If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reuters)   Warren Buffett, the other noted American communist after Ben Stein, wants to raise taxes on the rich   (reuters.com) divider line 133
    More: Interesting, Warren Buffett, American communists, ordinary income, State of the Union  
•       •       •

780 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Nov 2012 at 9:18 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



133 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-27 10:13:27 AM  
I uncheck the ignored flag to actually read the troll's comments... After reading the few farkers that handed his ass to him, I don't think tenpoundsofderp will be back to this thread. 

Come on troll, defend yourself on this thread!!!
 
2012-11-27 10:17:27 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Wut a surprise!


Shocking that he is NOT calling for an increase in the capital gains tax...wut a surprise, most of his income is from capital gains (which is why his effective rate is low).

He is going against 0bama by setting the bar at $1M instead of 250k


From the Actual article and not the article about the article. So let's forget about the rich and ultrarich going on strike and stuffing their ample funds under their mattresses if - gasp - capital gains rates and ordinary income rates are increased....We need to get rid of arrangements like "carried interest" that enable income from labor to be magically converted into capital gains.

But the cool idea of the article is

Additionally, we need Congress, right now, to enact a minimum tax on high incomes. I would suggest 30 percent of taxable income between $1 million and $10 million, and 35 percent on amounts above that. A plain and simple rule like that will block the efforts of lobbyists, lawyers and contribution-hungry legislators to keep the ultrarich paying rates well below those incurred by people with income just a tiny fraction of ours. Only a minimum tax on very high incomes will prevent the stated tax rate from being eviscerated by these warriors for the wealthy.
 
2012-11-27 10:22:24 AM  

Nurglitch: At the risk of turning this into a financial planning seminar, there's nothing OCD about being frugal, living within your means, and using your capital to make more capital rather than plowing it into costly money-holes and burning it.

Something I think that doesn't get addressed, or maybe isn't addressed directly when finance is discussed, is what is being financed. Take buying a car versus being a house, if we suppose for the sake of argument that they are apples to apples. A car usually depreciates, and a house usually appreciates, and investing money into things that depreciate, that lose value. To my mind, and to wildly over-generalize, a good economy is driven by investments that create value, and specifically value that can in turn create value.

Buying an island isn't a value-creation proposition. I'm not saying that you can't enjoy it, and surely you would if you want to buy an island, but that the only way you could turn that island into a value-additive resource, rather than just a value-sucking money-hole, would be tourism (or perhaps resource extraction). But I doubt either of those is compatible with your desire to have an island to yourself and yours, and I don't think tourism adds value since the experience sold is ephemeral rather than something to which people can add value; facebook slideshows of your vacation to not add value.

There's an argument to be made that Coca-Cola products don't add value, but at the remove that Buffett exists from the end product of that company, it's a value-added proposition so long as Buffett can dictate good management practices. Someone else mentioned it, but he's a shocking contrast with Bain Capital in that he buys up companies so that he can control them, but does so to ensure that they have long-term growth prospects, rather than burning them down for the insurance.

Anyhow, a bit of a ramble, and moreso me thinking out loud than attempting to shout you down.


(reads response)

My head hurts.
 
2012-11-27 10:23:51 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Wut a surprise!

Shocking that he is NOT calling for an increase in the capital gains tax...wut a surprise, most of his income is from capital gains (which is why his effective rate is low).



Been pointed out by others. I just wanted to make sure that tendpoundsofderp and others see how to be an unsuccessful thinker. Reading for him is, apparently, very hard.
 
2012-11-27 10:26:05 AM  

incendi: tenpoundsofcheese: Redacted for people who have TPOC on ignore

Couldn't be bothered to read the article or the thread before waltzing in and taking a dump, eh?


From the source NYT: " I would suggest 30 percent of taxable income between $1 million and $10 million, and 35 percent on amounts above that."

So he did NOT call for an increase in the capital gains.
 
2012-11-27 10:27:49 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: incendi: tenpoundsofcheese: Redacted for people who have TPOC on ignore

Couldn't be bothered to read the article or the thread before waltzing in and taking a dump, eh?

From the source NYT: " I would suggest 30 percent of taxable income between $1 million and $10 million, and 35 percent on amounts above that."

So he did NOT call for an increase in the capital gains.


Capitals gains are taxable income you freaking moron.
 
2012-11-27 10:29:35 AM  

delathi: Yep.
If I work construction every day and make 40K for the year, I am taxed at 25%
If I loan someone 800K for a year and a day at 5% interest and make 40K for the year, I am taxed at 15%

Seems fair.


If your gross income was $40k your actual tax rate would be 11.775% with the only deduction being claiming yourself as a dependent.
 
2012-11-27 10:31:03 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: tenpoundsofcheese: incendi: tenpoundsofcheese: Redacted for people who have TPOC on ignore

Couldn't be bothered to read the article or the thread before waltzing in and taking a dump, eh?

From the source NYT: " I would suggest 30 percent of taxable income between $1 million and $10 million, and 35 percent on amounts above that."

So he did NOT call for an increase in the capital gains.

Capitals gains are taxable income you freaking moron.

 
2012-11-27 10:31:42 AM  

jncgrasshopper: tenpoundsofcheese: Wut a surprise!


Shocking that he is NOT calling for an increase in the capital gains tax...wut a surprise, most of his income is from capital gains (which is why his effective rate is low).

He is going against 0bama by setting the bar at $1M instead of 250k

From the Actual article and not the article about the article. So let's forget about the rich and ultrarich going on strike and stuffing their ample funds under their mattresses if - gasp - capital gains rates and ordinary income rates are increased....We need to get rid of arrangements like "carried interest" that enable income from labor to be magically converted into capital gains.

But the cool idea of the article is

Additionally, we need Congress, right now, to enact a minimum tax on high incomes. I would suggest 30 percent of taxable income between $1 million and $10 million, and 35 percent on amounts above that. A plain and simple rule like that will block the efforts of lobbyists, lawyers and contribution-hungry legislators to keep the ultrarich paying rates well below those incurred by people with income just a tiny fraction of ours. Only a minimum tax on very high incomes will prevent the stated tax rate from being eviscerated by these warriors for the wealthy.


Right: he says it wouldn't hurt to raise capital gains, but wut a surprise, he only has a proposal to raise the income tax.
surprise!
He has NO proposal to raise the capital gains tax. NONE.
 
2012-11-27 10:33:15 AM  

jbuist: delathi: Yep.
If I work construction every day and make 40K for the year, I am taxed at 25%
If I loan someone 800K for a year and a day at 5% interest and make 40K for the year, I am taxed at 15%

Seems fair.

If your gross income was $40k your actual tax rate would be 11.775% with the only deduction being claiming yourself as a dependent.


I was looking at base tax rate before deductions and loopholes and hiding your money in Cancun.
 
2012-11-27 10:34:57 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: He has NO proposal to raise the capital gains tax. NONE.


sounds indecent
 
2012-11-27 10:35:52 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: jncgrasshopper: tenpoundsofcheese: Wut a surprise!


Shocking that he is NOT calling for an increase in the capital gains tax...wut a surprise, most of his income is from capital gains (which is why his effective rate is low).

He is going against 0bama by setting the bar at $1M instead of 250k

From the Actual article and not the article about the article. So let's forget about the rich and ultrarich going on strike and stuffing their ample funds under their mattresses if - gasp - capital gains rates and ordinary income rates are increased....We need to get rid of arrangements like "carried interest" that enable income from labor to be magically converted into capital gains.

But the cool idea of the article is

Additionally, we need Congress, right now, to enact a minimum tax on high incomes. I would suggest 30 percent of taxable income between $1 million and $10 million, and 35 percent on amounts above that. A plain and simple rule like that will block the efforts of lobbyists, lawyers and contribution-hungry legislators to keep the ultrarich paying rates well below those incurred by people with income just a tiny fraction of ours. Only a minimum tax on very high incomes will prevent the stated tax rate from being eviscerated by these warriors for the wealthy.

Right: he says it wouldn't hurt to raise capital gains, but wut a surprise, he only has a proposal to raise the income tax.
surprise!
He has NO proposal to raise the capital gains tax. NONE.


Buffett published a national column that essentially mocked the idea that higher tax rates on capital gains discourage investment. According to Buffett, legislators should increase taxes on those earning more than $500,000, including minimum rates of at least 30 percent on all income above $1 million.
 
2012-11-27 10:36:39 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Right: he says it wouldn't hurt to raise capital gains, but wut a surprise, he only has a proposal to raise the income tax.
surprise!
He has NO proposal to raise the capital gains tax. NONE.


i584.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-27 10:37:40 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: jncgrasshopper: tenpoundsofcheese: Wut a surprise!


Shocking that he is NOT calling for an increase in the capital gains tax...wut a surprise, most of his income is from capital gains (which is why his effective rate is low).

He is going against 0bama by setting the bar at $1M instead of 250k

From the Actual article and not the article about the article. So let's forget about the rich and ultrarich going on strike and stuffing their ample funds under their mattresses if - gasp - capital gains rates and ordinary income rates are increased....We need to get rid of arrangements like "carried interest" that enable income from labor to be magically converted into capital gains.

But the cool idea of the article is

Additionally, we need Congress, right now, to enact a minimum tax on high incomes. I would suggest 30 percent of taxable income between $1 million and $10 million, and 35 percent on amounts above that. A plain and simple rule like that will block the efforts of lobbyists, lawyers and contribution-hungry legislators to keep the ultrarich paying rates well below those incurred by people with income just a tiny fraction of ours. Only a minimum tax on very high incomes will prevent the stated tax rate from being eviscerated by these warriors for the wealthy.

Right: he says it wouldn't hurt to raise capital gains, but wut a surprise, he only has a proposal to raise the income tax.
surprise!
He has NO proposal to raise the capital gains tax. NONE.


That taxable income includes capital gains, you simpleton.
 
2012-11-27 10:38:50 AM  

DoomPaul: But if we raise taxes on the rich, they won't create anymore high paying jobs!

[i47.tinypic.com image 770x664]


Um, such is the ruling class in any society with a ruling class. You can't blame capitalism, commie. You have to blame force and coercion (rule, as in ruling).
 
2012-11-27 10:41:23 AM  

Carn: That taxable income includes capital gains, you simpleton.


It's cute, I think he really thought he had won this one for a change.
 
2012-11-27 10:43:13 AM  

Headso: Capital gains are great for middle class and poor people who are trying to get ahead, taxes on capital gains should be progressive and structured in a way where the middle class and poor pay almost nothing when they actually have those gains. People so quick to say just tax capital gains like income should think about how that could hurt small time entrepreneurs.


Let's make life easy. For some reason, people cannot get away from the idea of taxing income, which is immoral and a bad idea. But, if you absolutely must do it, let's go with a 10% flat tax on all income above $50k from whatever source. No deductions on anything, and I mean anything. The bureaucrats determine how much you pulled in that year, you pay 10% on the gross, done, over.
 
2012-11-27 10:45:42 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: When Buffett plays golf with his friend, Bill Gates, who's on his board, their typical bet is $1


middleclasshell.com
 
2012-11-27 10:50:23 AM  

jigger: Headso: Capital gains are great for middle class and poor people who are trying to get ahead, taxes on capital gains should be progressive and structured in a way where the middle class and poor pay almost nothing when they actually have those gains. People so quick to say just tax capital gains like income should think about how that could hurt small time entrepreneurs.

Let's make life easy. For some reason, people cannot get away from the idea of taxing income, which is immoral and a bad idea. But, if you absolutely must do it, let's go with a 10% flat tax on all income above $50k from whatever source. No deductions on anything, and I mean anything. The bureaucrats determine how much you pulled in that year, you pay 10% on the gross, done, over.


I doubt you'd generate enough revenue like that to support the government so all sorts of regressive type taxes would be raised hurting the poor and middle class.
 
2012-11-27 10:54:52 AM  
So, when the currency hyperinflates further, EVERYONE can be subject to these lovely taxes.

Anyone who wants to get money out of rich people needs to do it on a lump-sum basis, none of this recurring BS.

AMT anyone?
 
2012-11-27 10:57:08 AM  

dynomutt: So, when the currency hyperinflates further, EVERYONE can be subject to these lovely taxes.


When have we experienced hyperinflation?
 
2012-11-27 10:58:00 AM  

jigger: Headso: Capital gains are great for middle class and poor people who are trying to get ahead, taxes on capital gains should be progressive and structured in a way where the middle class and poor pay almost nothing when they actually have those gains. People so quick to say just tax capital gains like income should think about how that could hurt small time entrepreneurs.

Let's make life easy. For some reason, people cannot get away from the idea of taxing income, which is immoral and a bad idea. But, if you absolutely must do it, let's go with a 10% flat tax on all income above $50k from whatever source. No deductions on anything, and I mean anything. The bureaucrats determine how much you pulled in that year, you pay 10% on the gross, done, over.


And you can't figure out why this is a bad idea? 10% of 50k per annum is far more, proportionately, than 10% of 100k per annum. What makes it more is that the expenses for a minimum standard of living remain the same, so that 10% is disproportionately more because the other expenses are disproportionately less for the person with more income. That's why progressive systems of taxation exist, so that the weight, so to speak, is spread to those who can best take it.
 
2012-11-27 11:04:24 AM  

Headso: I doubt you'd generate enough revenue like that to support the government so all sorts of regressive type taxes would be raised hurting the poor and middle class.


Like what? And I think complete elimination of all deductions and gimmicks would lead to the same or higher revenue.


Nurglitch: 10% of 50k per annum is far more, proportionately, than 10% of 100k per annum.


That's why your tax rate up to $50k would be 0%.
 
2012-11-27 11:08:01 AM  

hugram: I uncheck the ignored flag to actually read the troll's comments... After reading the few farkers that handed his ass to him, I don't think tenpoundsofderp will be back to this thread. 

Come on troll, defend yourself on this thread!!!


What a surprise. After getting his ass thoroughly handed to him on a silver platter Warren Buffet's McDonalds tray, he's back to triple down on the same debunked stupidity.

Will he go for the rare quadruple down?
 
2012-11-27 11:08:19 AM  

jigger: Headso: I doubt you'd generate enough revenue like that to support the government so all sorts of regressive type taxes would be raised hurting the poor and middle class.

Like what? And I think complete elimination of all deductions and gimmicks would lead to the same or higher revenue.


state sales taxes, local sales taxes, property taxes, tolls, fees, excise taxes, restaurant taxes, cigarette taxes, soft drink taxes, taxes on booze ... and on and on...
 
2012-11-27 11:08:54 AM  
fines...
 
2012-11-27 11:08:55 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: jncgrasshopper: tenpoundsofcheese: Wut a surprise!


I would suggest 30 percent of taxable income between $1 million and $10 million, and 35 percent on amounts above that. A plain and simple rule like that will block the efforts of lobbyists, lawyers and contribution-hungry legislators to keep the ultrarich paying rates well below those incurred by people with income just a tiny fraction of ours. Only a minimum tax on very high incomes will prevent the stated tax rate from being eviscerated by these warriors for the wealthy.

Right: he says it wouldn't hurt to raise capital gains, but wut a surprise, he only has a proposal to raise the income tax.
surprise!
He has NO proposal to raise the capital gains tax. NONE.


It's not the raising of taxes, it's the enforcement of a minimum tax. You're reading comprehension is lacking.
 
2012-11-27 11:11:11 AM  

Headso: jigger: Headso: I doubt you'd generate enough revenue like that to support the government so all sorts of regressive type taxes would be raised hurting the poor and middle class.

Like what? And I think complete elimination of all deductions and gimmicks would lead to the same or higher revenue.

state sales taxes, local sales taxes, property taxes, tolls, fees, excise taxes, restaurant taxes, cigarette taxes, soft drink taxes, taxes on booze ... and on and on...


Property taxes are generally not regressive. They are usually a percentage of valuation. A laborer who lives in an $80,000 house will pay much less in property taxes than the investment banker chilling in a $2 million ocean front villa.
 
2012-11-27 11:12:17 AM  

Headso: state sales taxes, local sales taxes, property taxes, tolls, fees, excise taxes, restaurant taxes, cigarette taxes, soft drink taxes, taxes on booze ... and on and on...


What does this have to do with the federal government?
 
2012-11-27 11:12:24 AM  
A stance he's supposedly taken for awhile now but I don't see him writing extra checks to the government on his own... I wonder why.
 
2012-11-27 11:13:53 AM  

max_pooper: hugram: I uncheck the ignored flag to actually read the troll's comments... After reading the few farkers that handed his ass to him, I don't think tenpoundsofderp will be back to this thread. 

Come on troll, defend yourself on this thread!!!

What a surprise. After getting his ass thoroughly handed to him on a silver platter Warren Buffet's McDonalds tray, he's back to triple down on the same debunked stupidity.

Will he go for the rare quadruple down?


He is the troll version of The Little Engine That Could. 

Please proceed, tenpoundsofderp.
 
2012-11-27 11:14:54 AM  

randomjsa: A stance he's supposedly taken for awhile now but I don't see him writing extra checks to the government on his own... I wonder why.


Because that's not an effective way to get tax policy changed?
 
2012-11-27 11:15:16 AM  

delathi: jbuist: delathi: Yep.
If I work construction every day and make 40K for the year, I am taxed at 25%
If I loan someone 800K for a year and a day at 5% interest and make 40K for the year, I am taxed at 15%

Seems fair.

If your gross income was $40k your actual tax rate would be 11.775% with the only deduction being claiming yourself as a dependent.

I was looking at base tax rate before deductions and loopholes and hiding your money in Cancun.


No, you weren't. Even if you took no deductions at all, you'd pay 15.3%. You would only pay 25% on income over $34,500.
 
2012-11-27 11:15:39 AM  

jigger: Headso: state sales taxes, local sales taxes, property taxes, tolls, fees, excise taxes, restaurant taxes, cigarette taxes, soft drink taxes, taxes on booze ... and on and on...

What does this have to do with the federal government?


federal spending often supplements state programs and spending.
 
2012-11-27 11:15:51 AM  

randomjsa: A stance he's supposedly taken for awhile now but I don't see him writing extra checks to the government on his own... I wonder why.


Because this is a counterargument used by idiots.
 
2012-11-27 11:16:08 AM  

randomjsa: A stance he's supposedly taken for awhile now but I don't see him writing extra checks to the government on his own... I wonder why.


And Berkshire Hathaway allegedly "owes" back taxes going back to 2002.
 
2012-11-27 11:16:52 AM  

max_pooper: They are usually a percentage of valuation. A laborer who lives in an $80,000 house will pay much less in property taxes than the investment banker chilling in a $2 million ocean front villa.


they are a flat percentage so the less you earn the more they hurt you.
 
2012-11-27 11:27:04 AM  

Headso: jigger: Headso: state sales taxes, local sales taxes, property taxes, tolls, fees, excise taxes, restaurant taxes, cigarette taxes, soft drink taxes, taxes on booze ... and on and on...

What does this have to do with the federal government?

federal spending often supplements state programs and spending.


You think that if revenue decreased (which I think is debatable dues to taxing every source of income with no deductions) then the states would receive less federal money and so the states would take it out on lower income people? Maybe some states would, especially those that already tax everyone to the hilt. But, many states don't even have an income tax, some don't have a sales tax, and every time a proposal comes up to institute one it goes down in flames. So, it's doubtful that the poor would be affected in any way, and then the middle of the middle class would be relieved of federal income taxes entirely (except for FICA). Hey let's put a minimum income on FICA too and remove the maximum.

Anyway, maybe you can find numbers that you like, that would remain revenue neutral, but stick with the idea that under a certain income you pay no income tax whatsoever. Above that income there is a no-deduction, no-bullshiat flat rate on gross income from every source.
 
2012-11-27 11:27:58 AM  

Headso: max_pooper: They are usually a percentage of valuation. A laborer who lives in an $80,000 house will pay much less in property taxes than the investment banker chilling in a $2 million ocean front villa.

they are a flat percentage so the less you earn the more they hurt you.


Hey man, taxes hurt. Especially if they hit you where you earn and live.
 
2012-11-27 11:29:04 AM  
Ooh, FICA's a flat tax, isn't it?
 
2012-11-27 11:33:31 AM  

Headso: max_pooper: They are usually a percentage of valuation. A laborer who lives in an $80,000 house will pay much less in property taxes than the investment banker chilling in a $2 million ocean front villa.

they are a flat percentage so the less you earn the more they hurt you.


Yes, but the valuation of your house is generally proportional to your income. A foreman for a concrete contracting company pulling down $40k per year generally will have a much smaller property tax bill than a corporate lawyer raking in $800K per year. Why? Because the contractor is going to live in a modest house he can afford and the lawyer is probably going to live palatial pad. There are probably some high income earners that live in a two room shack in the barrio but those are few and far between.

There are usually homestead exemptions as well as senior citizen exemptions that lower the property tax bill for a single family home. They are sometimes maximum exemptions that allow the lower valued homestead to have a larger percentage reduction than the 10 bedroom MTV Cribs house.
 
2012-11-27 11:33:56 AM  

jigger: Ooh, FICA's a flat tax, isn't it?


Sorta. It's a flat rate but it cuts off after $106k (or something like that) in income. It's really regressive.
 
2012-11-27 11:38:00 AM  

max_pooper: Headso: max_pooper: They are usually a percentage of valuation. A laborer who lives in an $80,000 house will pay much less in property taxes than the investment banker chilling in a $2 million ocean front villa.

they are a flat percentage so the less you earn the more they hurt you.

Yes, but the valuation of your house is generally proportional to your income. A foreman for a concrete contracting company pulling down $40k per year generally will have a much smaller property tax bill than a corporate lawyer raking in $800K per year. Why? Because the contractor is going to live in a modest house he can afford and the lawyer is probably going to live palatial pad. There are probably some high income earners that live in a two room shack in the barrio but those are few and far between.


A more reasonable and common example which better illustrates how they are regressive are the 20 or so people living on the same suburban street earning between 35k and 70k but all paying the same rate on their homes.
 
2012-11-27 11:42:21 AM  

jigger: states would receive less federal money and so the states would take it out on lower income people? Maybe some states would, especially those that already tax everyone to the hilt. But, many states don't even have an income tax, some don't have a sales tax, and every time a proposal comes up to institute one it goes down in flames.


Many of the states with the (artificially) lowest taxes are the ones that require the most money from the federal government.
 
2012-11-27 11:48:34 AM  

Headso: Many of the states with the (artificially) lowest taxes are the ones that require the most money from the federal government.


And maybe they would receive less. But, like I said, every time an income tax or sales tax proposal comes up it is shot way down. People in those states don't put up with high taxation.
 
2012-11-27 11:49:09 AM  

Headso: max_pooper: Headso: max_pooper: They are usually a percentage of valuation. A laborer who lives in an $80,000 house will pay much less in property taxes than the investment banker chilling in a $2 million ocean front villa.

they are a flat percentage so the less you earn the more they hurt you.

Yes, but the valuation of your house is generally proportional to your income. A foreman for a concrete contracting company pulling down $40k per year generally will have a much smaller property tax bill than a corporate lawyer raking in $800K per year. Why? Because the contractor is going to live in a modest house he can afford and the lawyer is probably going to live palatial pad. There are probably some high income earners that live in a two room shack in the barrio but those are few and far between.

A more reasonable and common example which better illustrates how they are regressive are the 20 or so people living on the same suburban street earning between 35k and 70k but all paying the same rate on their homes.


Having a property tax based upon income instead of valuation will encourage over buying. That is not a sustainable situation as evident in the last real estate bubble.

A person should buy a house they can afford. Generally, the higher income earner will be paying more in property taxes because they will generally live in a much more expensive house, both in land value as improvement value.

A rich ostentatious arsehole, living in a marble clad mansion on an acre lot in an exclusive gated community will be paying a hell of a lot more in dollars per square foot than the school teacher living in 1200 square foot house on a 50x100 lot in a "transitional" neighborhood.
 
2012-11-27 11:49:21 AM  

jbuist: jigger: Ooh, FICA's a flat tax, isn't it?

Sorta. It's a flat rate but it cuts off after $106k (or something like that) in income. It's really regressive.


Yep. There should be no cut off.
 
2012-11-27 11:53:32 AM  

Carn: Yep. There should be no cut off.


How about a lower cut off?
 
2012-11-27 11:59:34 AM  

sammyk: "In the meantime, maybe you'll run into someone with a terrific investment idea, who won't go forward with it because of the tax he would owe when it succeeds," Buffett said. "Send him my way. Let me unburden him."

I think I have a Buffett crush


You know its true. I was going to buy a powerball ticket and win that $450 mIllion. Then I found out that after picking a lump sum and the tax hit, it will only be worth about $280 million. Why even bother if they will just leave you with such chump change?
 
2012-11-27 12:02:41 PM  

knowless: it won't work, they can't generate enough revenue, basic math. the discussion is irrelevant.


Talk about the most stupid argument I have ever read in my entire life.

This is how stupid your argument is:

"Well I was going to take a road trip across the country but I couldn't make it in one tank of gas so I decided not to go."

Well no shiat you farking dumbarse. Anyone who thinks they are going to drive across the country in a standard civilian vehicle on one tank of gas should be lined up and shot to keep the gene pool from depleting any further.
 
Displayed 50 of 133 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report