‘The Beginning of Serfdom’: Beck Exposes the Surprising Hole in the Buffett Rule
- Posted on April 11, 2012 at 4:48pm by
Tiffany Gabbay
- Print »
- Email »
Most Blaze readers have, by now, likely heard President Obama’s renewed rallying cries for the implementation of the “Buffett Rule,“ which he calls a ”common sense“ measure that ”does not“ incite ”class warfare.” The rule was spawned by billionaire investor Warren Buffett after he penned a New York Times op-ed calling on Congress to raise taxes on America’s top income earners.
According to The Blaze’s Madeleine Morgenstern, the proposed plan would require those earning more than $1 million annually pay at least 30% in income taxes. It is scheduled for a Senate vote on April 16.
Regardless of his claim that the Buffett Rule does not engage in class warfare, Obama’s words might ring otherwise. During his weekly radio and Internet address, Obama asked, “when it comes to paying down the deficit and investing in our future, should we ask middle class Americans to pay even more at a time when their budgets are already stretched to the breaking point?”
“Or should we ask some of the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share?”
Warren Buffett will likely not be paying his “fair share” anyway. At least not in income tax.
Such a statement might seem unbelievable, but on his Wednesday radio broadcast, Glenn Beck and his co-hosts, Pat Gray and Stu Burguiere, explained why some of the country’s wealthiest are actually not paying any income tax at all — and the reason just might surprise you.
While progressives would quickly suggest the reason is because “the wealthy are benefiting from an unfair tax system that rewards only the top ‘1%’” — in actuality, Buffett, along with George Soros and likely even Bill Gates, are not actually earning income. Thus, there is nothing to pay income tax on. Rather, long-time entrepreneurs like Buffett and Soros are likely living off their investments. This is different than earned income — such as a salary — and is not subject to income tax.
So, while Buffett and Soros both clamor for higher income tax for the wealthy, it is all an empty display as they would not be effected by an income tax increase on the top income-earners anyway. Both rainmen maintain that an income tax increase will neither effect them nor bother them at all. This, Beck said, is the ironic “truth.”
Beck explained that entrepreneurs who are still building businesses, growing their investments, paying employees’ salaries and collecting a salary of their own, however, still “need their income” in order to operate and would soar to new heights if their businesses were afforded a tax break. “I would hire more people…and make new investments,” Beck said of such a scenario.
“Ten years ago, I was broke.”
“We worked together… as a team to build something amazing.” He explained that while some outlets will report what they claim are his yearly earning, those outlets are in fact reporting what Beck’s entire company earns gross. After paying salaries (including his own), insurance coverage for the business and its employees and covering various operating expenses, Beck still pays income tax on what remains.
He warned that the federal government is “closing the door” on the “dreamers” and “builders” of the world.
“They are closing the door on you,” he said pointedly. “It is the beginning of serfdom.”
Another point of contention discussed during the program was the alleged salary and income tax rate of Warren Buffett’s secretary — the lone woman being used by President Obama to model his entire tax policy after. Yes. One person.
Buffett claims his secretary earns $60,000 per year and pays a 30% income tax rate. While the salary is more than most secretaries earn, the figure, given her longtime tenure with one of the wealthiest men in the world, seems conspicuously on the low-side. Nonetheless, if we were to conduct our analysis based on a $60,000 salary, then Buffett’s secretary would not be paying 30%, but rather 14%. Going one step further, Stu pointed out that the average secretary earns $33,000 a year and thus pays 10% in income tax.
These figures reveal that a lie is being told somewhere. Either Buffett’s secretary is not paying 30% income tax and is rather paying roughly half that number, or, Buffett’s secretary is paying 30% and thus is earning over $250,000 — the proper income bracket to allow for a 30% income tax rate.
For additional insight, visit Stu’s Blog for more on Buffett after watching the segment.
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 587 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 414 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 412 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 376 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 375 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 412 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 414 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 376 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 151 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 303 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 412 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (167)
shogun459
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 6:52pmWe have been saying all along,
“THEY ARE LYING TO US ABOUT EVERYTHING!”
The Obama Mob is just stalling for time.
This ELECTION will be COUNTED BY a SPANISH Corp.
No Americans are on the Board which is made up of Hedge Funders.
oliveoil123
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 7:23pm459, where did you get your info re; a spanish corp. is counting our votes?
oliveoil123
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 7:25pmIs this true?
jzs
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 8:36pmThat devout communist member Ronald Reagan supported the “Buffett rule” although of course it wasn’t called that at the time. No, seriously, here’s a video of Ronald Reagan himself giving his support, almost eerie in it’s prescience, the exact same thing, in almost the exact same words, that Obama is suggesting with regard to the so called the Buffett Rule. Reagan, in his own words, supporting what is known as the “Buffett rule”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnpG6qCltCw
I didn’t realize until now that Reagan was a communist!
Report Post »RJJinGadsden
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 9:23pmJZS, If you had been around back then as an adult you would likely remember that Reagan did manage to reduce income taxes back then and remove a number of those loop hole deductions thus doing a little flattening of our tax rates. Clinton and his dem Congress for his first 2 years in office CORRECTED that putting those loop holes back in as well as boosting the federal income tax. I remember it well when even as an NCO in the Army I had to pay some of those taxes back to October 1992 even though he took office 20 Jan 93. That was the first law Clinton signed into existence, and yeah they back dated the collection to the first of that fiscal year. The video you are linking to is just smoke and mirrors. 0bama has no desire to lower taxes as Reagan did, but he MIGHT want to reduce some of those loop holes, but then there is GE and that Jeffery Imelt thing going. You know, croney capitalism at it’s best.
Report Post »AMENDMENT
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 9:25pmJeff Nyqyuist, geopolitical analyst and expert on Communist strategic deception of the West http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLE4459C280C37FAD2&feature=player_embedded&v=F10OYMfbvcQ
Report Post »SOBER
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 10:00pmnews to me, too. happened in January. some place called SCYTL.COM
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=229885.0
Report Post »jzs
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 10:09pmRJJinGadsden, you’ve missed the point here, the point Reagan was making about a secretary paying less than his boss. Reagan didn’t think that was right, nor does Obama. That’s the topic here. I‘m not sure what topic you’re talking about.
Income taxes were higher under Clinton, I agree with you if that‘s what you’re saying. The economy thrived during the Clinton era. Now income taxes are lower than they were under Reagan and the economy sucks. Bush lowered income taxes and the economy did not improve at all, nothing, zilch (until it collapsed).
Okay. You’ve posted a lot of dates and circuitous logic and the dubious claim that Clinton restored all the tax loopholes supporting the rich, but what are you suggesting?
Are you saying that when Reagan said that a secretary shouldn’t pay more tax than her boss he, what, didn’t mean it? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnpG6qCltCw
What is it exactly you’re saying about Reagan and the Buffett rule?
Report Post »RJJinGadsden
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 11:41pmJZS, Didn’t miss the point at all. You are now comparing apples and oranges by taking a short segment of Reagan’s statement and comparing it to what 0bama is pushing today. I believe that I quite succinctly made a clear statement of that earlier. Whoever put this video together is playing with smoke and mirrors. I lived through those days and saw our taxes fall, and Reagan was hailed for clearing out many of those loop holes that the Clinton administration brought back to life. Please, tell me just what part of this you do not understand and I’ll try again.
Report Post »RJJinGadsden
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 11:53pmJZS, Oh yeah, forgot to mention, the economy thrived during the Clinton Admin mainly due to that Dot Com Bubble. It went bust shortly before W assumed office. One of the cops I was working with had made a lot of investments in the Dot Coms and lost a lot. Frankly, couldn’t have happened to a more deserving guy as far as I am concerned. Another thing that you have missed entirely is that the economy will go up and down all on it’s own, but most often thrives when left alone by the government. As the dems won the house and senate in Nov ‘06 Nancy got in front of the cameras and told all concerned who they were coming after. The economy was shaky enough then, but she really shook the life out of it causing banking, oil, and virtually all businesses to freeze spending, and loaning. That is when the cost of fuel shot through the roof while the media blamed Bush, banking froze themselves into a corner, and the car companies really began to loose it big time. So, stop with the current tid bits of BS and try thinking back to what you might remember as it actually happened. I lived through it, recall how I reacted to it, and remember the elections that I have been involved with since the first and why I voted the way I did.
Report Post »Stompthetruth
Posted on April 12, 2012 at 12:03amIf Obama is re-OK?D for Preziden, THE USA will finally get what it deserves. AALL QAEDA cant do **** to these spoiled rotten, uneducated a m e r i c a n BRATS, they screw themselves on their own!!! And bring us all down, just wanted to thank you in advance
Working American
Report Post »jzs
Posted on April 12, 2012 at 12:18amRJJinGadsden, okay, thanks for the trip down memory lane.
So do agree with Reagan and Obama on the “Buffett rule?”
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on April 12, 2012 at 1:16amHey JZS,
Since you are once again towing the party line, and the “Buffet rule” is your new talking point, why don’t you tell us exactly how much revenue it is purported to generate per year, for the next 10 years.
Then tell us how many days worth of government wasting, ummm, I mean spending, that revenue will cover.
Do you know? You should. Why not divulge those facts in your posts?
Because you know it is insignificant, and it is nothing more than a cheap election year ploy to stoke the flames of class warfare. All in the name of marxness, ummmm, I mean fairness.
http://www.libertymind.com/index.php?page_id=273
Report Post »moreoilplease
Posted on April 12, 2012 at 2:42amOK JZ, what Reagen was referring to was loopholes in the tax code. It lead to the Tax Reform act of 1986. It FLATTENED the code and took out some loopholes, some. He spoke of a man using loopholes as a shelter. Now we are talking about Buffet who does NOT pay income tax. He pays capitol gains tax on his investments, money he already paid INCOME tax on. So O is making an argument for double taxation by raising capitol gains to income bracket levels or raising taxes on small business, you know the ones who make payroll every week. Either way he is lying. Same old demagoguery and Buffet will still pay less income tax than his secretary as he should because HE DOESN’T EARN AN INCOME!
Report Post »freedomofspeech
Posted on April 12, 2012 at 3:08amI have read that too, about the Obama administration hired a firm out of Spain to tally our votes in the election.
Report Post »thx1138v2
Posted on April 12, 2012 at 7:00amVotes are tabulated by the states so there is nothing for Obama to “sell”.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/scytl.asp
Report Post »jamestoms
Posted on April 12, 2012 at 7:18amYes the whole GD business is a lie, the white middle class is being attacked, to hell with them all!!!
Report Post »RJJinGadsden
Posted on April 12, 2012 at 9:28amJZS, Sorry, had to hit the sack last night, 0400 comes rather early. No, we do not agree that Reagan’s lowering of taxes and flattening out of the loop holes was anything like what 0bama is attempting. Just look at the news reports this morning regarding his absurd claim.
Report Post »Belzar
Posted on April 12, 2012 at 10:04amThe myth that 50% of Americans do not pay taxes. Home owners, business owners, and industries pay property taxes, sales taxes, utility taxes, energy taxes (gasoline taxes), entertainment taxes, and more taxes; property taxes only tax deducted from individual Federal Tax return. I prefer paying local and state taxes deducted from fed’s return rather than pay feds a $1.00 and get $0.20 back in the form of a fed handout. The people have control over state and local government than on the fed level. All talk about the Buffet Rule and the fact he receives his income from investments leaves out the fact he probably receives some income tax free; investments in tax free municipal bonds. I don’t know if this is true but following his investment plan and tax bracket, it seems he would take advantage of that too. He is too smart not to take it. I hate paying taxes when the money is wasted.
Report Post »ZenJedi
Posted on April 12, 2012 at 12:24pm@JZS – You are grasping at straws. President Reagan was talking about REFORMING THE TAX CODE – not raising taxes on the richest of Americans. Two totally different concepts. PLEASE DO NOT COMPARE PRESIDENT REAGAN with OBUMMER. There is certainly no comparison. Obummer couldn‘t shine President Regan’s shoes.
Report Post »Unix
Posted on April 12, 2012 at 1:42pmYes, this is true, a Spanish company will be compiling the USA’s election results.
see: http://www.westernjournalism.com/spanish-company-will-count-american-...
or you can google it and find other sources.
This smacks of something very smelly to me, and it ain’t fish!
Report Post »GollygeeMrwilson
Posted on April 12, 2012 at 3:29pm@oliveoil123 http://www.wnd.com/?s=scytl&submit.x=16&submit.y=6
Report Post »fancydancy
Posted on April 12, 2012 at 6:00pmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmJtaOO2etc
This company will count the votes and once co-mingled, how can you decipher which were accurate and which weren’t?
Report Post »West Coast Patriot
Posted on April 12, 2012 at 6:54pmOliveOil, Here is some more on SCYTL: This should get everyone angry, the fact that Obama sold the rights to a company based in Spain to count all votes across the country in the election, SCYTL, that is managed by former Goldman Sachs executives and CEO of SCYTL was CEO of Globalnet, a major multimillion dollar contributor to Obama‘s campaign in ’08. George Soros in in the middle of all this also.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dmJtaOO2etc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaGCmO59lUU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRNORxmmVSc
Report Post »squigs2004
Posted on April 12, 2012 at 7:20pmYes, it’s true. Our presidential election has been sold out to a Spanish software company called Scytl. This means the vote counting isn’t accountable to the states. No one will really know what the actual votes cast were or from who (such as did a “dead person” vote 30 times?). Here’s a source for the evidence: http://www.saveamericafoundation.com/2012/04/07/who-in-the-congress-and-the-fec-approved-of-a-spanish-software-company-counting-our-votes-in-the-upcoming-election-by-senior-chief-geoff-ross-usn-ret/
Report Post »bernbart
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 6:52pmWe could make a dent in Bush’s deficit with all of Romnys money, he paid no taxes on, stashed Swish and Cayman Island banks.
Report Post »Stoic one
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 7:18pmBush’s share was four trillion over eight years. obama’s share is six trillion over three years, extrapolating over eight years will equal thirteen point seven trillion.
Report Post »So yes, Romney‘s money would have a greater impact on bush’s than obama’s.
BlenGeck
Posted on April 12, 2012 at 12:32amGood one Stoic!
Report Post »lukerw
Posted on April 12, 2012 at 12:42amThe “Laugher Curve” show that 17% in Tax is the Max Revenue that can be extracted from the public… for anything higher, then they will react, Shelter, and change… so, a Flat Tax is best, but it must account for the Living Requirements of the Poor & Aged!
Report Post »Joyzee
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 6:51pmWE will go down in History as the Country in Debtors Prison..$$
Report Post »Mateytwo Barreett
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 7:40pmDoes that mean we don’t ned pasports to visit Greece, Portugal and Spain?
Report Post »moreoilplease
Posted on April 12, 2012 at 2:51amNo I think we will be best known for our stunning collective stupidity. See above some of the pathetic rhetorical arguments in favor of the Buffet “lie” and the rebuttals.
Report Post »ChevalierdeJohnstone
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 6:50pm“they would not be effected by an income tax increase”
AFFECTED
Report Post »youdidthis
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 6:50pmi suggest all pay no dam taxes and shut this pos govt down.
Report Post »spirited
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 7:30pm“dam”
>damn
Report Post »CATPBJ
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 10:10pmI dont live near the Hoover dam or any other dam for that matter, therefore I will not pay any dam taxes either. Now, if you live near Hoover dam or another dam, you might have to pay dam taxes. I honestly dont know if dams are taxed or not.
Report Post »FlowerBell
Posted on April 12, 2012 at 4:14amThat is the only way to make people wake up and listen. You have to hit them in the pocketbook.
Report Post »But with everyone being polar opposites it’s impossible to even convince 3 people to do the same thing much less an entire country. That’s why they keep us in this perpetual miasma of diversity. When we are all different it’s less likely we will rise as one against them.
bernbart
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 6:50pmYou people probably make little money so you have no clue. The 1% are those who make above 500,000.
Report Post »Stoic one
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 7:25pmthe number that comprises One Percent is MUCH lower – although you are correct, you are being dishonest. Much like this statement: “people who make over one million dollars are in the one percent”
The THRESHOLD at which one percent is attained is one hundred and twenty five thousand dollars per person. That came out on the 2008 campaign during the confrontation with “Joe the Plumber”
Report Post »CATPBJ
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 10:13pmHey, Stoic One – You are wrong again. To make the top 1 percent, a household must have AGI of $343,927 or more. Which is, as you can simply see, much more than 125k per year.
Report Post »My Two Cents
Posted on April 12, 2012 at 11:39amThe only reason my business exists is because the majority of my customers are very high income earners and they like to spend money when times are good. All of my employees are keenly aware of this fact and they are as grateful as I am.
However, when these same customers feel that their wealth is being threatened they put the brakes on. When the economy tanked my sales dropped by 40% in a demographic where the average household income hovers around $500,000.00. If anyone thinks taking more from the rich will benefit main street they are delusional.
Report Post »bernbart
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 6:47pmSo now Glenn is pretending to be an economist. Oh how His delusions grow. Is he done playing president already?
Report Post »Thatsitivehadenough
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 6:52pmTroll go home.
Report Post »ACLUHater
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 8:12pmI sense a liberal plant here.
Report Post »Patrick Henry II
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 10:19pmseminar poster.
Report Post »GeorgieJo
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 11:35pmObummer is pretending to be CIC offering empty solutions to big problems.
Report Post »Yet to see any proof that Obummer is a LAWYER.
He is burning the constitution.
OMG 2012
johnnycatt
Posted on April 12, 2012 at 6:44amlets talk about “dilusions.” who is going to protect you when YOUR SIDE start the riots? Who is going to protect the pro-govt class when the “french revolution style” riots start? the cops? No… the Military? They will never fire on American Citizens… You boys are starting a war you can’t win. Non-gun owning, city-dwellers with little resources are going to start a war against real “individualists?” And you think you can win that? Good luck! I got plenty of Ammo, a 4-wheel drive, 40 acres in the woods and an escape plan! What have you got? a gay lover, a latte, a 1bedroom apartment and little kitty cat? See you on the otehr side, brother!
Report Post »SickandTiredAmerican
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 6:46pmWhy is it so hard for people to understand when someone is lying to their face?
I can‘t stand the president’s use of the term, “fair share”. Our current tax system is inherently UNFAIR! My 10 year old understands this, why can’t everyone else? A truly “fair” system would mean that EVERYONE pays the same, regardless of income. Since having a person making $100,000 pay the same dollar amount as a person making $25,000 would be silly, they should pay the same percentage. The person making more would pay more, but they would each have the same percentage. Why is this so hard for people to understand?
Remove ALL deductions and reform the tax code to a simple percentage system. This would insure that EVERY American pays income tax. Even if you earned $1,000 a year, you would pay something in income tax.
Investment income should be counted as INCOME, period!
Report Post »Selfreliance
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 8:05pmThere’s an interesting chart out there about the rate of personal income taxation and the amount paid. Historically, no matter where the rate is set, taxation pulls roughly 19% of the country’s income. There is inevitably a bump in one direction or another with each change in rate, but within a couple of years we’re right back at 19%.
There is a simple and long-standing truism worth considering: if you tax something, you get less of it. The logical flip is equally interesting: if you want more of something, tax it less. In the case of investment, there should be no question that we want more of it. The US competes for capital in a global market, and capital strongly tends towards the places it can earn the highest (post-tax) returns. If you mean we should use a flat \rate of taxation at the current level used for investment income, OK. If you intend to raise the tax rate on investment income to some higher number, that’s folly. Our best path to government funding and debt reduction is by growing the private economy,m which cannot happen if you drive more capital to other countries.
Report Post »bernbart
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 6:44pmFirst I doubt anyone in the Beck audience is in the 1%. They may however have delusions of being in the 1% someday. Why do middle class right wingers, constantly vote against their own best interests. The Bush tax cuts did not help the the middle class, The Ryan plans does not help the middle class either.
Report Post »When Bush took office in 2000 he inherited a surplus from Clinton. Bush turned a surplus into the biggest deficit in U.S. history with tax cuts and 2 unfinanced wars, and then left ofcie with the worst recession since the Great Depression. Now the republicans try to blame Obama.. lol. Obama has the right anseers
Lucy Larue
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 7:05pmBERNBART,
You’re an ASS of the first order . You make ridiculous assumptions.There are no words for your ignorance. NONE!
You need to loosen the ties on your Barry Dunham bonnet! They’re too tight. You need to remove the Barry Dunham crazy straw from your kool-aid sippy cup. You need to actually deal with reality for at least a nano second.
Our President and his asinine minions are doing bad things to the greatest country the world has ever known.
You Bernbart suck the largesse from this nation while simultaneously defiling it. You abet.
I post from Wonderland. Down is up. Up is down. We’re painting the roses red!
Report Post »As the Cheshire Cat said to Alce,”We’re ALL mad here”!
PilgrimStuckInBizarroWorld
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 7:10pmSo then why did President Obama decide during the lame duck session of December 2010 that getting rid of the Bush Tax Cuts would hurt the middle class?
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 7:16pmThank you Lucy,
I could not have said it any better.
Report Post »RJJinGadsden
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 8:11pmBERNBART, When the left wants more money they start with the class warfare attacks on the rich. Once they manage to raise these taxes on the backs of the job builders they find out that it is never enough. Next, it is the middle class that always gets soaked once the left has ‘that special new program’ in place and are still not taxing enough funds to keep it going. This has happened time after time in this country and is about to happen again if 0bama gets his way. Furthermore, the middle class as a whole is down by 10% of their median annual income since 0bama was anointed. Also, if you were paying attention a few years ago, it was Bush who inherited the start of the recession from the Clinton administration as the Dot Com bubble started to burst. Again, in December of ‘06 prices started to sky rocket, and especially gas right after Pelosi made her speech about how the dems were taking power of the Congress the following month and a warning to Big Business, Big Oil, Big Banks, and so forth, we are coming after you. That didn’t help any of this mess. I know, because I was driving 80 to 100 miles a day to get to work and saw how not only gas, but everything else started to increase in price. The left want that shared misery, not for individuals to improve themselves and rise above on their own. Silly little boy.
Report Post »toto
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 11:20pmWhenever there is a climate favorable to investment (low taxes on investments) the middle class benefits in the greater access to and availability of goods and services. Look around today, it should tell you everything you want to know about Obamanomics.
Report Post »Dismayed Veteran
Posted on April 12, 2012 at 11:09amBernBart
No question about Bush increasing our spending. But, there is an inconvienent truth: It is known as 9/11 and the subsequent war.
Report Post »Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 6:16pmSo if this insanity of the Buffet rule comes into reality then we are one more step closer to the collapse of the American Republic, and one step closer to the complete and final nightmare of a communist subjugation under Kaiser Obama the Ronin.
Report Post »fblair
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 6:45pmNo one ever talks much about the fact that Buffet, or one of his companies is fighting the IRS for huge back payments that the IRS claims they are due. So, he is not in a place to state that others should pay more when he does not even pay what he is supposed to pay.
Report Post »homebuilder
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 6:11pmLong term capital gains are taxed at a fixed rate of 15% with some minor variances and a few other loop holes. The IRS does not look at this as W2 income. There are also other investments in local, state and federal government bonds that can be completely tax free. The description says it all it is long investments. The dems and media use this lower rate to cloud the issue with the average tax payer that does not completely understand his own 1040 tax return.
Report Post »SageInWaiting
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 6:00pm…and once Comrade Obama institutes the USSA of his dreams, the confiscation of those “investments” begins. We already see it in “death taxes” – confiscation of assets denied one’s heirs and the sales of small business and farms to pay the tax liability owed on the “value” of the business. As with so many collectives before, land ownership will be the first to be outlawed; the city dwellers will be the first to work the farms. Businesses will be nationalized – so much for stocks and their values. Do you think people will be allowed to keep their gold? Think back to what FDR did in the 30′s.
This is nothing new. It has happened time and time again throughout recent history. And the Buffets and Soros’s – a sufficient portion of their wealth is already spread around the world; they’ll find a place to fly off to… maybe… if they get out soon enough. Or, they just fall into that gigantic category of “useful idiots.”
Report Post »jakartaman
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 5:59pmThe Liar and Divider is at it again
Report Post »Four and out this November
Move over Jimmy!
SimpleTruths
Posted on April 12, 2012 at 1:09pmYou wish. Sorry dude, your side is so divided and lost so many moderates and independents (and women) that you don’t have a chance. Does the phrase ‘cut your nose off to spite your face’ sound familiar?
Report Post »USACommoner
Posted on April 12, 2012 at 3:12pmSimple: So, you believe their lies, too? Look at what you have to lose, if anything, then ask yourself if it’s all worth protecting these people who are working against YOU, too. You think the dems are any more united? When the shtf, it will be every liberal for him-/herself and the weak ones will be the first to go. They have no loyalty to you or anyone else. Do some real research and stop being a talking head for liars.
Report Post »marybethelizabeth
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 5:55pmMr. Beck made up many facts to prove his point, such as:
Report Post »Warren Buffet paying his secretary in stock,
that he can tell that the President is lying because he is not speaking from his gut
That the media incorrectly reports his income
and Ta Da
That alligators caused the depression of 1929.
homebuilder
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 6:18pmThis is typical of someone who does not listen. Glen made no exact claims about how or how much she was paid. He was trying to make sense of the garbage in obama’s statement that an average secretary pays 30% tax. That assumption is pure garbage. He was only trying to make assumption on how she could be paying 30%. It is obvious to anyone that has even a simple understanding of the IRS code that someone making an average secretary’s salary is not paying 30%. More likely they are paying 12% to 15%. The only way to pay 30% is to have a very high income with out any deductions.
Report Post »marybethelizabeth
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 6:26pmMr. Homebuilder, the exact quote is “He must be paying her in stock”.
The speculation was how much a share of stock is worth, some ridiculous amount Pat said. I think the figure he threw out were either $7000 or $120,000.
The only thing I left out of my original post was that Mr. Beck said the cause of the depression of 1929 was hurricanes as well as alligators.
Who doesn’t listen?
Report Post »fblair
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 6:47pmHow do you know that Buffet does not pay his secretary in stock?
Report Post »homebuilder
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 6:49pmYou need to listen again. He was trying to figure out how she could be paying 30%, because the IRS does not have a tax bracket that high at the average secretary’s salary. You need to check the value of the stock that Glen was talking about before you go off on a tangent, but that doesn’t matter he was only trying to work out the garbage numbers.
Clearly, you are not listening. Listen to the entire story and don’t take comments out of context. All the numbers that he gave were pure speculation to try to back into the 30% garbage number from obama. Do you just take a politician at face value. You should not no matter what party they are aligned with. All of them twist the truth to suit their needs. Even Glen said don’t take his word for do your own research. Oboam’s Buffet rule is based on pure fantasy George Lucus style!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Report Post »Thatsitivehadenough
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 6:54pmTroll be gone.
Report Post »Thatsitivehadenough
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 6:58pmMARYBETHELIZABETH is a paid troll: http://bit.ly/Hw3DCa
Report Post »marybethelizabeth
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 7:48pmHomebuilder. You are interpreting Mr. Beck’s words to fit your belief system.
What you are referring to is Mr. Beck confusing the income tax brackets with the effective income tax paid, pretending they are the same and then pointing out that they are different. It is Mr. Beck that is being deceptive.
I am not taking the man that means what he says and says what he means out of context.
I don’t take Mr. Beck’s words as truth, mostly because he makes it up as he goes along.
Report Post »RJJinGadsden
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 8:46pmSISTERMARYELEPHANT, You accuse somebody else of not listening to Beck? LOL, I heard the show this morning and after reading your posts here I just went back and listened again. Seems to me that it was HOMEBUILDER who heard correctly, and it is you who is apparently hearing what you wish to hear. Yeah, Beck and crew made some jokes about Buffett “must” be paying his secretary with Berkshire-Hathaway stock. Not as a statement of hard truth. Your hair must not be parted in the middle where that sarcasm shot at light speed right over your head. His other points do regard to differing tax brackets. Buffett pays a lower percentage because he no longer declares an income. His taxes are based on his investment earnings. His secretary like me and probably like you, but I just can’t say for certain, pays a higher percentage rate on income. Is that fair? I don’t know, because I did not write the laws, a bunch of primarily dems wrote those laws with those so called loop holes in them. The Republicans have tried to flatten out those percentages with fewer loop holes for decades. Ronald Reagan was partially able to do that even with a dem dominant House and Senate for his full eight year. Clinton with a dem Congress for his first two years ‘corrected’ those laws and managed to raise taxes and back date them to the previous 1October 1992 enough to hit my Army NCO salary. Now, that was digging deep. Thank God the Repubs turned him around in 2 years.
Report Post »marybethelizabeth
Posted on April 12, 2012 at 11:44amMr Rjjingadsden.
I correctly , though briefly, recounted Mr. Beck’s remarks.
I don’t blame you for disliking Mr. Clinton. He was a Democratic Leadership Council democrat: essentially a Republican. His policies followed the Republican platform as it existed then.
A flat tax is inherently unfair.
We are currently paying for President Reagan”s policy of lowering taxes and financing the government by borrowing . The bill eventually comes due.
Report Post »RJJinGadsden
Posted on April 12, 2012 at 6:34pmMARYBETHELIZABETH, First, after having thought about this a while I wish to apologize for calling you Sister Mary Elephant. It sounded funny at first in my opinion, but now I feel that I was wrong. I will refer to you by your site name now and in the future.
Report Post »I do disagree with you regarding Clinton. When he came into office he was as left leaning as any liberal. But, I must confess that Hillary scares me more than he or 0bama. He entered office raising taxes, slamming and reducing the military more than most in our past. They didn’t call him Slick Willy for nothing. He certainly lived up to that name and when the winds of change were blowing he had a wet finger in the air to check the direction. When the people of this nation gave the Congress to the Republicans Bubba knew which way to bend merely to maintain power. He just happened to be in the right place at the right time to receive the credit for what the Congress did.
Before you go into it, I did like Newt at first, but his actions taught me better. But, I think we were better off with Newt far more than Hastert. A truly corrupt politician regardless of party. The House suckered us all by voting him into that position.
absolutelynot
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 5:35pmGlenn im glad you finally got here, ive been explaining this to people every since Buffet started this mess. if your money is already banked its yours, it will destroy the next steve jobs
Report Post »slvrserfr
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 5:35pmIt’s blatant hypocrisy – the only thing that Obama IS consistent at driving.
Report Post »old construction worker
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 5:23pmYou have to understand. To a progressive socialist, anybody that works in the private sector is RICH and their money should go the government employees. If there is any money left over, that should go to welfare. Progressive Socialism – Collected Masses ruled by unelected Regulators
Report Post »Beckofile
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 5:21pmAnd since his secretary has no skin in the game except to earn income for work performed she will pay higher taxes then the person that not only gambles their capital but also creates more secretaries or workers to add to the income tax rolls. This is the result of poor financial education in our schools.
Report Post »4XGrace
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 5:20pmProbably her “salary” is $60K/yr but she is receiving also bonuses and taxable benefits to the tune of $250K/yr for which she is paying out of her cash income stream a 30% tax rate … Poor girl … to be so well endowed yet so poor at the same time.
Report Post »Beckofile
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 5:46pmThis would make her one of the 1% that Obama rails against or for or??????
Report Post »DownWithDems
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 5:47pmBuffett’s Company, Berkshire Hathaway, has been involved in a dispute with the IRS
since 2002, concerning over a BILLION DOLLARS plus in disputed taxes.
This is public information which can be found in the Berkshire Hathaway
2011 annual report. This report can be found online. I was told it was
disclosed on page 15.
Obama, Buffett, and the media never mention this!
Report Post »Moozmom
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 5:12pmYour wages, dividends, interest income, gains on stocks sold, up to $3000 in losses, and income from investments in partnerships less ordinary deductions on a 1040 are taxed at the tax schedule rates for your 1040.
Report Post »There is another investment, a Subchapter S Corporation, whereby if I invest $200,000, then I have a basis in the company of $200,000. The company can distributed to me up to the $200,000 back and I don’t pay tax on it. If the company earns an income, the income is taxed to me on my 1040 and my basis in the company increases by the income, allowing me to take that income out tax-free (but I really paid tax on the income via the Subchapter S K1 form that goes with my 1040.
So, Mr. Buffett does pay tax on his income, but he does not pay tax on Subchapter S Distributions.
Of course, currently, Mr. Buffet has successfully thumbed his nose at the IRS.
homebuilder
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 5:53pmWhen your company earns income it does not increase your basis. Read the IRS rules. Your basis only increases if you contribute capital in some form into the company from your personal account ie a cash loan or the transfer of some hard asset to the company. Any net profits over basis are taxed on your personal tax return. Of course it is your personal choice to take company distribution against your basis at any time your choose, but when the basis is gone there is no more tax credit until you put more capital in the business.
Report Post »HKS
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 5:11pmThe buffet rule from the start was based on false data. Since Buffet does not get paid a salary certainly his secretary that makes $400,000 would pay more than he does in income tax. Now if you compare that to his capitol gains tax, another story. It’s all smoke and mirrors like everything Obama does.
Report Post »LouC57
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 5:10pmAmazing.
Report Post »Dexter Alarius
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 5:02pmFree editorial advice:
Report Post »Learn the difference between “effect” and “affect”.
“…they would not be AFFECTED by an income tax increase…”
CS_GUY
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 5:12pmThanks Einstein……….focus your brain.
Report Post »Teabunny
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 5:13pmThanks Poindexter!
Report Post »HKS
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 4:58pmIt‘s Obama’s “get whitey” tour 2012. 98% of all the people he’s after with this new tax are white.
Report Post »Teabunny
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 5:20pmSorry, I disagree with your stats. do you have a link to verify? You see, this is an income tax based on 250k ann salary. You make it sound like you believe there are more white doctors, lawyers, and upper management employees than minority. I think we have moved beyond that in this country. However, these people are the ones with the capital to invest into start-ups…without going to angel investors or venture (vulture) capitalists, or raising the money to start off as a public offering. In essence, he is draining the ability for these individuals to help start new businesses, keeping the major players as the only game in town, helping to squash the free market.
Report Post »TyrannyNoMore
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 10:37pmHKS….. I gather from reading your comment, that you are as frustrated as I am, at all the race baiting that is being generated by Obama, Jackson and Sharpton etc… However, don’t crawl in the gutter with that trash. It only gives credence to their claims that we are racist.
Report Post »Max jones
Posted on April 12, 2012 at 12:35amCan’t you see it is not very important what they call “us”. The whole scenario is intended to cause strife, and violence. There are two qualities that Americans have that are dangerous to the powers and principalities that threaten us and our way of life…We have God, and we have guns. They need to discredit our faith and seize our weapons. The more dangerous it gets, the closer we are to martial law.
Report Post »This has all been storyboarded and scripted, and the variables have been taken into consideration. The stage is being set for the opening act of this tragic opera.
The famine of the end times is for the Word, and Revelation’s flood is a torrent of lies.
Mark0331
Posted on April 11, 2012 at 4:51pmBuffet owes nearly a billion dollars in back taxes…has he paid those yet?…or is the ‘media’ silent on that?
Report Post »