Bernie Sanders: Act in 'Unprecedented' Ways to Thwart Republicans

[IAMX 3,055]

11 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

When I hear the government will fix this wealth gap and redistribute the wealth and the economy will still grow, what else do you call it?  I know Democratic Socialism, lipstick on a pig!

What really gives the image authenticity is the communist symbolism. So rebellious! 

[smilesammich 10,727]

2 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

Did I say it was? 

well, we were talking about wealth inequality and you start in about how much land government owns..which last time i checked we own the government. or at least that's what i was told as a kiddo. 

[jg121783 3,921]

4 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

well, we were talking about wealth inequality and you start in about how much land government owns..which last time i checked we own the government. or at least that's what i was told as a kiddo. 

You asked me if I thought the map was about land ownership. I never once said it was. We were talking about wealth distribution and I was simply pointing out that wealth isn't just distributed to individuals and businesses but to governments as well. And a very large percentage of it is distributed to governments. Land equals wealth and the federal government owns 28% of the land mass in the US as an example.

[smilesammich 10,727]

20 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

You asked me if I thought the map was about land ownership. I never once said it was. We were talking about wealth distribution and I was simply pointing out that wealth isn't just distributed to individuals and businesses but to governments as well. And a very large percentage of it is distributed to governments. Land equals wealth and the federal government owns 28% of the land mass in the US as an example.

am i in the twilight zone or do you just not read my posts before responding.

[jg121783 3,921]

9 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

am i in the twilight zone or do you just not read my posts before responding.

I read your posts. You were implying that I thought the map was about land ownership. I corrected you. I think it is you who doesn't read my posts before replying.

[CaliCat 3,957]

57 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

am i in the twilight zone or do you just not read my posts before responding.

 

 

[OriZ 3,165]

5 hours ago, CaliCat said:

 

Here is the kicker. Any rich individual understands how money flows, how it's made, and how it's distributed. The rich are the first to admit that their share is a large one - remember Warren Buffett telling the whole country his secretary paid more taxes than he did? 

 

The only people that are afraid of making our country more socially just are those who'd have the most to gain. It seems they enjoy their servitude, so long as they keep calling it by another name. 

Ahh the famous Buffett 2011 NYT piece. I wonder why everyone wants to see Trump's filings but no one is questioning Buffett's claims, even though he never released his 2010 federal tax return, the federal tax returns of his office workers or the analysis underlying his “federal tax rate” assertion.

In reality, he pays a much higher relevant “federal tax rate” than any of his office workers. First of all, payroll taxes(Social Security and Medicare) are totally irrelevant for this type of analysis. Because these taxes were not assessed on non-wage income (prior to 2013), and because Social Security taxes were only assessed on the first $106,800 of wage income in 2010, the amount Buffett paid into these programs was very close, in dollar terms, to the amounts paid into them by each of his office workers. But because Buffett had total taxable income of almost $40 million, the amount of Social Security and Medicare taxes he paid in 2010 represented only a tiny fraction of his total taxable income. For most of his office workers, these taxes represented 7.65% of their taxable income(even though they paid roughly the same amount as Buffett did in dollar terms). This 7.65% payroll tax differential is part of the 18.6% differential Buffett talked about.

 

A second flaw in Buffett’s analysis has to do with the fact that he included employer paid payroll taxes in coming up with his and his office workers' “federal tax rates.” The problem is that Buffett’s coworkers do not pay these taxes. Rather, Buffett does as a partial owner of their employer, Berkshire Hathaway. Buffett’s inclusion of these taxes in his analysis was clearly incorrect, and it distorts the rates he cited. Buffett himself owns 33.9% of Berkshire Hathaway, a publicly traded corporation with taxable income of $19.1 billion in 2010. Assuming a very conservative corporate federal tax rate of 25%, Berkshire will ultimately pay $4.76 billion in federal corporate income taxes on this taxable income. 

Given his ownership stake in Berkshire, Buffett bore 33.9% of the $4.77 billion in federal corporate taxes, or $1.61 billion. Buffett ignored this tax amount in compiling his “federal tax rate” analysis. If Buffett’s share of corporate taxable income and corporate taxes paid are factored into his analysis, his overall 2010 “federal tax rate” increases by 7.56% points, from 17.4 to 24.96.

 

As an employer, Berkshire matches the Social Security and Medicare taxes paid by its employees. Using reasonable assumptions and data gleaned from the company’s 2010 SEC filings, Buffett’s share of these taxes was approximately $400 million in 2010. If these taxes are included(and they certainly should be), his 2010 “federal tax rate” increases by 6.16 percentage points to 31.12%.

 

Let’s do the math. Buffett, in his analysis, overstated his office workers’ “federal tax rate” by including irrelevant payroll taxes(7.65%) and employer-paid payroll taxes (7.65%). In actuality, his office workers’ relevant 2010 “federal tax rate” was 20.7%, not 36%, while Buffett's was actually 31.12%, not 17.4%.

Bottom line: Buffett’s 2010 relevant “federal tax rate” was actually at least 10.4 percentage points higher than the average rate paid by his office workers.

[CaliCat 3,957]

20 minutes ago, OriZ said:

Ahh the famous Buffett 2011 NYT piece. I wonder why everyone wants to see Trump's filings but no one is questioning Buffett's claims, even though he never released his 2010 federal tax return, the federal tax returns of his office workers or the analysis underlying his “federal tax rate” assertion.

 

One is in the White House and works for the American people. The other doesn't. One promised to release his tax returns, as every candidate to the WH has done for over 40 years. The other didn't.

 

I am surprised you need it to be spelled out. 

 

 

Here. Read this:

 

https://www.copyright.gov/title17/

 

 

Edited June 22, 2017 by CaliCat

[OriZ 3,165]

36 minutes ago, CaliCat said:

 

One is in the White House and works for the American people. The other doesn't. One promised to release his tax returns, as every candidate to the WH has done for over 40 years. The other didn't.

 

I am surprised you need it to be spelled out. 

 

 

Here. Read this:

 

https://www.copyright.gov/title17/

 

 

I'll skip it. You missed the whole point.

[CaliCat 3,957]

8 minutes ago, OriZ said:

I'll skip it. You missed the whole point.

 

Actually I think you missed the point. The wall of text you posted is copyrighted material. If you're going to use material someone else wrote and published, the honest thing is to give them credit. I just didn't want to validate an empty and unsubstantiated comment that wasn't even original to begin with.

 

Here is the link to the source of your post: 

 

The book is called "Excuse Me, Professor: Challenging the Myths of Progressivism"

The author's name is: Lawrence Reed (editor)

The particular piece you copied and pasted was authored by George Harbison. It's an op-ed.

 

Seriously. Read this:  

https://www.copyright.gov/title17/

 

Copyright infringement is serious business. 

 

Edited June 22, 2017 by CaliCat

[OriZ 3,165]

28 minutes ago, CaliCat said:

 

Actually I think you missed the point. The wall of text you posted is copyrighted material. If you're going to use material someone else wrote and published, the honest thing is to give them credit. I just didn't want to validate an empty and unsubstantiated comment that wasn't even original to begin with.

 

Here is the link to the source of your post: 

 

The book is called "Excuse Me, Professor: Challenging the Myths of Progressivism"

The author's name is: Lawrence Reed (editor)

The particular piece you copied and pasted was authored by George Harbison. It's an op-ed.

 

Seriously. Read this:  

https://www.copyright.gov/title17/

 

Copyright infringement is serious business. 

 

For starters, I don't post copyrighted material without giving due credit, as my own thread is proof of - plenty of material posted there has a link at the bottom of it where it is from if I directly copy and paste it. You can go check it out if you don't believe me. That's a serious accusation that I find to actually be kind of ridiculous and rude at the same time, since what I posted is what I truly know and believe in. I read this years ago, and posted it in my own words, or what I wrote would have been at least twice as long(as the original is). I couldn't remember every little bit and piece so used it as reference, I'm sure they don't mind there wasn't a link as it's already been in several sites over the internet in recent years. Again, I'll skip it, and again, you missed the point.

Edited June 22, 2017 by OriZ

[CaliCat 3,957]

27 minutes ago, OriZ said:

For starters, I don't post copyrighted material without giving due credit, as my own thread is proof of - plenty of material posted there has a link at the bottom of it where it is from if I directly copy and paste it. You can go check it out if you don't believe me. That's a serious accusation that I find to actually be kind of ridiculous and rude at the same time, since what I posted is what I truly know and believe in. I read this years ago, and posted it in my own words, or what I wrote would have been at least twice as long(as the original is). I couldn't remember every little bit and piece so used it as reference, I'm sure they don't mind there wasn't a link as it's already been in several sites over the internet in recent years. Again, I'll skip it, and again, you missed the point.

 

I did check. You copied and pasted copyrighted material and didn't post a link to it, and that's why I called it out.

 

Here is the link to the source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/10/23/warren-buffetts-actual-tax-rate-is-31-while-his-office-workers-pay-21/#6bdf42963279

 

And here is the original text. I highlighted in red the parts of the text you quoted verbatim. There is nothing wrong in doind it, provided you give the author credit. don't be offended. This should help you in all aspects of your life. Copyrighted material is not public domain. Just be careful, to avoid lawsuits in this country. 

 

By George P. Harbison

In August, 2011, Warren Buffett wrote an opinion piece in the New York Times in which he made the assertion that his 2010 “federal tax rate” of 17.4% was 18.6 percentage points less than the 36.0% average rate paid by the twenty other workers in his office.

Buffett’s piece garnered substantial media attention and, in the months since its publication, his “federal tax rate” assertion has been woven into the fabric of American politics.  His analysis was the basis for the “Buffett Rule,” a tax plan proposed by President Obama that would implement measures under which everyone making more than $1 million in income per year would pay a minimum effective tax rate of 30%.

Clearly, given Buffett’s status as a legendary businessman and investor (the “OracleORCL +1.07% of Omaha”), his tax analysis carried a great deal of credibility and, as such, it was never challenged.  Adding to the unchallenged acceptance of Buffett’s assertion was the fact that Buffett never released (a) his 2010 federal tax return, (b) the federal tax returns of his office workers, and (c), the analysis underlying has “federal tax rate” assertion.

 

In truth, Buffett’s assertion is completely inaccurate and is based on a fundamentally flawed analysis of basic federal taxation principles.  In reality, he pays a much higher relevant “federal tax rate” than any of his office workers.

First of all, payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare) are totally irrelevant for this type of analysis.  Because these taxes were not assessed on non-wage income, and because Social Security taxes were only assessed on the first $106,800 of wage income in 2010, the amount Buffett paid into these programs was very close, in dollar terms, to the amounts paid into them by each of his office workers.  But because Buffett had total taxable income of almost $40 million, the amount of Social Security and Medicare taxes paid by him in 2010 represented a tiny fraction of his total taxable income.  For most of his office workers, these taxes represented 7.65% of their taxable income (even though they paid roughly the same amount as Buffett did in dollar terms).  This 7.65% payroll tax differential is part of the 18.6% differential cited by Buffett in his Op-Ed piece.

But what Buffett failed to mention is the fact that Social Security and Medicare benefits are capped as well. Upon retirement,  Buffett will receive almost exactly the same Social Security and Medicare benefits that his office workers will receive.  There is very little differential between Buffett and his office workers in terms of what they pay into the Social Security and Medicare programs, and what they will receive in benefits.  As such, the 7.65 percentage point “federal tax rate” differential between Buffett and his co-workers arising from the existing Social Security and Medicare taxing mechanism is simply not relevant, and is a mirage.

A second flaw in Buffett’s analysis has to do with the fact that he included employer-paid payroll taxes in coming up with his and his office workers “federal tax rates.”  The problem is that Buffett’s co-workers do not pay these taxes, rather Buffett does as a partial owner of Berkshire HathawayBRK.A +0%.  Buffett’s inclusion of these “taxes” into his analysis was incorrect and distorts the rates he cited.  Of course, he included employer-paid payroll taxes to double the 7.65% “federal tax rate” differential mirage identified in the previous paragraph.

Buffett himself owns 33.9% of Berkshire Hathaway, a publicly traded corporation with taxable income of $19.1 billion in 2010.  Assuming a conservative corporate federal tax rate of 25%, Berkshire will ultimately pay $4.76 billion in federal corporate income taxes on this taxable income. Corporate taxes are borne by shareholders of the corporation, in that these taxes reduce the amount of cash available for (a) dividend payments (Berkshire has not historically paid dividends to its shareholders), or (b) reinvestment into the corporation in order to drive shareholder value.

Given his ownership stake in Berkshire, 33.9% of the $4.77 billion in federal corporate taxes, or $1.61 billion were borne by Buffett.  Buffett ignored this tax amount in compiling his “federal tax rate” analysis.  If Buffett’s share of corporate taxable income and corporate taxes paid are factored into his analysis, his overall “federal tax rate” increases from by 7.56 percentage points, from 17.4% to 24.96%.

As an employer, Berkshire matches the Social Security and Medicare taxes paid by its employees.  These taxes are covered by the shareholders of Berkshire for the same reasons corporate income taxes are.  Using reasonable assumptions and data gleaned from the company’s 2010 SEC filings, Buffett’s share of these taxes was approximately $400 million in 2010.  If these taxes are included (and they certainly should be), his 2010 federal tax rate increases by 6.16 percentage points to 31.12%.

Let’s do the math.  Buffett, in his analysis, overstated his office workers’ “federal tax rate” by including irrelevant payroll taxes (7.65%) and employer-paid payroll taxes (7.65%).  In actuality, his office workers’ relevant 2010 “federal tax rate” was 20.7%, not 36.0%.

Buffett, in his analysis, ignored his share of corporate income taxes paid by the company he owns a third of.  By doing so, he understated his “federal tax rate” by 7.56 percentage points.  In addition, he ignored his share of Social Security and Medicare taxes paid by Berkshire.  In doing so, he understated his “federal tax rate” by an additional 6.16 percentage points.  If you’re keeping score, Buffett’s relevant 2010 “federal tax rate” was actually 31.1%, not 17.4%.

Bottom line: Buffett’s 2010 relevant “federal tax rate” was actually at least 10.5 percentage points higher than the average rate paid by his office workers.

Edited June 22, 2017 by CaliCat

[OriZ 3,165]

Oh give it up. You people seriously need to find better things to do with your time than nit pick petty little things(kinda like what ya'll like to do to Trump). I can guarantee you I actually did not borrow it from that link. Search online and you'll find it all over the place. The parts you highlighted are parts I used to assist but they were not directly copied and pasted as evident by different wording throughout if you care to look. You know it's kinda like back in the day when we were in school and we would do our homework and look in an encyclopedia - not copy it directly but use some of the same? What you fail to understand is when it comes to fighting the lies, most of us don't care where it originated from as long as the truth gets out there. That's the purpose these things get written in the first place. I guess in nanny state snowflake era I'm not even allowed to borrow a tiny bit out of what someone else wrote, in order to express my own views without it taking me all night(I do have other things to do), if I don't explicitly mention that. Gosh that's just a laughable concept. Anyway I've already wasted enough time on this tonight...you're free to keep doing that but I guarantee you I don't really have any use for your advice, I'm doing just fine without it. 

[Penguin_ie 6,000]

****** Mod note:  you are all reminded of our Fair Use policy (http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/776-immigration-news-guidelines-to-posting/,  ) which means a link to the published material MUST be included when quoting. This discussion ends here, get back to the topic of the Op please. ******

[OriZ 3,165]

Yes back to topic but first just a question; What if the source is not another link but a discussion with quotes from a different forum? I remembered the story from back then and wanted to present the other side of it that was conveniently neglected.

 

So back to the topic which was about Bernie, socialism, capitalism and Buffett. Someone said the rich are the first to admit their share is a large one. I don't agree - yes you have some rich people claiming that, but you also have rich people on the other side(aren't the democrats usually the ones claiming the GOP is full of white rich people? Make up your mind). It's easy to just look at what a few rich liberals are saying while ignoring the rest. Just as it's easy to look at what Buffett said without examining it: I started writing it in my own words but since it's already late and I couldn't remember all of the details myself I went back to a DIFFERENT link than the one that was posted here(forum) and wrote that. Once you read and understand something it becomes your knowledge. Logic would have it you are allowed to share your knowledge with other people. I guess my mistake was being too lazy and borrowing too many words; won't happen again. I also assure you I already knew all that info and when it comes to long articles(not a few phrases that were wrongly dubbed a wall of text) if the article is copied and pasted word to word a link is always provided. 

 

I mean how many times has anyone else here went to a certain source to cite data you already know and wrote it yourself and didn't give a link because well you didn't copy and paste a whole article. That's kinda what the internet is for. Nice deflection though without addressing the issue of taking everything Buffett has said without questioning or requiring proof. When the MDL has nothing to say they just find something to attack you with, it's so old. What is it with some people wanting to pry into other people's lives and actions constantly? 

 

Here take a look at this page and tell me if you have any complaints about the credit I give or don't give, would have been so much easier to claim Hussman's work as my own *rolls his eyes*. This link also has something to do with the OP I believe because in the future this will be blamed on Trump and GOP policies even though it's mostly liberal policies that got us here and the guy I quote is extremely liberal - one of the few who truly understand how markets and the economy work though. I seriously recommend reading that page even unrelated to our "link or no link" discussion, lots of good OP related info there:

 

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/577938-one-year-to-nowhere/?page=39

 

 

Edited June 22, 2017 by OriZ