period — from January 1993 to December 1998” (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,242424,00.html).

Post new Comment