Very Interesting Read from Buffett

8/16/2011 8:46am
Hey Borg, I completely understand your point of view but I think you're taking the point of this article out of context. Buffett never suggests that taxing the ultra-rich at a higher rate would solve all of our problems. I think his argument is simply that we shouldn't fear taxing them on their capital gains or other gains out of fear that it will reduce investments or jobs. He is also arguing that, unlike what most people think, the ultra-rich are not the ones apparently pushing for these lower tax rates because they would gladly pay them (assuming Buffett can speak for the vast majority). So in his mind, it's a problem of a misconception in congress.


This has nothing to do with not taxing anyone else and only targeting the rich.


My point is, if everyone is talking about a need for compromise, it's because they realize that the solution will not come from any single program being cut or any one group paying more taxes, whether that's the rich, the poor, corporate, etc. Yeah taxing the rich wouldn't solve it, but it would help at least some.


All he's saying is, hey, we're willing to step up and do our part to save this ship. How can anyone argue with that?
KAWboy14
Posts
6502
Joined
12/31/2007
Location
Austin, TX, USA
8/16/2011 3:59pm
Warren Buffet is the biggest lying scumbag cheat out there. You doofs seem to like him because Obama constantly throws his name out there. The fact...
Warren Buffet is the biggest lying scumbag cheat out there. You doofs seem to like him because Obama constantly throws his name out there. The fact that he has millions of Americans convinced that he's a "down to earth super rich guy" is sickening. This guy isnt a genius, he's manipulated his network as well as innocent people in order to position himself for success each and every time. If he is so damn concerned about the government not taking enough from the "Rich", he should sack up and turn his entire estate over to the IRS and let them auction it off and apply the proceeds towards the national debt.
flarider wrote:
Yes, what a piece of shit he is.... By Warren Buffett June 16, 2010: 8:06 AM ET FORTUNE -- In 2006, I made a commitment to...
Yes, what a piece of shit he is....


By Warren Buffett
June 16, 2010: 8:06 AM ET


FORTUNE -- In 2006, I made a commitment to gradually give all of my Berkshire Hathaway stock to philanthropic foundations. I couldn't be happier with that decision.

Now, Bill and Melinda Gates and I are asking hundreds of rich Americans to pledge at least 50% of their wealth to charity. So I think it is fitting that I reiterate my intentions and explain the thinking that lies behind them.

First, my pledge: More than 99% of my wealth will go to philanthropy during my lifetime or at death. Measured by dollars, this commitment is large. In a comparative sense, though, many individuals give more to others every day.

Millions of people who regularly contribute to churches, schools, and other organizations thereby relinquish the use of funds that would otherwise benefit their own families. The dollars these people drop into a collection plate or give to United Way mean forgone movies, dinners out, or other personal pleasures. In contrast, my family and I will give up nothing we need or want by fulfilling this 99% pledge.

Moreover, this pledge does not leave me contributing the most precious asset, which is time. Many people, including -- I'm proud to say -- my three children, give extensively of their own time and talents to help others. Gifts of this kind often prove far more valuable than money. A struggling child, befriended and nurtured by a caring mentor, receives a gift whose value far exceeds what can be bestowed by a check. My sister, Doris, extends significant person-to-person help daily. I've done little of this.

What I can do, however, is to take a pile of Berkshire Hathaway stock certificates -- "claim checks" that when converted to cash can command far-ranging resources -- and commit them to benefit others who, through the luck of the draw, have received the short straws in life. To date about 20% of my shares have been distributed (including shares given by my late wife, Susan Buffett). I will continue to annually distribute about 4% of the shares I retain. At the latest, the proceeds from all of my Berkshire shares will be expended for philanthropic purposes by 10 years after my estate is settled. Nothing will go to endowments; I want the money spent on current needs.

This pledge will leave my lifestyle untouched and that of my children as well. They have already received significant sums for their personal use and will receive more in the future. They live comfortable and productive lives. And I will continue to live in a manner that gives me everything that I could possibly want in life.

Some material things make my life more enjoyable; many, however, would not. I like having an expensive private plane, but owning a half-dozen homes would be a burden. Too often, a vast collection of possessions ends up possessing its owner. The asset I most value, aside from health, is interesting, diverse, and long-standing friends.

My wealth has come from a combination of living in America, some lucky genes, and compound interest. Both my children and I won what I call the ovarian lottery. (For starters, the odds against my 1930 birth taking place in the U.S. were at least 30 to 1. My being male and white also removed huge obstacles that a majority of Americans then faced.)

My luck was accentuated by my living in a market system that sometimes produces distorted results, though overall it serves our country well. I've worked in an economy that rewards someone who saves the lives of others on a battlefield with a medal, rewards a great teacher with thank-you notes from parents, but rewards those who can detect the mispricing of securities with sums reaching into the billions. In short, fate's distribution of long straws is wildly capricious.

The reaction of my family and me to our extraordinary good fortune is not guilt, but rather gratitude. Were we to use more than 1% of my claim checks on ourselves, neither our happiness nor our well-being would be enhanced. In contrast, that remaining 99% can have a huge effect on the health and welfare of others. That reality sets an obvious course for me and my family: Keep all we can conceivably need and distribute the rest to society, for its needs. My pledge starts us down that course.
buffet is giving his money away anyway.....of course he doesnt care if the gov takes a little bit of it. I gaurantee his companies pay zero taxes and his accountants take every loophole there is.......also at the bottom of his tax return he can at anytime fill in the extra amount he wants.



i have never met anyone that wanted to pay more!
borg
Posts
7053
Joined
12/7/2009
Location
Long Beach, CA, USA
8/16/2011 5:30pm
TriRacer27 wrote:
Hey Borg, I completely understand your point of view but I think you're taking the point of this article out of context. Buffett never suggests that...
Hey Borg, I completely understand your point of view but I think you're taking the point of this article out of context. Buffett never suggests that taxing the ultra-rich at a higher rate would solve all of our problems. I think his argument is simply that we shouldn't fear taxing them on their capital gains or other gains out of fear that it will reduce investments or jobs. He is also arguing that, unlike what most people think, the ultra-rich are not the ones apparently pushing for these lower tax rates because they would gladly pay them (assuming Buffett can speak for the vast majority). So in his mind, it's a problem of a misconception in congress.


This has nothing to do with not taxing anyone else and only targeting the rich.


My point is, if everyone is talking about a need for compromise, it's because they realize that the solution will not come from any single program being cut or any one group paying more taxes, whether that's the rich, the poor, corporate, etc. Yeah taxing the rich wouldn't solve it, but it would help at least some.


All he's saying is, hey, we're willing to step up and do our part to save this ship. How can anyone argue with that?
Why didn't he make himself clear? The reason he doesn't pay the same percentage of his income as his office help, is because his comes from capital gains. All he had to say was "lets bring cap gains taxes in line with income taxes". WTF would have been so hard about that? What he did say was to raise taxes on ALL millionaires. My point is that many of those millionaires already pay the top tax rates and it's clear from the link I gave that they do.

I've seen that guy on CNBC many ,many times. He's got a big bone in his pants for Becky Quick and she drags all kinds of stuff out of him. He's a little on the weird side but I give him immense credit for his philanthropy. In fact I would prefer that he give the money he wants to pay in taxes, to charity. It would do a fuck of a lot more good than handing it to the boneheads in Washington. Fuck them. Show me you can cut spending in a real way then we can talk about raising taxes.
jmar
Posts
14154
Joined
2/11/2007
Location
Oklahoma City, OK, USA
8/16/2011 5:31pm
borg wrote:
In 1996, I was in the top 5% because my income was over $112,000. That's all it took to be in that group. In 2007, a...
In 1996, I was in the top 5% because my income was over $112,000. That's all it took to be in that group. In 2007, a person making $142,000 is the top 5%. That's why Obama is just full of shit when he talks about only raising taxes on millionaires and billionaires. Oh yes and corporate jet owners. Whatever the fuck that means.
What's the top 5% today?

The Shop

TeamGreen
Posts
37782
Joined
11/25/2008
Location
Thru-out, CA, USA
8/16/2011 5:36pm
So, when is the Oracle from Omaha gonna write a HUGE check to the Treasury to put his money where his fuqin mouth is?
jtomasik
Posts
12895
Joined
8/17/2006
Location
Golden, CO, USA
8/16/2011 5:46pm
National sales tax. It's a great way to fix this.
jtomasik
Posts
12895
Joined
8/17/2006
Location
Golden, CO, USA
8/16/2011 5:46pm
borg wrote:
In 1996, I was in the top 5% because my income was over $112,000. That's all it took to be in that group. In 2007, a...
In 1996, I was in the top 5% because my income was over $112,000. That's all it took to be in that group. In 2007, a person making $142,000 is the top 5%. That's why Obama is just full of shit when he talks about only raising taxes on millionaires and billionaires. Oh yes and corporate jet owners. Whatever the fuck that means.
jmar wrote:
What's the top 5% today?
The people who have a job.
jmar
Posts
14154
Joined
2/11/2007
Location
Oklahoma City, OK, USA
8/16/2011 5:47pm
TeamGreen wrote:
So, when is the Oracle from Omaha gonna write a HUGE check to the Treasury to put his money where his fuqin mouth is?
Buffet spends a good deal of his money on charity.

Yes, even the Oracle from Omaha doesn't think the government is a good bet.
jmar
Posts
14154
Joined
2/11/2007
Location
Oklahoma City, OK, USA
8/16/2011 5:48pm
borg wrote:
In 1996, I was in the top 5% because my income was over $112,000. That's all it took to be in that group. In 2007, a...
In 1996, I was in the top 5% because my income was over $112,000. That's all it took to be in that group. In 2007, a person making $142,000 is the top 5%. That's why Obama is just full of shit when he talks about only raising taxes on millionaires and billionaires. Oh yes and corporate jet owners. Whatever the fuck that means.
jmar wrote:
What's the top 5% today?
jtomasik wrote:
The people who have a job.
Honestly

Who is considered the the top five percent?
jtomasik
Posts
12895
Joined
8/17/2006
Location
Golden, CO, USA
8/16/2011 5:53pm Edited Date/Time 8/16/2011 5:55pm
As of June 1 last year, according to the web page at the link below, the top 5% earn more than $212,000/year.

Top 5% income earners


Google, my brotha...Google...
jmar
Posts
14154
Joined
2/11/2007
Location
Oklahoma City, OK, USA
8/16/2011 5:58pm
jtomasik wrote:
As of June 1 last year, according to the web page at the link below, the top 5% earn more than $212,000/year. [url=http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2010/06/top-5-earn-.html]Top 5% income earners[/url]...
As of June 1 last year, according to the web page at the link below, the top 5% earn more than $212,000/year.

Top 5% income earners


Google, my brotha...Google...
I am close, but not quite there yet, so my opinion is worthless.
borg
Posts
7053
Joined
12/7/2009
Location
Long Beach, CA, USA
8/16/2011 6:10pm
jtomasik wrote:
As of June 1 last year, according to the web page at the link below, the top 5% earn more than $212,000/year. [url=http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2010/06/top-5-earn-.html]Top 5% income earners[/url]...
As of June 1 last year, according to the web page at the link below, the top 5% earn more than $212,000/year.

Top 5% income earners


Google, my brotha...Google...
Thanks. I have been gone all day and didn't have a chance to answer Jim's question.
jmar
Posts
14154
Joined
2/11/2007
Location
Oklahoma City, OK, USA
8/16/2011 6:19pm
jtomasik wrote:
As of June 1 last year, according to the web page at the link below, the top 5% earn more than $212,000/year. [url=http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2010/06/top-5-earn-.html]Top 5% income earners[/url]...
As of June 1 last year, according to the web page at the link below, the top 5% earn more than $212,000/year.

Top 5% income earners


Google, my brotha...Google...
borg wrote:
Thanks. I have been gone all day and didn't have a chance to answer Jim's question.
Thanks for your concerned Borg. Even though you and I don't always agree, I know that our goals are not all that different.

Respect
jtomasik
Posts
12895
Joined
8/17/2006
Location
Golden, CO, USA
8/16/2011 6:20pm
jtomasik wrote:
As of June 1 last year, according to the web page at the link below, the top 5% earn more than $212,000/year. [url=http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2010/06/top-5-earn-.html]Top 5% income earners[/url]...
As of June 1 last year, according to the web page at the link below, the top 5% earn more than $212,000/year.

Top 5% income earners


Google, my brotha...Google...
jmar wrote:
I am close, but not quite there yet, so my opinion is worthless.
I'm not. Well, not with the goddamn alimony the ex gets. Jeezus H. Christ....somebody marry that girl, and quick!!!!

And Borg, you're obviously slacking. lol


jmar, what is it you do? You probably told me already, but I can't keep that shit straight around here....
jmar
Posts
14154
Joined
2/11/2007
Location
Oklahoma City, OK, USA
8/16/2011 6:43pm
jtomasik wrote:
As of June 1 last year, according to the web page at the link below, the top 5% earn more than $212,000/year. [url=http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2010/06/top-5-earn-.html]Top 5% income earners[/url]...
As of June 1 last year, according to the web page at the link below, the top 5% earn more than $212,000/year.

Top 5% income earners


Google, my brotha...Google...
jmar wrote:
I am close, but not quite there yet, so my opinion is worthless.
jtomasik wrote:
I'm not. Well, not with the goddamn alimony the ex gets. Jeezus H. Christ....somebody marry that girl, and quick!!!! And Borg, you're obviously slacking. lol jmar...
I'm not. Well, not with the goddamn alimony the ex gets. Jeezus H. Christ....somebody marry that girl, and quick!!!!

And Borg, you're obviously slacking. lol


jmar, what is it you do? You probably told me already, but I can't keep that shit straight around here....
I am the construction director/property manager for a commercial real estate company. We build, own and managed commercial real estate in the OKC DFW area. I am not much for writing skills, but my fabulous personal assistant takes care of my weakness in that area. I have been with this company for 22 years, and my back ground before this was managing large commercial and industrial constructions projects. To make a long story short, I am a guy that knows commercial construction, and property management inside out . Not a college grad, but my abilities of knowing the in's and out's of our everyday business have helped me get to where I am today.

I am a small minority owner in about a third of our portfolio and I have a decent amount of skin in the game.

Basically, I have a good deal of common sense, I know my business well but I don't claim to be the sharpest tool in the shed.
jtomasik
Posts
12895
Joined
8/17/2006
Location
Golden, CO, USA
8/16/2011 6:58pm
jmar wrote:
I am the construction director/property manager for a commercial real estate company. We build, own and managed commercial real estate in the OKC DFW area. I...
I am the construction director/property manager for a commercial real estate company. We build, own and managed commercial real estate in the OKC DFW area. I am not much for writing skills, but my fabulous personal assistant takes care of my weakness in that area. I have been with this company for 22 years, and my back ground before this was managing large commercial and industrial constructions projects. To make a long story short, I am a guy that knows commercial construction, and property management inside out . Not a college grad, but my abilities of knowing the in's and out's of our everyday business have helped me get to where I am today.

I am a small minority owner in about a third of our portfolio and I have a decent amount of skin in the game.

Basically, I have a good deal of common sense, I know my business well but I don't claim to be the sharpest tool in the shed.
Impressive! Yeah, common-sense business smarts are often underappreciated. Hell, slick talking academics are held on pedestals, and many look down on people without degrees. It's bullshit. Heck, it's why our government is so fucked. Sometimes I work with PhD's in large R&D companies, and those motherfuckers have zero common sense. Heck, I'd trade a bunch of my book-smarts for an extra dose of common sense any day of the week!
borg
Posts
7053
Joined
12/7/2009
Location
Long Beach, CA, USA
8/16/2011 7:36pm
jtomasik wrote:
As of June 1 last year, according to the web page at the link below, the top 5% earn more than $212,000/year. [url=http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2010/06/top-5-earn-.html]Top 5% income earners[/url]...
As of June 1 last year, according to the web page at the link below, the top 5% earn more than $212,000/year.

Top 5% income earners


Google, my brotha...Google...
jmar wrote:
I am close, but not quite there yet, so my opinion is worthless.
jtomasik wrote:
I'm not. Well, not with the goddamn alimony the ex gets. Jeezus H. Christ....somebody marry that girl, and quick!!!! And Borg, you're obviously slacking. lol jmar...
I'm not. Well, not with the goddamn alimony the ex gets. Jeezus H. Christ....somebody marry that girl, and quick!!!!

And Borg, you're obviously slacking. lol


jmar, what is it you do? You probably told me already, but I can't keep that shit straight around here....
Gimmie a break! I'm working!

I have met Jim. He's a good guy. Like most on here.
Frogman
Posts
906
Joined
10/14/2006
Location
Washington, DC, USA
8/16/2011 9:56pm
Rooster wrote:
Find me one person that earns a million dollars a year that receives it as a standard salary. Even pro athletes are smart enough to structure...
Find me one person that earns a million dollars a year that receives it as a standard salary. Even pro athletes are smart enough to structure their contracts so they don't get hooped like the average working shmuck.

How to structure payments for large salaries is part of any contract negotiation. That's why top level executives get their bonuses in stock options, deferred payments and other assets rather than as part of regular salary. Are you trying to imply that Buffet just has a better accountant than the rest of the people at his income level? Shit, I do the same things he does so that certainly can't be the case.

If you want the poor to pay as much in tax as the top 10% then you better tax them 5000% of their income. You could take everything they own and it wouldn't make a dent in what the über rich contribute. If you want to see more parity in taxation, then you need to have more parity in earnings. The main reason why the wealthy pay so much more than everybody else is that they earn so much more. If their comparative earnings weren't so out of whack with main street, the tax parity levels wouldn't be so fucked up. In other words, if they want more help with the tax burden they've created for themselves then they should pay higher wages so more people are contributing.

The increased tax burden on the wealthiest is more about the erosion of the middle and lower classes and the rise of the über rich. The income gap between the haves and the have nots has grown in the same disproportionate way as their tax burden has. There's a reason why Buffet is telling us to tax him and others like him. They can afford it and it's not going to impact their lifestyle or their business plans one bit.
Oh the comedy.
KAWboy14
Posts
6502
Joined
12/31/2007
Location
Austin, TX, USA
8/17/2011 3:33pm
they could fix gas prices at $2 per gallon and add $2 per gallon fed tax.......plenty of money!
90smxer
Posts
99
Joined
6/9/2011
Location
Cincinnati, OH, USA
8/17/2011 7:22pm
Rooster wrote:
Find me one person that earns a million dollars a year that receives it as a standard salary. Even pro athletes are smart enough to structure...
Find me one person that earns a million dollars a year that receives it as a standard salary. Even pro athletes are smart enough to structure their contracts so they don't get hooped like the average working shmuck.

How to structure payments for large salaries is part of any contract negotiation. That's why top level executives get their bonuses in stock options, deferred payments and other assets rather than as part of regular salary. Are you trying to imply that Buffet just has a better accountant than the rest of the people at his income level? Shit, I do the same things he does so that certainly can't be the case.

If you want the poor to pay as much in tax as the top 10% then you better tax them 5000% of their income. You could take everything they own and it wouldn't make a dent in what the über rich contribute. If you want to see more parity in taxation, then you need to have more parity in earnings. The main reason why the wealthy pay so much more than everybody else is that they earn so much more. If their comparative earnings weren't so out of whack with main street, the tax parity levels wouldn't be so fucked up. In other words, if they want more help with the tax burden they've created for themselves then they should pay higher wages so more people are contributing.

The increased tax burden on the wealthiest is more about the erosion of the middle and lower classes and the rise of the über rich. The income gap between the haves and the have nots has grown in the same disproportionate way as their tax burden has. There's a reason why Buffet is telling us to tax him and others like him. They can afford it and it's not going to impact their lifestyle or their business plans one bit.
Frogman wrote:
Oh the comedy.
What in Rooster's post do you find to be comedic? It seems spot on in my situation.
Rooster
Posts
4432
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Edmonton, CA
8/18/2011 11:44am
90smxer wrote:
What in Rooster's post do you find to be comedic? It seems spot on in my situation.
Don't bother.

It's the standard "I have no idea what you're talking about, but the man I listen to on the radio says your wrong." response.

If you think you'll get a well thought out articulate response from some of these guys, all I can say is don't hold your breath waiting for it.
SteveS
Posts
5598
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
USA
8/18/2011 11:56am
This is from 2008. Note the column called "cash salary"

ABC News, in collaboration with James F. Reda and Associates, complied a list of some of the companies in the headlines today and looked at just how much money some of these CEOs are taking home.

CEO Cash Salary Stock, Other Pay Total Pay
Lehman Brothers
2007 Richard Fuld $5,000,000 $66,770,000 $71,770,000
2006 Richard Fuld $7,000,000 $55,323,679 $62,323,679
2005 Richard Fuld $14,500,000 $89,500,000 $104,000,000
2004 Richard Fuld $11,000,000 $24,300,000 $35,300,000

Goldman Sachs
2007 Lloyd Blankfein $27,600,000 $15,500,000 $43,100,000
2006 Lloyd Blankfein $27,800,000 $15,700,000 $43,500,000
2006 Henry Paulson $129,087,000 $34,900,000 $163,987,000

Bear Stearns
2006 James Cayne $17,300,000 $14,800,000 $32,100,000
2005 James Cayne $12,900,000 $10,300,000 $23,200,000
2004 James Cayne $10,200,000 $9,500,000 $19,700,000

Merrill Lynch
2007 John Thain $15,800,000 $0 $15,800,000
2007 E. Stanley O'Neal $584,000 $161,000,000 $161,584,000
2006 E. Stanley O'Neal $19,200,000 $45,116,327 $64,316,327
2005 E. Stanley O'Neal $14,800,000 $3,120,000 $17,920,000

Washington Mutual
2007 Kerry K. Killinger $1,000,000 $3,468,625 $4,468,625
2006 Kerry K. Killinger $5,100,000 $17,153,715 $22,253,715
2005 Kerry K. Killinger $4,600,000 $8,876,608 $13,476,608
2004 Kerry K. Killinger $2,900,000 $12,335,416 $15,235,416

AIG
2007 Martin J. Sullivan $10,200,000 $5,647,439 $15,847,439
2006 Martin J. Sullivan $16,900,000 $5,838,656 $22,738,656
2005 Martin J. Sullivan $7,750,000 $159,000 $7,909,000
2004 M.R. "Hank" Greenberg $1,400,000 $12,002,880 $13,402,880

Fannie Mae
2007 Daniel Mudd $3,200,000 $5,200,000 $8,400,000
2006 Daniel Mudd $4,400,000 $2,290,000 $6,690,000

Freddie Mac
2007 Richard Syron $5,590,000 $0 $5,590,000
2006 Richard Syron $5,150,000 $0 $5,150,000
Rooster
Posts
4432
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Edmonton, CA
8/18/2011 2:37pm
Cash Salary is a bit of a misnomer it appears.

While CEO of Goldman Sachs Group in 2007, Blankfein earned a total compensation of $53,965,418, which included a base salary of $600,000, a cash bonus of $26,985,474, stocks granted of $15,542,756 and options granted of $10,453,031

Let's have a look at some of the others.

Forbes list the "salary" for the following:

James Cayne - $200K (not $17 million) as part of 28.4 million in compensation.
Kerry K. Killinger - $1 million in salary, but also nearly 23 million in compensation and not 4.5 million.
Daniel Mudd (2009) - $79,167 in salary as part of nearly 26 million in compensation.
Martin J Sullivan - 1M in salary as part of 17 million in compensation.

As long as that salary only makes up 1/6th to 1/50th of your compensation it's not such a big deal I guess. If a million dollar salary only made up 4% of what I earned I suppose that I wouldn't mind paying taxes on a million in salary. Of course we don't actually know what they pay in taxes either since those records are never made public. You can clearly see though that they're using alternative methods of compensation to reduce their taxes on the vast majority of their earnings.

While I was wrong to say that people don't take out a million in salary, it appears I underestimated how little a burden it would be when you took into account the rest of their earnings.
SteveS
Posts
5598
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
USA
8/18/2011 2:51pm Edited Date/Time 8/18/2011 2:53pm
You do know that when you are given a cash bonus you withhold out of it and pay tax on it the same as wages?

But yes, it's also true that when they are given stocks and other things as compensation if they receive gains on it, they are only taxed on that as capital gains. There's a risk to that kind of compensation, of course--if you don't sell it before everything goes bust, the value could be as little as nothing.
TeamGreen
Posts
37782
Joined
11/25/2008
Location
Thru-out, CA, USA
8/18/2011 3:18pm
Salary is a Trap: Other forms of Compensation are/is the smart man's game.
Frogman
Posts
906
Joined
10/14/2006
Location
Washington, DC, USA
8/18/2011 4:39pm Edited Date/Time 8/18/2011 4:40pm
90smxer wrote:
What in Rooster's post do you find to be comedic? It seems spot on in my situation.
Rooster wrote:
Don't bother. It's the standard "I have no idea what you're talking about, but the man I listen to on the radio says your wrong." response...
Don't bother.

It's the standard "I have no idea what you're talking about, but the man I listen to on the radio says your wrong." response.

If you think you'll get a well thought out articulate response from some of these guys, all I can say is don't hold your breath waiting for it.
Sorry, I don't sit in front of Vital all day.

"Interesting read, especially the part about payroll taxes.
Everybody seemed to think I was making that shit up a couple of weeks ago. At least Buffet gets it."


"Find me one person that earns a million dollars a year that receives it as a standard salary. "

Standard salary being payments subject to the full range of payroll taxes...there are MANY executives that get 1 million dollar or higher standard salaries. Most of the banks involved in the bailouts had multiple executives with 1-6 million dollar cash salaries or more...plus cash bonuses. Ed Mueller, CEO of Qwest, has a 1.2 million dollar base salary and multi-million dollar cash bonuses on top of the stock options mentioned.

"Even pro athletes are smart enough to structure their contracts so they don't get hooped like the average working shmuck"

There aren't enough years in many pro athletes lives to structure their payments to come out in a better tax bracket than the average shmuck. Assuming an athlete only makes 10 million over a career...they would have to "structure" the payments over 200 years to be in an equivalent tax bracket if we assume the shmuck earns 50k per year. Sure, the 15% SS taxes would make a small difference but you aren't going to take 150 years out of that "structure" by getting creative with stock options. Pro athletes rarely get paid in stock options anyhow. Further, with some athletes getting 20-30+ million dollar contracts (excluding endorsements, appearances, etc)....there is no way they are reducing that income down to the equivalent of a 50-100k a year shmuck...much less a 20-30k shmuck. if we are talking about a 200k career pro bowler then yes, we may have a comparison.

"Are you trying to imply that Buffet just has a better accountant than the rest of the people at his income level? Shit, I do the same things he does so that certainly can't be the case"

Does the comedy in this need explaining?

Short of it is it would be a fluke that these people weren't in the top bracket as Borg stated.
Frogman
Posts
906
Joined
10/14/2006
Location
Washington, DC, USA
8/18/2011 5:03pm
SteveS wrote:
You do know that when you are given a cash bonus you withhold out of it and pay tax on it the same as wages? But...
You do know that when you are given a cash bonus you withhold out of it and pay tax on it the same as wages?

But yes, it's also true that when they are given stocks and other things as compensation if they receive gains on it, they are only taxed on that as capital gains. There's a risk to that kind of compensation, of course--if you don't sell it before everything goes bust, the value could be as little as nothing.
If they are "given" stocks and other things...they are taxed on the value of the property at the time received. If they are employees, it is treated as normal compensation and payroll taxes will be due. if they are not employees (directors and such) it is self employment income subject to both parts of SS/Med.

If they are granted stock options...they are taxed on the difference of the market price and their option price at the time of exercise.

Post a reply to: Very Interesting Read from Buffett

The Latest