Comments 1 - 25 of 25 Search these comments
Well, even if this hit piece were true, how does it relate to his suggestion that capital gains tax rate needs to be raised?
Don't you guys see that these kinds of articles are written by folks like the Koch Bros. to fool people like you?
Don't you guys see that these kinds of articles are written by folks like the Koch Bros. to fool people like you?
It does not matter who it's written by. Can you refute the info in the article?
It does not matter who it's written by. Can you refute the info in the article?
What is there to refute? That he would have lost a lot of money had the government bailout not been passed? No shit. That makes him the same as everyone else who had any money. Is that some sort of big scandal?
I was appalled by some of the q&a at Berkshire shareholder meeting:
- Clayton homes: it's ok to charge low income people 15% interest on manufactured homes (when most people can get mortgages under 5%)
- Coke: sugar softens your arteries as you get older (never mind that we have an obesity and diabetes problem that costs the economy more a year than the market cap of Coke)
- working with 3G - it's ok to keep laying people off and use tax evading inversion strategies
How can any Democrat defend Berkshire? This is a Republican's dream company.
What is there to refute? That he would have lost a lot of money had the government bailout not been passed? No shit. That makes him the same as everyone else who had any money. Is that some sort of big scandal?
It's not a scandal. My point is that it does not matter who wrote the article.
Many Democrats make Buffet into a hero because he called for higher taxes. It's all words, his actions have always been the opposite. Plus unlike Koch brothers, who lobby to reduce taxes, he does not lobby to raise taxes.
Many Democrats make Buffet into a hero because he called for higher taxes. It's all words, his actions have always been the opposite. Plus unlike Koch brothers, who lobby to reduce taxes, he does not lobby to raise taxes.
I don't know if he's a hero, but he is correct. One of the few 1%ers who put the interests of the country over their own self interests. That is somewhat admirable.
How have his actions been different? His support of the bailout was to help the country as well as his companies. He does have an obligation to his shareholders.
- Clayton homes: it's ok to charge low income people 15% interest on manufactured homes (when most people can get mortgages under 5%)
Trailer and mobile homes are personal property. If you borrow against personal property, with shitty qualifications, where defaults are high, you will have high interest rates. If Buffett was making a killing, other financial companies would be scrambling to do the same, and the competition would bring the rates down.
One of the few 1%ers who put the interests of the country over their own self interests
- tax inversion deal with 3G: Burger King. Charging low income people 15% for mortgages. Promoting obesity and diabetes ("I am quarter cherry coke"). Not lobbying for higher taxes.
Where do he put his own interests over the country again?
Trailer and mobile homes are personal property
Not if put them on the foundation. The article I read uses an example of a family that spend 15,000 for a foundation and then were told that their interest would be 15%.
tax inversion deal with 3G: Burger King. Charging low income people 15% for mortgages. Promoting obesity and diabetes ("I am quarter cherry coke"). Not lobbying for higher taxes.
Where do he put his own interests over the country again?
Tax policies, economic policies. He does run corporations in a free market. He wants to change the laws, but as long as the laws are in place, he has an obligation to maximize shareholder return. He's not Mother Teresa, especially not with his shareholder's money.
And I think you're being a bit dramatic by equating enjoying cherry coke with promoting obesity and diabetes, don't you think?
He wants to change the laws
If he did, he would put some money into lobbying for higher taxes or at least equal taxes on capital gains just like Romney did or Koch brothers do. Buffet's companies lobby for all the things that he supposedly opposes.
And I think you're being a bit dramatic by equating enjoying cherry coke with promoting obesity and diabetes, don't you think?
Selling Coke products is no different than selling cigarettes. As long as he is says stupid things like "i am quarter cherry coke" he is promoting sugar which is a root cause of Obesity and diabetes.
If he did, he would put some money into lobbying for higher taxes or at least equal taxes on capital gains just like Romney did or Koch brothers do. Buffet's companies lobby for all the things that he supposedly opposes.
Example? And why do you think he doesn't put money into lobbying for higher taxes/equal taxes on capital gains? He donates to candidates who are for this policy. He speaks out about these policies and inequality often.
Selling Coke products is no different than selling cigarettes. As long as he is says stupid things like "i am quarter cherry coke" he is promoting sugar which is a root cause of Obesity and diabetes.
You're kidding, right? The addiction rate of smoking and the addiction rate of coke are a bit different. Regardless, you are on a very slippery slope--where do you draw the line? How much sugar is too much? How about fatty foods? Do you advocate the government telling us what we can or can't eat and drink?
He donates to candidates who are for this policy. He speaks out about these policies and inequality often.
You are right. He does donate. I just don't see any results of his donations. His actions to use tax inversion deal with Burger King and Tim Horton's completely opposes his "higher taxes" mesage
How much sugar is too much?
41g a can is too much. Yes, processed and fast food should be regulated to improve quality because the cost of taking care of diabetes is far higher than any benefits we get from cheaper food.
You are right. He does donate. I just don't see any results of his donations. His actions to use tax inversion deal with Burger King and Tim Horton's completely opposes his "higher taxes" mesage
Not at all. Like I said--he has an obligation to follow the laws that are in place, regardless of whether he agrees with them. And to maximize shareholder value. And, unfortunately, we keep electing Republicans that block any action that leads to higher capital gains taxes
41g a can is too much. Yes, processed and fast food should be regulated to improve quality because the cost of taking care of diabetes is far higher than any benefits we get from cheaper food.
I don't necessarily disagree, but that's a much easier thing to talk about than it is to actually do. Look at NYC's experience with regulating soda--it was a VERY unpopular law.
Like I said--he has an obligation to follow the laws that are in place, regardless of whether he agrees with them. And to maximize shareholder value.
That's the argument Republicans make in defense of Romney's 10% tax rate. Buffett, Soros, Romney are all using tax loop holes. In my opinion Buffet is not better than Romney because it's 2015 and these loopholes still exist and as far as I can tell are not going to change any time soon. I used to be a Buffet fan too.
That's the argument Republicans make in defense of Romney's 10% tax rate. Buffett, Soros, Romney are all using tax loop holes. In my opinion Buffet is not better than Romney because it's 2015 and these loopholes still exist and as far as I can tell are not going to change any time soon. I used to be a Buffet fan too.
But what else can Buffett do? He speaks out often about these issues. He donates to candidates that promise to raise cap gains and close loopholes. He votes for these candidates. Unfortunately, he is only one vote and the too much of the electorate is persuaded by the Koch Bros. propaganda and votes for Republicans.
The difference between Buffett and Romney or Koch is that Buffett wants to change things to help the public, while Koch and Romney want to change things to help themselves.
processed and fast food should be regulated to improve quality because the cost of taking care of diabetes is far higher than any benefits we get from cheaper food.
Mcdonalds has been getting killed for nearly 2 years;
http://fortune.com/2015/01/23/mcdonalds-us-sales-slide/
http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/01/economist-explains-7
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/22/us-mcdonalds-results-idUSKBN0ND1CX20150422
The addiction rate of smoking and the addiction rate of coke are a bit different.
I don't know about coke but caffeine and sugar are definitely addicting, but the addiction rates aren't well studied, since the problem of 'sugar addiction' isn't well defined or understood; however, the health problems strongly associated with excess sugar consumption (DM, Hypertension, Hyperlipidemia, cardiovascular disease) it is a public health problem that has gotten worse since 1980.
Cigarette smoking rates have been in decline since 1965
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/trends/cig_smoking/
sugar addiction,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/
Diabetes rate in the US
Per capita consumption of sugar by country
Market cap of coke: 178.31 billion
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=KO
Cost of Diabetes(2012): 245 Billion
http://www.diabetes.org/advocacy/news-events/cost-of-diabetes.html
Cost of smoking(2014): 300 Billion
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/
APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says
I don't understand your thinking--Buffett doesn't have the power to change these laws. The people keep electing Republicans who will die before they raise capital gains taxes. Or get rid of the loopholes that favor the 1%. He speaks out on these issues, he donates to candidates who support raising cap gains, he votes for those candidates. But at the end of the day, it's up to the rest of the electorate to vote similarly so we have politicians that will change the laws.
I believe Democrats had majority in 2009. Instead of focusing on income inequality and taxes, they passed half ass healthcare reform.
believe Democrats had majority in 2009. Instead of focusing on income inequality and taxes, they passed half ass healthcare reform.
They only had a filibuster proof majority for a very short time, and there are too many conservative democrats that wouldn't vote for tax increases. Not only do you have to NOT vote Republican, you also have to find the right Democrats....
They only had a filibuster proof majority for a very short time, and there are too many conservative democrats that wouldn't vote for tax increases. Not only do you have to NOT vote Republican, you also have to find the right Democrats....
Then based on your assessment capital gains tax rate is not likely to go up for another 10 years at least because the was the most political capital Democrats had in a long time.
How did we know Tat would respond with this excuse?
Because I prefer to post facts?
Why? Because the current members of your blue team suck?
First--it's not my team. But, yes, some of them suck and some of them don't. Which beats the Republicans, who all suck.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-02/buffett-loses-bet-fails-pay-again