The coming social disaster as best I can figure

[TheMercenary]

Buffett's Berkshire Owes $1 Billion In Back Taxes

Billionaire investor Warren Buffett triggered a major debate over taxes recently when he wrote in The New York Times that he should be paying more to the federal government. He called on Washington lawmakers to up tax rates on the rich.

But it turns out that Buffett’s own company, Berkshire Hathaway, has had every opportunity to pay more taxes over the last decade. Instead, it’s been mired in a protracted legal battle with the Internal Revenue Service over a bill that one analyst estimates may total $1 billion.

Yes, that’s right: while Warren Buffett complains that the rich aren’t paying their fair share his own company has been fighting tooth and nail to avoid paying a larger share.

The story of Berkshire's years-long tax battle, which is generally known in business circles, took on new life this week when a group called Americans for Limited Government (ALG) reported that, according to Berkshire Hathaway’s own annual report, the company is embroiled in an ongoing standoff over its tax bills.

That report, in turn, was cited in an editorial in The New York Post.

“Obvious question: If Buffett really thinks he and his 'mega-rich friends' should pay higher taxes, why doesn’t his firm fork over what it already owes under current rates?” the Post opined.

“Likely answer: He cares more about shilling for President Obama -- who’s practically made socking “millionaires and billionaires” his re-election theme song -- than about kicking in more himself.”

Using only publicly-available documents, a certified public accountant (CPA) detailed Berkshire Hathaway’s tax problems to ALG. AlG President Bill Wilson cites the company’s own 2010 annual report, which states at one point that “At December 31, 2010… net unrecognized tax benefits were $1,005 million”, or about $1 billion.”

“Unrecognized tax benefits represent the company’s potential future obligation to the IRS and other taxing authorities,” ALG explained in its report. “They have to be recorded in the company’s financial statements.”

“The notation means that Berkshire Hathaway’s own auditors have probably said that $1 billion is more likely than not owed to the government,” the ALG report explained.

That $1 billion represents about 0.2 percent of the company’s $372 billion in total assets, according to ALG.

As Wilson points out, “On one hand Buffett advocates for paying more taxes, but when it comes to his own company’s taxes, he has gone through great lengths to pay less. That’s rich.”

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/buff...o_code=CF64-1#

[BigV]

So the ALG's interpretation of the line in the Berkshire document is that Berkshire probably owes some taxes.

Are you suggesting that incorporated entities decline to take advantage of all the benefits of the tax laws available to it? Why would anyone voluntarily pay more taxes than the law obligates them to do so? Your citation says they had the chance to pay more but didn't. Ok, that makes them EXACTLY like every other person I know. I only pay what I have to, I take advantage of all the legal options available to me to minimize the taxes I pay, so do you.

And I'd like you to try to substantiate the assertion that Buffett advocates paying more taxes. What I've read is that Buffett advocates changing the tax laws so that those with more means pay more taxes. This story simply validates Buffett's point--the laws in place now make it legal and possible, indeed, compulsory for corporations to pay as little as possible (see fiduciary responsibility and corporate opportunity). Which, ironically, results in a lower percentage than some individuals pay.

Thanks for making Warren Buffett's point for him.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by BigV

..... probably owes some taxes.....

... .... Dude you have to be kidding me?

[BigV]

pretty selective quoting---

ALG's interpretation of the Berkshire document is __________

you kind of left that part out.

It's their interpretation. Sure, everybody's entitled to their opinion, you, me, everybody. In this situation the opinions that matter are the ones in the courtroom. My lawyers can beat up your lawyers, etc etc.

It's one article describing one outfit's opinion, and cited by one other outfit. Meh.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by BigV

pretty selective quoting---



you kind of left that part out.

It's their interpretation. Sure, everybody's entitled to their opinion, you, me, everybody. In this situation the opinions that matter are the ones in the courtroom. My lawyers can beat up your lawyers, etc etc.

It's one article describing one outfit's opinion, and cited by one other outfit. Meh.

Absofuckinglutley...... So what's your point?

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Dude you have to be kidding me?

A wacko extremist progapanda service pretending to be "Fair and Balanced" created half truths. So TheMercenary posts it here as if it was fact. Again to everyone outside America or too young to know an America where wackos were mostly silent (also called the KKK), TheMercenary represents the large numbers of Americans so easily brainwashed by soundbytes.

Why are wackos attacking Buffet? Because Buffet so accurately identified some of America's greatest problems. The rich are getting rich at the expense of all other people. Then these same 'rich' are buying those most responsible for their obscene wealth - wacko extremists Republicans.

One would think those who are not mega-rich would be furious. But some are that easily brainwashed by soundbytes. What is destructive to every American reading this is what TheMercenary has been told is good - by "Fair and Balanced" propaganda machines (and think tanks) masking as new services (and responsible researchers).

Deutche Welle featured a news report entitled "Why is the American Empire constantly at war?" Because so many Americans are now told how to think by soundbytes from Limbaugh and other "Fair and Balanced" extremist propaganda machines.

When do we find Saddam’s WMDs? Why did we all but protect bin Laden when wackos controlled the White House and Congress? At what point do the brainwashed discover history says they were obviously lied to – and still believe those lies.

[TheMercenary]

You all need to remember now... this guy gave millions to Obama.

[HungLikeJesus]

tw gave millions to Obama?

[BigV]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Absofuckinglutley...... So what's your point?

My point is that a single hostile opposing voice does not a fact make. People talk shit all the time, as you well know. Doesn't make it true, just makes it talk.

You could look up tautology if you wanted to learn more.

[TheMercenary]

Dude, if you ignore Buffet's failure to pay what is owed you have no hope in any conversation defending the liberal fools.....

[BigV]

Dude.

Who's to say what is owed? There's a dispute. There's a question about the interpretation of the tax laws, such questions are resolved in court. Of course you know this already. It is the purpose of the court to decide which party's position is right. Until that judgement is rendered, the payment is pending.

You don't have the authority to say what Berkshire Hathaway owes in taxes, and neither does this Americans for Limited Government outfit. The court does. It's complicated because, surprise, surprise, the tax code is byzantine. The very kinds of things that complicate such points as "how much is owed" are the very things that provide the kinds of LEGAL opportunities to reduce Berkshire's tax liability. The very things that make it possible for a kabillion dollar corporation to pay a lower rate of taxes than, say, the secretary.

This story makes Buffet's very point that our laws are built in favor, OVERWHELMINGLY in favor, and to the tune of tons of money, in favor of the rich, and at the expense of our country. Thank you, TheMercenary, for highlighting Buffet's point that our laws need to be changed.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Dude, if you ignore Buffet's failure to pay what is owed you have no hope in any conversation defending the liberal fools.....

Yeah, what BigV said.

And Buffet is only one person, albeit a rich one. His is only one voice in the debate.

And please explain to me why liberals are fools for wanting to protect the social safety net for the most vulnerable members of our society? Where is the wisdom in putting low income children, disabled, and elderly out on the street; depriving them of nutrition by taking their food stamps away; and refusing them medications and medical treatment by dismantling Medicaid?

The cruelty that will be unleashed on the poor if these cuts take place is indefensible. I would really like to know how you personally can defend such actions. And some cut and paste response is really not an acceptable response.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by SamIam

Yeah, what BigV said.

And Buffet is only one person, albeit a rich one. His is only one voice in the debate.

Wait, where is all the wailing about "The Rich", the "Millionaires and Billionaires", the "Owners of the Private Jet Companies".... or were you just talking about the people who make more that 220k? Where is the outrage about Obama's relationships with Goldman Sachs, or GE and the jobs creation program they just announced in China, all the while the CEO sits on Obama's cabinet? The list goes on and on.... your outrage is misplaced.

And please explain to me why liberals are fools for wanting to protect the social safety net for the most vulnerable members of our society?

How are you going to pay for it? Oh, I know, redistribute wealth, take money away from people who busted their ass to live the dream and then just use the gobberment to snatch it away. What part of the US Constitution gives them that power?

Where is the wisdom in putting low income children, disabled, and elderly out on the street; depriving them of nutrition by taking their food stamps away; and refusing them medications and medical treatment by dismantling Medicaid?

Who says they are going to do any of these things so much as have a chance in hell of getting any such changes through Congress? Obama has been fear mongering Social Security on the population since the Debit debate. When he knows fully well that it is solvent for quite a few years. They only way any of this is going to change is if the people vote Republickins in lock stock and barrel. I don't think that will happen either.

The cruelty that will be unleashed on the poor if these cuts take place is indefensible. I would really like to know how you personally can defend such actions. And some cut and paste response is really not an acceptable response.

The thought that such cuts are looming is fantasy perpetrated by Obama and the fear mongering Leftists. I see it is working.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by BigV

Thank you, TheMercenary, for highlighting Buffet's point that our laws need to be changed.

You are welcome.

[TheMercenary]

Maybe Obama and his ilk can start by saving money here!:

U.S. Secret Service gets 2 new buses ahead of Obama tour

The U.S. Secret Service has two new buses in its fleet for President Obama to use on his three-day, three-state Midwestern bus trip that kicked off Monday.

CBS News has learned the buses were purchased in recent months at a cost of just under $1.1-million each and will serve as part of the fleet of vehicles the Service uses for all of its protectees.

In the past, the Secret Service would lease buses as needed and outfit them with the security and communications equipment.

"We have not been satisfied with the level of protection offered by leased buses," said a Secret Service official.

Last year, the Secret Service placed an order for two buses with the Hemphill Brothers Coach Company of Whites Creek, Tennessee at a combined cost of $2,191,960.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...60-503544.html

There are an easy 2 million plus in savings, for a three day trip.