Showing posts with label Warren Buffett. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Warren Buffett. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 12, 2015

"Buffett—A Democrat And Supporter Of Hillary Clinton"

August 12, 2015 Trump Won't Go Away Anytime Soon , Warren Buffett 0 Comments

Warren Buffett: Trump Won't Go Away Anytime Soon



By Matthew J. Belvedere, Aug 10, 2015 CNBC

Warren Buffett said Monday that Donald Trump has a solid base of support in the race for the Republican presidential nomination that seems unshakable by the real estate mogul's over-the-top comments.

Trump will have a block of delegates when the convention arrives, but with the huge field of GOP candidates, it's possible no one will have a majority, Buffett told CNBC's "Squawk Box" in a wide-ranging interview.

"I wouldn't be surprised if [Trump] maintained a quite a solid base for some time," Buffett said—adding that he won't run out of money.

Read More Warren Buffett: Precision deal 'very high multiple'
Trump's latest controversial comments were about Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly following Thursday's GOP debate.

Read More: http://www.cnbc.com



Join us - become an Elderado today at: LarryElder.com  

Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook
By - No comments:
Labels: ,

Wednesday, December 24, 2014

George P. Harbison: Warren Buffett's Actual Tax Rate Much Closer To 31%, While His Office Workers Pay 21%

December 24, 2014 Forbes.com , George P. Harbison 0 Comments
By George P. Harbison, Oct. 23, 2013, Forbes.com

 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 “Oracle ORCL +0.43% 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.

Read the full story:  www.forbes.com

Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook
By - No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, December 9, 2014

No wonder he's okay with higher taxes!

December 09, 2014 Alex Crippen , Berkshire Hathaway 0 Comments
Buffett Now No. 2 As Shares Surge To All Time High

By Alex Crippen, Dec. 8, 2014, Cnbc.com

Warren Buffett is now the world's second-richest person as Berkshire Hathaway's stock rallied to an all-time high.

Forbes said its real-time ranking of the world's billionaires now estimates Buffett's wealth at $74.4 billion, about $1.5 billion more than Carlos Slim's $72.9 billion. Slim is now in third place.

Class A shares of Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway closed at a record $227,800 after hitting an all-time intraday high of $229,374 in Monday's trading. They're up 28 percent for the year, trouncing the S&P's 11.5 percent gain, excluding dividends.

In March, Forbes estimated Buffett's fortune at $58.2 billion. He was No. 4 on the list at that time, behind Mexico's Slim with $72 billion and Spanish fashion executive Amancio Ortega with $64 billion.

Read the full story:  www.cnbc.com


Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook
By - No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Saturday, August 30, 2014

Why not?!

August 30, 2014 LeBron James , The Motley Fool 0 Comments
LeBron James: The Next Warren Buffett?

By The Motley Fool

It took Buffett 50 years to hit $700 million. Yet, in his next 33 years, he’d bank an astounding $62.3 billion more wealth.

Buffett grew that wealth through a series of savvy business moves by buying great companies that found huge success in the years after he took a stake in them.

Now, imagine where Buffett might be if he had been worth hundreds of million in his twenties.

That’s exactly the position we find LeBron James. LeBron is only 29, has become an unexpected protégé to Buffett (seriously), and he’s quietly building sport’s most powerful business empire with the help of the Warren Buffett.

Buffett: LeBron James is savvy

While they’re an unlikely duo, sightings of LeBron James and Warren Buffett together are not hard to find. The two dined together (along with Bill Gates!) in Las Vegas and have been spotted golfing in Sun Valley together.

Get this, LeBron even sends his financial statements to Warren Buffett! Here’s an excerpt from an interview with LeBron in Sport Illustrated:

“I sent an e-mail about this to Warren Buffett. I'm a kid from Akron who lived in poverty for a long time, and I sometimes send financial statements to one of the richest guys ever. It's kind of scary. I'm like, 'Why is he talking to me?'”

LeBron doesn’t need to worry why Buffett would spend time advising him, because Buffett has been nothing but glowing in his praise of LeBron. In an interview with NBA TV, Buffett described LeBron as “remarkably mature,” being “plenty smart about financial matters,” and saying “I was impressed with him right from the moment I met him.”

Read the full story:  www.fool.com

Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook
By - No comments:
Labels: , ,

Sunday, August 10, 2014

Doesn't he, like Buffett, WANT hi taxes--just not pay 'em?

August 10, 2014 Hollywoodreporter.com , Kimberly Nordyke 0 Comments
Redford Sues NY Over $1.6 Mil In Taxes For Sundance Sale

Robert Redford
Source:  www.deadline.com
By Kimberly Nordyke, Aug. 6, 2014, Hollywoodreporter.com

The actor claims he paid the taxes in Utah and doesn't owe any more money.

Robert Redford is suing New York state related to the sale of Sundance Channel.

The actor-director sued the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance in Albany County Supreme Court on July 30 claiming that he's being overtaxed on money his company made when it sold off a stake in the channel in 2005.

According to Courthouse News Service, Redford is being taxed $1.6 million by New York ($845,066 in taxes plus $727,404 in interest owed) on the money he made. But Redford, a Utah resident, says he paid taxes on the revenue in Utah and therefore doesn't owe New York.

He is seeking "a declaratory ruling on a pure question of law concerning the constitutionality of imposing on plaintiff, a nonresident of the State of New York, a personal income tax on the gain derived from the sale of an ownership interest in a limited liability company," according to the complaint.

Read the full story:  www.hollywoodreporter.com

Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook
By - No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Tuesday, June 17, 2014

FLASHBACK: Rich Lefties And Their Taxes By Larry Elder

June 17, 2014 Articles by Larry Elder , Hillary Rodham Clinton 1 Comments
By Larry Elder, Dec. 6, 2012

Ah, the hypocrisy of tax-hikers who do everything they can to avoid the taxes they wish to impose on others.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.: He tried to avoid $500K in his home state's sales and excise taxes by docking his newly purchased $7 million 76-foot yacht in Rhode Island.

Massachusetts lowered its state income tax in 2001. Given the presumably large number of rich people who pine to pay more taxes, the state allowed tax filers to check a box and voluntarily pay the old, higher rate. In a liberal state of over 3 million tax filers, how many volunteered to pay the higher rate in 2004? A tiny fraction of 1 percent -- 930 taxpayers.

Among those who refused to pay the higher rate? Sen. Kerry and Rep. Barney Frank. In Frank's case, he refused to pay the higher rate because, he says, "I don't trust the legislative leadership and Gov. (Mitt) Romney to make the right decisions." Instead, Frank said, "I'll donate the money myself."

John Edwards, former senator and Democratic presidential candidate: His wife, Elizabeth, once called him a person of "character" because Edwards voted against his own economic "interests" by voting for higher taxes. Well, OK, but like billionaire investor Warren Buffett, who urges higher taxes, Edwards is less than keen on paying them. As a lawyer winning major jury awards, John set up a subchapter S corporation to pay himself through dividends -- and thus avoid $600K in Medicare payroll taxes.

Kennedy patriarch Joe Kennedy: The late Ted Kennedy and his family shield their money through a series of complicated family trusts first begun by father Joe Kennedy. The trusts transfer wealth from generation to generation while avoiding estate taxes.

The late Ohio Democratic Sen. Howard Metzenbaum: A liberal's liberal, Metzenbaum enjoyed a lifetime rating from Americans for Democratic Action of 95 (100 being perfect) and a zero from the American Conservative Union. He never met a tax hike he did not like. He moved to Florida when he retired from the Senate. Why Florida? No state estate or personal income taxes.

"Civil rights" leader and MSNB-Hee Haw host Al Sharpton: Though he supports increasing taxes on the rich, Sharpton, it seems, fails to do his part as a member of the 1 percent. As of last year, according to the New York Post, Sharpton owed $3.5 million in state and federal income taxes. His nonprofit, the National Action Network, as of 2011 owes nearly $900K in unpaid federal payroll taxes.

What do these individual instances of hypocrisy say about whether taxes should be increased on the so-called rich?

First, contrary to Buffett's assertion, people absolutely make decisions and change behavior in response to taxes. Compare the economies of Texas and California, two border states with similar immigrant populations. Texas is a no-income-tax, right-to-work, business-friendly state with substantially less regulation than the Obama-like high-tax (especially on the "the rich" and on business), forced unionism, heavily regulated state of California. Texas also has one of the lowest per-capita spending rates, while California has one of the highest.

The result? According to Investor's Business Daily, state gross domestic product growth in Texas was 3.3 percent in 2011 and 5.2 percent in 2010, while California was 2 percent in 2011 and 1.7 percent in 2010. Texas has created more than twice as many new jobs as California and has a below-the-national-average jobless rate of 6.8 percent. California's unemployment rate is 10.2 percent.

From 2008 to 2011, Texans' median hourly wages rose 8 percent, while Californians' rose 5.7 percent. And per-capita personal income during those years rose 1.3 percent in Texas, while (SET ITAL) falling (END ITAL) almost 1 percent in California. California's poverty rate is 23.5 percent, to Texas' 16.5 percent, and Texas spends less on education, while its students outperform their California counterparts.

Second, because people change behavior in response to taxes, raising them can result in getting less revenue. John Kennedy said, "It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low -- and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now."

The Congressional Budget Office just issued a report on what would happen to the economy if Congress fails to retain the Bush-era tax rates. Keeping the Bush-era rates for all but the rich, the CBO says, adds 1.25 percentage points to GDP. Retaining tax rates for all, including the rich, however, adds 1.5 percent to the economy. In other words, raising taxes on the rich lowers economic output. Does a quarter of a percentage matter? The CBO says it will "only" reduce job growth by about 200,000 jobs -- although other reputable studies put the number at 700,000 jobs.

Taxes matter.

Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook
By - 1 comment:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Friday, April 11, 2014

An Accurate Account Of The History Channel's 'Men Who Built America' --Parts 1 through 24

April 11, 2014 American History , Andrew Carnegie 0 Comments
Andrew Carnegie
May 12, 2013, Historyhalf.com

This is the twenty-fourth in my series of posts about the five businessmen the History Channel profiled in a terribly inaccurate and un-historical TV miniseries titled The Men Who Built America. I’m writing these posts in response to several comments and e-mails from TV viewers who have expressed interest in a more accurate version of the story.

Post #24: The Homestead Steel Mill Strike

In late June of 1892 a labor strike at Andrew Carnegie’s Homestead Steel Works turned deadly when a gunfight erupted between striking workers and the security guards the company had brought in to protect the plant. The History Channel’s portrayal of this event was probably the low point of the entire eight hour The Men Who Built America miniseries. It was pure fiction.

That’s a shame, because the truth is far more interesting than the fictitious version the History Channel saw fit to broadcast.

The violence at Homestead was painfully embarrassing to Carnegie, who had always been guilty of a certain level of hypocrisy on labor-management issues. In public he tended to give lip service to semi-Marxist ideas about the rights of the proletariat, but the way he ran his business generally contradicted the principles he so publicly espoused.  In that he had much in common with modern day billionaires like George Soros and Warren Buffett.

Several times over the years leading up to the Homestead strike Carnegie had made pro-union comments, particularly on the issue of employers hiring strikebreakers. On one occasion, in a comment ironically foreshadowing the behavior of his own employees at Homestead, he said that no worker could be expected to “stand peaceably and see a new man employed in his stead.” When confronted with that prospect at Homestead, the Carnegie workers were far from peaceful, and Carnegie showed little sympathy.

Carnegie’s conflicted stance on labor relations issues is perhaps best illustrated by his 1877 attempt to convert the standard work week of the steel industry from seven twelve-hour days per week to seven eight-hour days.

Carnegie and his partners only owned one steel mill at this time, the Edgar Thompson Steel works, popularly known as the E.T. Plant manager William Jones convinced Carnegie that if the started using three eight hour shifts per day rather than two twelves, their competitors would follow suit, and the eight hour day would become the standard of the industry. Carnegie was all for making the workers’ lives easier, as long as it didn’t give his competitors an advantage.

 Read the full story:  www.historyhalf.com


Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook
By - No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, April 8, 2014

FLASHBACK: Rich Lefties Like Sharpton, Kerry--And THEIR Taxes --Did Kerry become an FBI informant, too? (sarcasm)

April 08, 2014 Americans for Democratic Action , Barney Frank 0 Comments
By Larry Elder, Dec. 6. 2012

Ah, the hypocrisy of tax-hikers who do everything they can to avoid the taxes they wish to impose on others.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.: He tried to avoid $500K in his home state's sales and excise taxes by docking his newly purchased $7 million 76-foot yacht in Rhode Island.
Massachusetts lowered its state income tax in 2001. Given the presumably large number of rich people who pine to pay more taxes, the state allowed tax filers to check a box and voluntarily pay the old, higher rate. In a liberal state of over 3 million tax filers, how many volunteered to pay the higher rate in 2004? A tiny fraction of 1 percent -- 930 taxpayers.
Among those who refused to pay the higher rate? Sen. Kerry and Rep. Barney Frank. In Frank's case, he refused to pay the higher rate because, he says, "I don't trust the legislative leadership and Gov. (Mitt) Romney to make the right decisions." Instead, Frank said, "I'll donate the money myself."

John Edwards, former senator and Democratic presidential candidate: His wife, Elizabeth, once called him a person of "character" because Edwards voted against his own economic "interests" by voting for higher taxes. Well, OK, but like billionaire investor Warren Buffett, who urges higher taxes, Edwards is less than keen on paying them. As a lawyer winning major jury awards, John set up a subchapter S corporation to pay himself through dividends -- and thus avoid $600K in Medicare payroll taxes.

Kennedy patriarch Joe Kennedy: The late Ted Kennedy and his family shield their money through a series of complicated family trusts first begun by father Joe Kennedy. The trusts transfer wealth from generation to generation while avoiding estate taxes.

The late Ohio Democratic Sen. Howard Metzenbaum: A liberal's liberal, Metzenbaum enjoyed a lifetime rating from Americans for Democratic Action of 95 (100 being perfect) and a zero from the American Conservative Union. He never met a tax hike he did not like. He moved to Florida when he retired from the Senate. Why Florida? No state estate or personal income taxes.

"Civil rights" leader and MSNB-Hee Haw host Al Sharpton: Though he supports increasing taxes on the rich, Sharpton, it seems, fails to do his part as a member of the 1 percent. As of last year, according to the New York Post, Sharpton owed $3.5 million in state and federal income taxes. His nonprofit, the National Action Network, as of 2011 owes nearly $900K in unpaid federal payroll taxes.

What do these individual instances of hypocrisy say about whether taxes should be increased on the so-called rich?

First, contrary to Buffett's assertion, people absolutely make decisions and change behavior in response to taxes. Compare the economies of Texas and California, two border states with similar immigrant populations. Texas is a no-income-tax, right-to-work, business-friendly state with substantially less regulation than the Obama-like high-tax (especially on the "the rich" and on business), forced unionism, heavily regulated state of California. Texas also has one of the lowest per-capita spending rates, while California has one of the highest.
The result? According to Investor's Business Daily, state gross domestic product growth in Texas was 3.3 percent in 2011 and 5.2 percent in 2010, while California was 2 percent in 2011 and 1.7 percent in 2010. Texas has created more than twice as many new jobs as California and has a below-the-national-average jobless rate of 6.8 percent. California's unemployment rate is 10.2 percent.

From 2008 to 2011, Texans' median hourly wages rose 8 percent, while Californians' rose 5.7 percent. And per-capita personal income during those years rose 1.3 percent in Texas, while (SET ITAL) falling (END ITAL) almost 1 percent in California. California's poverty rate is 23.5 percent, to Texas' 16.5 percent, and Texas spends less on education, while its students outperform their California counterparts.

Second, because people change behavior in response to taxes, raising them can result in getting less revenue. John Kennedy said, "It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low -- and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now."

The Congressional Budget Office just issued a report on what would happen to the economy if Congress fails to retain the Bush-era tax rates. Keeping the Bush-era rates for all but the rich, the CBO says, adds 1.25 percentage points to GDP. Retaining tax rates for all, including the rich, however, adds 1.5 percent to the economy. In other words, raising taxes on the rich lowers economic output. Does a quarter of a percentage matter? The CBO says it will "only" reduce job growth by about 200,000 jobs -- although other reputable studies put the number at 700,000 jobs.

Taxes matter.

 Related:  Al Sharpton, FBI Informant--Untold Story Of How ActivistOnce Aided Probes Of NYC Wiseguys --Probably cut a deal



Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook
By - No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, March 19, 2014

Bankrate: "5 Tax Deductions That Favor The Rich"

March 19, 2014 Bill Gates , Center for American Progress 0 Comments
Source:  Bankrate.com
By Jay McDonald

 When it comes to tax deductions, it is good to be rich -- the richer, the better.

 Middle-class America enjoys some of the same tax breaks as the wealthy on things like the mortgage interest on home loans, capital gains on retirement investments and donations made to charity.

 However, the rich enjoy these deductions and others to a wildly disproportionate degree when compared to the rest of taxpayers. According to the National Priorities Project, America's top earners will get an average tax cut of $66,384 in 2011 while the bottom 20 percent will realize an average tax savings of about $107.

 Seth Hanlon, director of fiscal reform for the Center for American Progress, says that while all tax breaks are well-intended, the "upside-down" nature of some miss their target.

 "Most people don't see these as being government expenditures, but from an economic and budget point of view, they're really the same thing as programs that spend money directly," says Hanlon. "There are ways to reform them to make them work better."

 Many agree, including President Barack Obama, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates.
Here are five tax deductions that help the rich get richer.

Read the full article:  www.bankrate.com
Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"LIke" Larry Elder on Facebook
By - No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,