Warren Buffett gives away his fortune

[RickSp]

It is amusing that one poster has attacked Buffett for supporting the Estate Tax while another attacks Buffett as part of a conspiracy to abolish the Estate Tax, of which Buffett has always been a vocal supporter. Neither argument makes any particular sense to me.

I guess if you have enough money, even if you are using it to support good causes, all sides feel free to attack.

[bishop]

while marylin is the only person to directly say it - it seems that several people here think that buffett should've donated his money to the federal government instead.

fortunately buffett is smart enough to realize how stupid donating his money to our government would be.

[RickSp]

Quote by: bishop while marylin is the only person to directly say it - it seems that several people here think that buffett should've donated his money to the federal government instead. fortunately buffett is smart enough to realize how stupid donating his money to our government would be.

Buffett's thirty billion would last about five months in Iraq.

[brien]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Also nono, let me say this..... Is it, or is it not somewhat NATURALLY humilliating to DEPEND on charity? Now, asking or even receiving charity, from a WILLING DONOR is something people must do sometimes, I have too. The big part is the WILLING DONOR part. When you have a man/agent/government, standing with a gun pointed at another working man, to FORCE SOMEONE to give you a handout, isn't that MUCH MORE degrading, and also criminal by intent? What gives YOU the right to EXPECT a handout from ANYONE? Perhaps you are counting on the "better side of man" which we have seen in our day to day lives, the charitable man? Perhaps you are thinking of those organizations that are non-profit that exist simply by man's good will to look after those less fortunate? It is one thing to "expect" a handout based on good will. It is another thing entirely to put a gun in the hand of a government agent and say "go out and get me (x) money from joe schmo, so I can take some off the top, and distribute some to the needy who I pre-qualify according to my terms of needy", is it not? Man overall as a whole, is GENERALLY good, and giving, especially if they are allowed to keep all they earn. Maybe we should try that for a while, since we know government doesn't share the same disposition with funding, especially aid funding, especially if coming from ANY form of taxation?

OK, let's peel away all of the onion skins here and attempt to really understand what is happening in the US. The real question seems to be whether one wants the government to control more of their lives by controlling more of their money, or does one desire and trust the private sector to do the same thing.

Quite frankly, I see the trend of citizens giving more and more of their lives over to the control of their government. To me, this is the scariest part of what is happening, not only in the US, but the world over. People seem to want to be controlled by the government rather than be individuals, and take the responsibilty that goes with individualism.

I am an individual, and I see every trangression of the state against my freedom and individuality as just one more step into the abohring decent into a totalitarian state. The forced redistribution of wealth is a powerful factor in sucking individuals into governmental control over those and other individuals. The more I see government growing and becomming more powerful over the individual by the state, the more I understand that people are allowing this to happen to them. Eventually, the government will control every aspect of an individual's life, if it doesn't already. And that my friends, is the scary bottom line.

[brien]

Quote by: Nono Nixon didn't make a fuss. And JFK proceeded to bed dozens (hundreds?) of women right there in the White House. These two seemingly unrelated facts aren't. The presidency (political office in general) had a halo over it in those days. Decent people simply didn't talk in public about elections being stolen. If Nixon had, he would have looked like a Bad Loser. Instead, he doubtless recited the Kennedy motto to himself: Don't get mad, get even. As you know, it's still unseemly to suggest that elections in the US are stolen. Complaints about Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004 were treated by the media like a loud fart in a polite salon, i.e.ignored.

Yes indeed Nono. Also Nixon waited to eat his revenge off a cold plate. I was recently thinking if John Kerry may attempt to win the nomination again. I believe it is too soon for him because the Dems have learned bitter lessons on this strategy. Adlai Stevenson tried it in the election of 1956. Never return a losing candidate fresh from the loss back to the fray.

[carriew]

[quote=brien]
Example. My son works for union wages in carton printing plant. He is forced to work overtime of which the majority of this overtime money get sucked up in taxes. He is loathe to be forced to work when the majority of this overtime money is confisgated by the government. Hence, his productivity is reduced, his attitude is negative, and his take home pay is less than it would be if he weren't so heavily taxed upon the "time and half" wages.

Warren Buffet and Bill Gates aside, the average worker in the US resents increased forced withholding when it reaches beyond their regular wages and digs into to their "extra efforts" in productivity known as "overtime". Time and time again, I hear workers say:

"Why should I work overtime when most of the money goes to the government"? I believe they have a valid point.

[quote]


You are wrong in your thinking. follow me for a second if you will. you are taxed a certian rate depending on what you claim on your inital w-2(or whatever it is)in the beginning of the year or employment, you can have it changed at any time.

your hours all of them are taxed at this rate with the final reconcilliation at the end of the year on april 15th!

now if you work so much overtime that you get bumped in tax bracket you will pay a higher tax on all of your earnings. but the rate per check stays the same! they actually dont take out more % wise. really.

if I am mistaken please forgive and correct me but this is my understanding of it.

now back to reading the thread...

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: bishop while marylin is the only person to directly say it - it seems that several people here think that buffett should've donated his money to the federal government instead. fortunately buffett is smart enough to realize how stupid donating his money to our government would be.

I don't think he should have, but I think he should do what he truly believes in, but that usually doesn't happen with hardly anybody. Taxes are definitely a problem, but if you like them, then you shouldn't have a problem paying them.

He's going to be seen as a huge good guy by going the charity route, but if he went the government route he wouldn't have been anything but a taxpayer.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe I don't think he should have, but I think he should do what he truly believes in, but that usually doesn't happen with hardly anybody. Taxes are definitely a problem, but if you like them, then you shouldn't have a problem paying them. He's going to be seen as a huge good guy by going the charity route, but if he went the government route he wouldn't have been anything but a taxpayer.

I don't understand your persistent rant about taxes. Buffett paid taxes on his earning at least once. There is no indication that he "liked taxes". He did oppose the repeal of the inheritence tax which is hardly the same thing.

Buffett had long said that he did not believe in inherited wealth. There is absolutely nothing inconsistent with this belief and with giving his fortune away to a good cause. If he gave his fortune to the government it would have been squandered. Not only does he have every right to do as he did but it is completely consistent.

And guess what? In the case certainly, he is a "huge good guy".

[Marilyn Monroe]

[quote=carriew][quote=brien]
Example. My son works for union wages in carton printing plant. He is forced to work overtime of which the majority of this overtime money get sucked up in taxes. He is loathe to be forced to work when the majority of this overtime money is confisgated by the government. Hence, his productivity is reduced, his attitude is negative, and his take home pay is less than it would be if he weren't so heavily taxed upon the "time and half" wages.

Warren Buffet and Bill Gates aside, the average worker in the US resents increased forced withholding when it reaches beyond their regular wages and digs into to their "extra efforts" in productivity known as "overtime". Time and time again, I hear workers say:

"Why should I work overtime when most of the money goes to the government"? I believe they have a valid point.

You are wrong in your thinking. follow me for a second if you will. you are taxed a certian rate depending on what you claim on your inital w-2(or whatever it is)in the beginning of the year or employment, you can have it changed at any time. your hours all of them are taxed at this rate with the final reconcilliation at the end of the year on april 15th! now if you work so much overtime that you get bumped in tax bracket you will pay a higher tax on all of your earnings. but the rate per check stays the same! they actually dont take out more % wise. really. if I am mistaken please forgive and correct me but this is my understanding of it. now back to reading the thread...

From Turbo Tax:

Your Marginal Tax Rate

You may consider the amount of money you earn during a calendar year as one lump sum that you call income. But the IRS looks at income in a different way: it charges you different tax rates for different levels of your taxable income. That's because the U.S. income tax is a graduated tax, designed so that people pay an increasing percentage rate as their income rises through various tax brackets as outlined in the table below.

In this tiered system, you pay 15% on the first tier of taxable income (not 10% just yet: see Rate Reduction Credit and What It Means to You below). For a single person in 2001, the first $27,050 in earnings is taxed at 15%. After that, you pay 27.5% on the next tier -- between $27,051 and $65,550 for a single person. You pay increasing percentages as your income rises, topping out at 39.1% on all income over $297,350.

The marginal tax rate can go up with overtime, and even put you in a higher tax bracket is what I just read.

I don't understand this stuff too much, either.

[Mia]

You are wrong in your thinking. follow me for a second if you will. you are taxed a certian rate depending on what you claim on your inital w-2(or whatever it is)in the beginning of the year or employment, you can have it changed at any time. your hours all of them are taxed at this rate with the final reconcilliation at the end of the year on april 15th! now if you work so much overtime that you get bumped in tax bracket you will pay a higher tax on all of your earnings. but the rate per check stays the same! they actually dont take out more % wise. really. if I am mistaken please forgive and correct me but this is my understanding of it. now back to reading the thread...

Well, the W-2 doesn't tell them your tax rate. It tells them the number of exemptions you have which is part of the equation. The rest is your level of income.

They might take out more on checks that have the overtime, but it is the yearly total that will determine the actual tax rate in the end.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: RickSp I don't understand your persistent rant about taxes. Buffett paid taxes on his earning at least once. There is no indication that he "liked taxes". He did oppose the repeal of the inheritence tax which is hardly the same thing. Buffett had long said that he did not believe in inherited wealth. There is absolutely nothing inconsistent with this belief and with giving his fortune away to a good cause. If he gave his fortune to the government it would have been squandered. Not only does he have every right to do as he did but it is completely consistent. And guess what? In the case certainly, he is a "huge good guy".

He believed in "big" government, so I'd say that he wanted everybody to think he liked paying the taxes that go with it.

I don't think he is being consistent, and that's where we differ.

[brien]

[quote=carriew][quote=brien]
Example. My son works for union wages in carton printing plant. He is forced to work overtime of which the majority of this overtime money get sucked up in taxes. He is loathe to be forced to work when the majority of this overtime money is confisgated by the government. Hence, his productivity is reduced, his attitude is negative, and his take home pay is less than it would be if he weren't so heavily taxed upon the "time and half" wages.

Warren Buffet and Bill Gates aside, the average worker in the US resents increased forced withholding when it reaches beyond their regular wages and digs into to their "extra efforts" in productivity known as "overtime". Time and time again, I hear workers say:

"Why should I work overtime when most of the money goes to the government"? I believe they have a valid point.

You are wrong in your thinking. follow me for a second if you will. you are taxed a certian rate depending on what you claim on your inital w-2(or whatever it is)in the beginning of the year or employment, you can have it changed at any time. your hours all of them are taxed at this rate with the final reconcilliation at the end of the year on april 15th! now if you work so much overtime that you get bumped in tax bracket you will pay a higher tax on all of your earnings. but the rate per check stays the same! they actually dont take out more % wise. really. if I am mistaken please forgive and correct me but this is my understanding of it. now back to reading the thread...

Carrie: You may be correct in the yearly reconcilliation but according to my kids paycheck, when he goes into time and half, they withhold more money because he is earning more money. This is how withholding is set up. The more money one earns where the employer is withholding and reporting the taxes of their workers, the more is withheld for tax liability. This is why it saps the productivity of workers who earn hourly wages. The wage earner see more money go towards the government and this is a dis- incentive for working overtime.

[brien]

Quote by: Nono What's noteworthy, and endlessly breathtaking, is the econo-religious dogma that private is somehow more efficient and effective than public.

Nono; Is you use of the word "public" a code word for government?

[brien]

Quote by: Mia I don't see how that could be the case. As you earn more, the % taken is raised, but it's not 'most' of the increase. For instance, if you get a 50% pay raise, and that moves you into a 10% higher tax range, you are still taking home signifigantly more money than you were.

I meant that the more one makes on any single paycheck, the more money willl have to be withheld for taxes. The employee sees increased contributions toward SS and Medicare. This they never will get back until they are 65. This is the case when employers are involved in withholding tax contributions made by employees. Time and half results in more money being withheld on the paycheck for which the time and half is paid. This is what saps the incentive of the employee to work the overtime in the first instance. Thus my point that increased taxes on labor and income, saps productivity.

[carriew]

they are withholding the same percentage PERIOD> just becasue you dont understand that the more you make the number is higher but the % is the same doesnt mean thats not how it works.

my husband is an hourly wage earner and I can figure his paycheck every week to within 5 dollars. even the overtime ones and I dont change the overall percentage.

you both I think need a math review.

[brien]

Quote by: carriew they are withholding the same percentage PERIOD> just becasue you dont understand that the more you make the number is higher but the % is the same doesnt mean thats not how it works. my husband is an hourly wage earner and I can figure his paycheck every week to within 5 dollars. even the overtime ones and I dont change the overall percentage. you both I think need a math review.

Carrie. Your point about percentage is well taken. I am not disputing that. What I am saying is that since the hourly wage earner sees MORE taxes, SS and Medicare taken out of his paycheck when he/she works overtime, it discourages them from working the overtime. Let's say a person makes 10.00 per hour. 20% of his pay is withheld amounting to $2.00 every hour. When he/she earns time and a half, the 20% amounts to $3.00 per hour which in the workers mind is higher than what he normally pays. Further more, he is no longer earing $15 per hour but $12.00 per hour, no longer time and a half, in his/her mind. It is a psychological disincentive. I have seen it in many hourly workers. Their mantra is: "Why should I work the overtime, when so much of the money goes to the governmment." Have you never heard this? Right or wrong, it is prevelant thinking in some of the hourly wage earners minds. I am afraid you have missed my point about this.

Now, I hope I have made myself clear because you see, I do understand payroll and taxes and did make it through undergraduate school as well. I can always use a math review, but it would perhaps be better spent in Trig. :)

[carriew]

I know nothing of trig but I do know about money!

I totally understood your point but I have actually had this discussion with business owners and they dont understand it at all. they 100% believe that actually more % wise comes out. I wanted it to be perfectly clear to any hourly wage earner that may be reading this and think that what you said or what everyone believes is correct because it was not.

ETA--- by your example of 10 dollars and 2 in taxes and 15 and 3 in taxes. take it one step further. he is really making 8 dollars for reg time and 12 overtime so it is still time and 1/2

[Nono]

Quote by: brien Nono; Is you use of the word "public" a code word for government?

No. (Though I could ask you: What do you mean by "government"? Is that a code word -- when used by you -- for oppressive, politically manipulated bureaucracy?)

Naturally, "public" means belonging to the public -- society as a whole -- which in my view has to mean, in a sense, to the "government" inasmuch as the (duly elected) government is the custodian of society's collective property.

But does it also mean a plaything that any time-serving political hack can do whatever he wants with to crank up his lousy ratings or pay off his cronies? No.

To give you an example. Air Canada (before it was privatized by Ottawa's slavish followers of neo-liberal fashion and lickspittle lackies of Bay Street) used to be what was called in that country a "crown corporation". It had its own management, which had general instructions to run a tight and profitable ship within the framework of federal transport policy* and general public policy. It was Canada's national airline. It was popular. It generally made a profit. And when it did, that profit fed the federal treasury.

In other words, it was public property, with various safeguards against political interference.

When I talk about public services, public enterprise, etc., that's what I mean, though of course it needn't necessarily be a profit-making venture. Could be a public service (i.e. benefiting all) paid for out of the public purse.

*So did it make unprofitable flights -- as a public service -- to back-of-beyond places like Timmins, Ontario LOL? Yes. The cost was made up by revenue on other flights.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: carriew they are withholding the same percentage PERIOD> just becasue you dont understand that the more you make the number is higher but the % is the same doesnt mean thats not how it works. my husband is an hourly wage earner and I can figure his paycheck every week to within 5 dollars. even the overtime ones and I dont change the overall percentage. you both I think need a math review.

I think the percentage can vary. That's what the Turbo Tax deal was explaining. OT can throw you into a higher tax bracket even though you won't stay at that level all year, and at the end of the year it will depend on the grand total, but when you make say a sudden $1,000 when you usually make $600 it could throw you in where more taxes will be taken out.

[carriew]

no you are wrong. it may bump you overall at the end of the year but the % is determined by your deductions not how much you have made.