Billionaire's Yacht Creates 225 Jobs for 4 Years

[djAdvocate]

Jan 31, 2012 16:30:00 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Jan 31, 2012 15:28:12 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

agreed. i am right pissed off that Congress didn't do the $4T deal that Obama layed out. a deal that would have only asked for $0.4T in tax increases.

lame.

Which one was that?

the very first proposal. as i recall, Boehner excitedly brought it back to the House, triumphantly, on a Friday or Saturday, and by Sunday, Cantor had taken over and pissed off the president so badly that we never got anything CLOSE to that good of a deal again.

[jkapp]

Jan 31, 2012 17:04:47 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 31, 2012 16:30:00 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Which one was that?

the very first proposal. as i recall, Boehner excitedly brought it back to the House, triumphantly, on a Friday or Saturday, and by Sunday, Cantor had taken over and pissed off the president so badly that we never got anything CLOSE to that good of a deal again.

I thought that was the one where they were really close to a deal but then Obama came in last minute and demanded twice the amount in tax increases as was currently in the plan? (Essentially killing the deal)

[jkapp]

Jan 31, 2012 16:43:24 GMT -5 @toughtimes said:

Because proportionately speaking the poor pay excise and sales taxes at a far greater rate. Much of the wealthy's money is saved or invested such that consumption based taxes pale in comparison. On the other hand, if you are living close to poverty, every 8% sales tax on a new pair of pants, really and truly hurts. Sales and excise taxes are known as regressive taxes, even though many incorrectly assume them to be flat taxes.

www.investopedia.com/terms/r/regressivetax.asp

But then because of those savings/investments the rich pay a hell of a lot more Cap Gains taxes than the poor, and that's at 15%. I don't know any sales tax that tops out at 15%...some get pretty close, but still not quite that high

[Mkitty is pro kitty]

To say nothing about the thousands of jobs created by the billionaires multiple businesses (highway construction among them- doubtful we're making highway in China and re-importing them?)

Just an example of what's at stake when we talk about punitive tax rates...

And for the record- I have already come out in favor of a massive tax increase. I've pointed out that it simply has to happen. The 47% who currently pay no federal income taxes simply have to be welcomed back onto the tax rolls.

And this is basically the Republican party's new agenda: have the poor and middle class pay for tax cuts for the rich. Cut social programs, but keep subsidies. It didn't work for the Ryan plan debacle, so when do you think it will work? Here's a clue: N_v_r Would you like to buy a vowel?

Note how this thread has two tracks going: "Fair tax" and "don't tax the rich any more." I've put the two together, why don't the rest of you? And it's more than 90% likely you won't like it.

I agree, but until they actually do some real CUTTING, raising taxes beforehand is just a fool's play. Its like trying to stop a raging river by adding more water...

Spending and revenue are opposite things, and your example has them as the same thing. Obviously a contradiction. Worst simile ever.

And if these billionaries do move away, who will the dems and libs go to for taxes?

Nobody is irreplacable. And if these billionaires go away, will their sycophants' passport pictures show them with their heads still up their asses?

[djAdvocate]

Jan 31, 2012 17:41:51 GMT -5 Ratchets said:

Sounds like Mitt's a smart man, and knows a thing or two about money. Maybe he should run for president and get our country out of the mess it's in .

from what i can tell, his ideal vision of America would be for us to sell everything we own and convert it into a big mound of cash in the Caymans.

[Deleted]

Uh huh...I think Paul may be close to paying no Federal Income tax...he/it must be a troll, no one can be that obtuse.

Much has been made of TPC’s estimate that fully 46 percent of Americans will pay no federal individual income tax this year. Commentators have often misinterpreted that percentage as indicating that nearly half of Americans pay no taxes. In fact, however, many of those who don’t pay income tax do pay other taxes—federal payroll and excise taxes as well as state and local income, sales, and property taxes.

The large percentage of people not paying income tax is often blamed on tax breaks that zero out many households’ income tax bills and can even result in net payments from the government. While that’s the case for many households, a new TPC paper shows that about half of people who don’t owe income tax are off the rolls not because they take advantage of tax breaks but rather because they have low incomes. For example, a couple with two children earning less than $26,400 will pay no federal income tax this year because their $11,600 standard deduction and four exemptions of $3,700 each reduce their taxable income to zero. The basic structure of the income tax simply exempts subsistence levels of income from tax.

A flat tax is a fools game, but I would be willing to go along if everyone, and I mean you making from $8 an hour to $50,000 an hour, and all corporations...all of them, no loop holes. I would put it at 18 %.

It could bring in half a trillion or more a year...not from the waitress making minimum wage, but from the porkers who take and never give back. From the companies that use the US as a great launching pad and then go to India and China and Indonesia and pay slave wages.

You make 1O billion in profits, now you are paying a couple of hundred thousand, under the new flat tax regime, you will be paying $1.8 billion in taxes. What is fair is fair.

Everyone should pay, agreed.

[handyman2]

People want to bash the rich. The cold hard truth is that without the rich there would be a lot fewer jobs than there are now.
Take a look at the oil boom in North Dakota and Wyoming. If there were not rich people behind it there would be no boom. Like it or not that is how it is.

[handyman2]

Tough Times I must respectfully disagree and so would the yacht builders in Florida. There have been a number of boat builders there who became millionaires building custom yatchts. Many sold to Middle East and South American billionaires.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jan 31, 2012 20:54:22 GMT -5 handyman2 said:

Tough Times I must respectfully disagree and so would the yacht builders in Florida. There have been a number of boat builders there who became millionaires building custom yatchts. Many sold to Middle East and South American billionaires.

tt has NO IDEA how the economy works. Some people are absolutely blinded and driven to distraction by the thought that someone has a nickel more than someone else.

[Don Perignon]

Jan 31, 2012 23:51:15 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jan 31, 2012 20:54:22 GMT -5 handyman2 said:

Tough Times I must respectfully disagree and so would the yacht builders in Florida. There have been a number of boat builders there who became millionaires building custom yatchts. Many sold to Middle East and South American billionaires.

tt has NO IDEA how the economy works. Some people are absolutely blinded and driven to distraction by the thought that someone has a nickel more than someone else.

You really should take that up with your therapist, Paul.
It might take a few sessions, but give it some time...

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jan 31, 2012 23:56:12 GMT -5 Don Perignon said:

Jan 31, 2012 23:51:15 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

tt has NO IDEA how the economy works. Some people are absolutely blinded and driven to distraction by the thought that someone has a nickel more than someone else.

You really should take that up with your therapist, Paul.
It might take a few sessions, but give it some time...

My therapist won't be able to help me with tt's problem.

[vandalshandle]

There are two kinds of people in this country, Don. Those that pay what they owe in taxes, and those that park their money offshore so they don't have to. The latter have no credibility whatsoever in an argument about fair tax rates.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Feb 1, 2012 0:10:05 GMT -5 vandalshandle said:

There are two kinds of people in this country, Don. Those that pay what they owe in taxes, and those that park their money offshore so they don't have to. The latter have no credibility whatsoever in an argument about fair tax rates.

And there's a third kind- the kind that are willing to wait it out and see if our government will stop the spending, get out of the way of the productive sector, and be reasonable-- but who are prepared in case the government will not listen to reason, be fair, and instead blocks growth, stifles the productive sector, and gets out of hand.

[jkapp]

Message deleted by mmhmm. Please speak to the issue, not the poster. Thanks.

[jkapp]

Jan 31, 2012 17:38:19 GMT -5 @toughtimes said:

Sorry Kapp. That one doesn't fly. Romney for example isn't getting his 15% as CAPITAL GAINS he is getting it as CARRIED INTEREST.

In other words, if you are tax lawyer, an accountant or anyone who provides financial advice or service to others, you are paying at the highest marginal rate of 36% or more. Romney, on the other hand, is paying 15% on his services as the manager of a hedge fund. I am not talking about the 15% on his personal investment, I am talking about 15% on his personal service income. He pays income tax at a lower rate than many secretaries.

www.investopedia.com/terms/c/carriedinterest.asp#axzz1l4h3RFlt

Exactly which secretaries is everyone talking about? Do secretaries truly get paid THAT MUCH? I am paid near $50k and my fed taxes this year amounted to less than 13%, and I am single so no special exemptions of any kind.

[mmhmm]

jkapp, please remove the last sentence in your post #134. Because someone does not agree with you it doesn't necessarily follow they are uneducated. It also doesn't indicate they don't read. It's not necessary to insult other posters to make your point. If the post isn't modified it will be removed in 10 minutes.

mmhmm, P&M Moderator

Since you've apparently signed off, jkapp, I've removed the referenced post.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Feb 1, 2012 1:22:36 GMT -5 @patstab said:

Then go, live high on the hog in one of those 3rd world countries. Don't forget to hire your bodyguards for the wife and kids. And be prepared if they are very ill they will likely have to be flown back to the US.

Just go, I think you will be glad to get back.

Where do you think US doctors are going to be when ObamaCare is in full force?

No need to fly back. Trust me, Costa Rica is already crawling with US doctors at far lower prices than here because they have to charge market.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Feb 1, 2012 9:28:50 GMT -5 @toughtimes said:

Secretaries can make very high incomes, especially in a high cost of living area like NYC. In fact, it doesn't take much for the 28% bracket to kick in for them while Romney is paying 15%. Very few experienced workers in my area are paying 15%.

Don't forget that "secretary" doesn't just include low-level people. Legal and Medical secretaries have to have a strong base of specialized knowledge and work in pressured environments and are paid accordingly. An executive assistant serving a so-called, "C" level executive, i.e. a Chief Financial Officer, Chief Executive Office, Chairman etc. is essentially on call 24/7 and may easily gross a 6-figure income.

The word 'secretary' was used to conjure up the image of a lowly admin sitting at a computer in the florescent lamp lit front office someplace.

This whole tale of woe is a fraud from start to finish. So, sitting here arguing semantics, I believe, misses the point.

The President and Warren Buffet are LYING. They are engaged in raw, unadulterated demagoguery on the issue and using Warren's highly paid executive assistant as a political prop. It's really disgusting when you view it objectively.

[handyman2]

Actually Warren was not refering to actual dollars paid but he was refering to the percentage paid on dollars. The Secretary may pay 25% of taxes on salary earned. Buffett may pay a lower percentage depending on how the money was invested. That is my understanding of what he was saying. If correct he was not lying. But in the end Buffett pays a larger amount in taxes which would be even larger if he was taxed at the same rate in actual dollars. Those are the tax laws he did not write them just takes advantage of them which is smart on his part.

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

Buffett is in his 80s, his secretary in what, her 40s? Bogus comparison to begin with. 40 years ago Buffett did not have the investments and types of tax preferenced income he has now.
In fact, just about everyone who is retired(60s, 70s & 80s) are living off money they have saved.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Feb 1, 2012 11:39:44 GMT -5 handyman2 said:

Actually Warren was not refering to actual dollars paid but he was refering to the percentage paid on dollars. The Secretary may pay 25% of taxes on salary earned. Buffett may pay a lower percentage depending on how the money was invested. That is my understanding of what he was saying. If correct he was not lying. But in the end Buffett pays a larger amount in taxes which would be even larger if he was taxed at the same rate in actual dollars. Those are the tax laws he did not write them just takes advantage of them which is smart on his part.

Berkshire Hathaway is taxed BEFORE dividends are distributed so he pays twice. His regular income is taxed at the SAME rate as his secretary's income. There is no special income tax rate for billionaires-- again, this is all a deliberate attempt to mislead the public for political purposes.

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

Feb 1, 2012 15:37:56 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Feb 1, 2012 11:39:44 GMT -5 handyman2 said:

Actually Warren was not refering to actual dollars paid but he was refering to the percentage paid on dollars. The Secretary may pay 25% of taxes on salary earned. Buffett may pay a lower percentage depending on how the money was invested. That is my understanding of what he was saying. If correct he was not lying. But in the end Buffett pays a larger amount in taxes which would be even larger if he was taxed at the same rate in actual dollars. Those are the tax laws he did not write them just takes advantage of them which is smart on his part.

Berkshire Hathaway is taxed BEFORE dividends are distributed so he pays twice. His regular income is taxed at the SAME rate as his secretary's income. There is no special income tax rate for billionaires-- again, this is all a deliberate attempt to mislead the public for political purposes.

Someone correct me but Berkshire has never paid a dividend. All these gains and dividends are from Buffetts other personal holdings.

Again, every single middle class taxpayer can and is enjoying the identical tax treatment on investment income that Buffett has.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 1, 2012 15:40:50 GMT -5 Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ said:

Feb 1, 2012 15:37:56 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Berkshire Hathaway is taxed BEFORE dividends are distributed so he pays twice. His regular income is taxed at the SAME rate as his secretary's income. There is no special income tax rate for billionaires-- again, this is all a deliberate attempt to mislead the public for political purposes.

Someone correct me but Berkshire has never paid a dividend. All these gains and dividends are from Buffetts other personal holdings.

Again, every single middle class taxpayer can and is enjoying the identical tax treatment on investment income that Buffett has.

yes, but not all equities are owned by every single American. in fact, the top 10% own 80% of them. the numbers are even higher for the kind of instruments that Romney uses, like blind trusts.

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

yes, but not all equities are owned by every single American. in fact, the top 10% own 80% of them. the numbers are even higher for the kind of instruments that Romney uses, like blind trusts.

Institutional investors hold the bulk of the publically traded equiteis.

These include mutual funds, pension funds, endowments, trusts, retirement plans, etc.

I'm just a schmo nobody, and in 2011, I got over $7000 in dividends.

[Sum Dum Gai]

Berkshire Hathaway is taxed BEFORE dividends are distributed so he pays twice.

That's not double taxation. He's not the sole owner of Berkshire Hathaway, their corporate taxes aren't coming out of his pocket. He probably draws a salary from them, and that section of his total income would be taxed at the same rate as any other income. However, any stock he gets would only be taxed at 15% once if he held them a while before selling. And any dividend they pay while he's holding them would also be taxed just once at 15%.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 1, 2012 17:25:00 GMT -5 Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ said:

yes, but not all equities are owned by every single American. in fact, the top 10% own 80% of them. the numbers are even higher for the kind of instruments that Romney uses, like blind trusts.

Institutional investors hold the bulk of the publically traded equiteis.

These include mutual funds, pension funds, endowments, trusts, retirement plans, etc.

the top 10% own well over half of all pension assets, as well.

[weltschmerz]

Where do you think US doctors are going to be when ObamaCare is in full force?
-------------------
Riiiiight, they'll be working at the Olive Garden. When UHC was proposed here, everyone was howling that the doctors would just up and quit. They didn't. Surprise!!

[djAdvocate]

Feb 1, 2012 17:25:00 GMT -5 Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ said:

I'm just a schmo nobody, and in 2011, I got over $7000 in dividends.

that is a fair amount of dividend income. you must have $1/4M in high yield instruments. you have more liquid assets than i do. that would make me LESS than a schmo nobody. how embarrassing.

[EVT1]

Feb 1, 2012 10:33:04 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Where do you think US doctors are going to be when ObamaCare is in full force?

No need to fly back. Trust me, Costa Rica is already crawling with US doctors at far lower prices than here because they have to charge market.

Ha ha- funny- docs in Costa Rica don't make squat- our Wal Mart greeters do better. US doctors aren't going anywhere because Obamacare doesn't do jack shit about the high cost of care or the education of doctors- no one else is paying that kind of scratch for their services.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Feb 1, 2012 18:59:23 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Where do you think US doctors are going to be when ObamaCare is in full force?
-------------------
Riiiiight, they'll be working at the Olive Garden. When UHC was proposed here, everyone was howling that the doctors would just up and quit. They didn't. Surprise!!

Well, as usual- you are absolutely wrong. Doctors fled Canada in droves- most came to the US. Others just up and quit. Now, after years of proclaiming it a success, suddenly government data is available that shows just the opposite, and Canada is slowly but surely moving back to a private model.

www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html

Rick Baker helps people, and sometimes even saves lives. He describes a man who had a seizure and received a diagnosis of epilepsy. Dissatisfied with the opinion—he had no family history of epilepsy, but he did have constant headaches and nausea, which aren’t usually seen in the disorder—the man requested an MRI. The government told him that the wait would be four and a half months. So he went to Baker, who arranged to have the MRI done within 24 hours—and who, after the test discovered a brain tumor, arranged surgery within a few weeks.

Baker isn’t a neurosurgeon or even a doctor. He’s a medical broker, one member of a private sector that is rushing in to address the inadequacies of Canada’s government care.

Canadians pay him to set up surgical procedures, diagnostic tests, and specialist consultations, privately and quickly. “I don’t have a medical background. I just have some common sense,” he explains. “I don’t need to be a doctor for what I do. I’m just expediting care.”

He tells me stories of other people whom his British Columbia–based company, Timely Medical Alternatives, has helped—people like the elderly woman who needed vascular surgery for a major artery in her abdomen and was promised prompt care by one of the most senior bureaucrats in the government, who never called back. “Her doctor told her she’s going to die,” Baker remembers.

So Timely got her surgery in a couple of days, in Washington State. Then there was the eight-year-old badly in need of a procedure to help correct her deafness. After watching her surgery get bumped three times, her parents called Timely.

She’s now back at school, her hearing partly restored. “The father said, ‘Mr. Baker, my wife and I are in agreement that your star shines the brightest in our heaven,’ ” Baker recalls. “I told that story to a government official. He shrugged. He couldn’t fucking care less.”