info
Google グループは Usenet の新規の投稿と購読のサポートを終了しました。過去のコンテンツは引き続き閲覧できます。
Dismiss
Warrne Buffet explains how Grover Norquist is full of shit -- Norquist is rapidly becoming the most irrelevant person in Washington, less relevant than even Willar Romney
閲覧: 7 回
最初の未読メッセージにスキップ
Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names
2012/11/26 7:40:382012/11/26
To:
Warren Buffett is out with a NYT op-ed calling for a minimum tax on
the rich.
We'll get to his specifics in a second, but the part that will get the
most attention is his intro, where he calls out Grover Norquist, the
powerful activist who gets Republicans who "pledge" that they'll never
raise taxes.
Buffett writes:
SUPPOSE that an investor you admire and trust comes to you with an
investment idea. “This is a good one,” he says enthusiastically. “I’m
in it, and I think you should be, too.”
Would your reply possibly be this? “Well, it all depends on what my
tax rate will be on the gain you’re saying we’re going to make. If the
taxes are too high, I would rather leave the money in my savings
account, earning a quarter of 1 percent.” Only in Grover Norquist’s
imagination does such a response exist.
With the fiscal cliff debate heating up, criticism of Grover Norquist
and his influence is growing louder.
A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/26/opinion/buffett-a-minimum-tax-for-the-wealthy.html
SUPPOSE that an investor you admire and trust comes to you with an
investment idea. “This is a good one,” he says enthusiastically. “I’m
in it, and I think you should be, too.”
Would your reply possibly be this? “Well, it all depends on what my
tax rate will be on the gain you’re saying we’re going to make. If the
taxes are too high, I would rather leave the money in my savings
account, earning a quarter of 1 percent.” Only in Grover Norquist’s
imagination does such a response exist.
Between 1951 and 1954, when the capital gains rate was 25 percent and
marginal rates on dividends reached 91 percent in extreme cases, I
sold securities and did pretty well. In the years from 1956 to 1969,
the top marginal rate fell modestly, but was still a lofty 70 percent
— and the tax rate on capital gains inched up to 27.5 percent. I was
managing funds for investors then. Never did anyone mention taxes as a
reason to forgo an investment opportunity that I offered.
Under those burdensome rates, moreover, both employment and the gross
domestic product (a measure of the nation’s economic output) increased
at a rapid clip. The middle class and the rich alike gained ground.
Read more:
http://www.businessinsider.com/warren-buffett-calls-out-grover-norquist-on-taxes-2012-11#ixzz2DK9fK4Dc
**********
Republicans have been fleeced
and exploited and lied to
by a conservative entertainment complex....
-- David Frum, Bush speechwriter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQnCVWDLmxk&feature=related
Y Deleon-Dang
2012/11/26 19:05:322012/11/26
To:
'Lickin' Ass and Fakin' Military Service' is a Proven Fraud, a Proven
Liar, a Proven Thief, and recently a Proven Malicious Poster. She is
the most prolific liar in this newsgroup and also the most prolific
thief of other's writings. She is also a Stolen Valor stain on
America. Note that when you reply to a Proven Liar you encourage them
to continue lying.
[][][][][][]
The DemocRAT Hall Of Shame http://www.democrathallofshame.com/ asks
"Why do you always LIE?"
On Thu, 28 May 2009 14:46:03 -0700 (PDT), "Kickin' Ass and Takin'
Names" <old_r...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>As an appeals court justice, she has written 380 decisions, only three
>of which have been overturned.
Oops! LYING, again...
Sotomayor overturned 60% of the time by Supremes
May 27, 2009
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/05/sotomayor_overturned_60_of_the.html
Sotomayor reversed 60% by high court
May 27, 2009
"Three of the five majority opinions written by Judge Sotomayor for
the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and reviewed by the Supreme Court
were reversed..."
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/27/60-reversal-of-sotomayor-rulings-gives-fodder-to-f/
Posted from:
The DemocRATs Hall of Shame!
http://www.democrathallofshame.com/
Liar, a Proven Thief, and recently a Proven Malicious Poster. She is
the most prolific liar in this newsgroup and also the most prolific
thief of other's writings. She is also a Stolen Valor stain on
America. Note that when you reply to a Proven Liar you encourage them
to continue lying.
[][][][][][]
The DemocRAT Hall Of Shame http://www.democrathallofshame.com/ asks
"Why do you always LIE?"
On Thu, 28 May 2009 14:46:03 -0700 (PDT), "Kickin' Ass and Takin'
Names" <old_r...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>As an appeals court justice, she has written 380 decisions, only three
>of which have been overturned.
Oops! LYING, again...
Sotomayor overturned 60% of the time by Supremes
May 27, 2009
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/05/sotomayor_overturned_60_of_the.html
Sotomayor reversed 60% by high court
May 27, 2009
"Three of the five majority opinions written by Judge Sotomayor for
the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and reviewed by the Supreme Court
were reversed..."
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/27/60-reversal-of-sotomayor-rulings-gives-fodder-to-f/
Posted from:
The DemocRATs Hall of Shame!
http://www.democrathallofshame.com/
Robert Westergrom,1900 Harvey rd.,Wilmington,D.E
2012/11/27 7:13:292012/11/27
To:
On Nov 26, 6:40 am, Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names
Early in his career, Buffett invested heavily—almost one third of his
early fund's capital—in Sanborn Map, a company that mapped utility
lines and such. But he soon grew frustrated with the company's
leadership, which "operated more like a club than a business," and
which refused to return greater dividends to investors. So Buffett
amassed more and more stock, and with control of the company finally
in hand he pressed the board of directors to split the company in two
(one for the mapping business, and one to hold the company's other
outsized investments).
Finally, the board capitulated. But with victory finally at hand,
Buffett nearly scuttled the deal because of ... taxes. As Schroeder
recounts, quoting Buffett, one director proposed that the company just
cleanly break the company, despite the tax consequences—"let's just
swallow the tax," he suggested.
To which Buffett replied (as he recounted to Schroeder):
And I said, 'Wait a minute. Let's -- "Let's" is a contraction. It
means "let us." But who is this us? If everyone around the table
wants to do it per capita, that's fine, but if you want to do it in a
ratio of shares owned, and you get ten shares' worth of tax and I get
twenty-four thousand shares' worth, forget it.'
Buffett was willing to walk away from a deal because the taxes would
have taken too much of a bite out of it. Fortunately for him, the
board gave in and allowed him to structure the deal that he liked,
saving him from his own Norquistian response.
That's not the only time that taxes played a major role on Buffett's
decisions, as recounted by Schroeder. Later in the book (pp. 533-534),
she recounts how Buffett chose to structure his investments under
Berkshire Hathaway's corporate umbrella, rather than as part of his
hedge fund's general portfolio, precisely because of the tax
advantages.
<PopUlist...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Warren Buffett is out with a NYT op-ed calling for a minimum tax on
> the rich.
>
> We'll get to his specifics in a second, but the part that will get the
> most attention is his intro, where he calls out Grover Norquist, the
> powerful activist who gets Republicans who "pledge" that they'll never
> raise taxes.
>
> Buffett writes:
>
> SUPPOSE that an investor you admire and trust comes to you with an
> investment idea. This is a good one, he says enthusiastically. I m
> in it, and I think you should be, too.
> Would your reply possibly be this? Well, it all depends on what my
> tax rate will be on the gain you re saying we re going to make. If the
> taxes are too high, I would rather leave the money in my savings
> account, earning a quarter of 1 percent. Only in Grover Norquist s
> imagination does such a response exist.
>
> With the fiscal cliff debate heating up, criticism of Grover Norquist
> and his influence is growing louder.
>
> A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/26/opinion/buffett-a-minimum-tax-for-t...
> Warren Buffett is out with a NYT op-ed calling for a minimum tax on
> the rich.
>
> We'll get to his specifics in a second, but the part that will get the
> most attention is his intro, where he calls out Grover Norquist, the
> powerful activist who gets Republicans who "pledge" that they'll never
> raise taxes.
>
> Buffett writes:
>
> SUPPOSE that an investor you admire and trust comes to you with an
> investment idea. This is a good one, he says enthusiastically. I m
> in it, and I think you should be, too.
> Would your reply possibly be this? Well, it all depends on what my
> tax rate will be on the gain you re saying we re going to make. If the
> taxes are too high, I would rather leave the money in my savings
> account, earning a quarter of 1 percent. Only in Grover Norquist s
> imagination does such a response exist.
>
> With the fiscal cliff debate heating up, criticism of Grover Norquist
> and his influence is growing louder.
>
> A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy
>
> SUPPOSE that an investor you admire and trust comes to you with an
> investment idea. This is a good one, he says enthusiastically. I m
> in it, and I think you should be, too.
>
> Would your reply possibly be this? Well, it all depends on what my
> tax rate will be on the gain you re saying we re going to make. If the
> taxes are too high, I would rather leave the money in my savings
> account, earning a quarter of 1 percent. Only in Grover Norquist s
> imagination does such a response exist.
>
> Between 1951 and 1954, when the capital gains rate was 25 percent and
> marginal rates on dividends reached 91 percent in extreme cases, I
> sold securities and did pretty well. In the years from 1956 to 1969,
> the top marginal rate fell modestly, but was still a lofty 70 percent
> and the tax rate on capital gains inched up to 27.5 percent. I was
> managing funds for investors then. Never did anyone mention taxes as a
> reason to forgo an investment opportunity that I offered.
>
> Under those burdensome rates, moreover, both employment and the gross
> domestic product (a measure of the nation s economic output) increased
> at a rapid clip. The middle class and the rich alike gained ground.
>
> Read more:http://www.businessinsider.com/warren-buffett-calls-out-grover-norqui...
> investment idea. This is a good one, he says enthusiastically. I m
> in it, and I think you should be, too.
>
> Would your reply possibly be this? Well, it all depends on what my
> tax rate will be on the gain you re saying we re going to make. If the
> taxes are too high, I would rather leave the money in my savings
> account, earning a quarter of 1 percent. Only in Grover Norquist s
> imagination does such a response exist.
>
> Between 1951 and 1954, when the capital gains rate was 25 percent and
> marginal rates on dividends reached 91 percent in extreme cases, I
> sold securities and did pretty well. In the years from 1956 to 1969,
> the top marginal rate fell modestly, but was still a lofty 70 percent
> and the tax rate on capital gains inched up to 27.5 percent. I was
> managing funds for investors then. Never did anyone mention taxes as a
> reason to forgo an investment opportunity that I offered.
>
> Under those burdensome rates, moreover, both employment and the gross
> domestic product (a measure of the nation s economic output) increased
> at a rapid clip. The middle class and the rich alike gained ground.
>
>
> **********
>
> Republicans have been fleeced
> and exploited and lied to
> by a conservative entertainment complex....
>
> -- David Frum, Bush speechwriterhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQnCVWDLmxk&feature=related
Watch what Buffet does, not what he says. Idiot.
> **********
>
> Republicans have been fleeced
> and exploited and lied to
> by a conservative entertainment complex....
>
> -- David Frum, Bush speechwriterhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQnCVWDLmxk&feature=related
Early in his career, Buffett invested heavily—almost one third of his
early fund's capital—in Sanborn Map, a company that mapped utility
lines and such. But he soon grew frustrated with the company's
leadership, which "operated more like a club than a business," and
which refused to return greater dividends to investors. So Buffett
amassed more and more stock, and with control of the company finally
in hand he pressed the board of directors to split the company in two
(one for the mapping business, and one to hold the company's other
outsized investments).
Finally, the board capitulated. But with victory finally at hand,
Buffett nearly scuttled the deal because of ... taxes. As Schroeder
recounts, quoting Buffett, one director proposed that the company just
cleanly break the company, despite the tax consequences—"let's just
swallow the tax," he suggested.
To which Buffett replied (as he recounted to Schroeder):
And I said, 'Wait a minute. Let's -- "Let's" is a contraction. It
means "let us." But who is this us? If everyone around the table
wants to do it per capita, that's fine, but if you want to do it in a
ratio of shares owned, and you get ten shares' worth of tax and I get
twenty-four thousand shares' worth, forget it.'
Buffett was willing to walk away from a deal because the taxes would
have taken too much of a bite out of it. Fortunately for him, the
board gave in and allowed him to structure the deal that he liked,
saving him from his own Norquistian response.
That's not the only time that taxes played a major role on Buffett's
decisions, as recounted by Schroeder. Later in the book (pp. 533-534),
she recounts how Buffett chose to structure his investments under
Berkshire Hathaway's corporate umbrella, rather than as part of his
hedge fund's general portfolio, precisely because of the tax
advantages.
新着メール 0 件