Buffett's hypocrisy - new level

[formerexpat]

www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/12/berkshire-buyback-idUSL1E8NCITK20121212?feedType=RSS&feedName=rbssFinancialServicesAndRealEstateNews&rpc=22

Warren Buffett's $1.2 billion share buyback from a single unnamed investor likely helped that person's estate save substantially on taxes, just one day after the Berkshire Hathaway CEO said the rich should actually be paying more, not less, when they die.

...

Berkshire said it bought 9,200 Class A shares from "the estate of a long-time shareholder," whom it did not name, at $131,000 per share, a price in line with where Berkshire has traded in recent weeks.

Buffett's assistant didn't respond to a request for comment on the shareholder's identity. The shares represent 1 percent of Berkshire's Class A stock.

The repurchase came less than a month ahead of the looming "fiscal cliff," automatic tax hikes and spending cuts set for Jan. 1 that the White House and members of Congress have been negotiating to avoid.

$131k x 9.2k = $1.2 billion.

That's a lot of savings if the capital gains tax increases to 20% (about $60m).

Good ole Warren - looking out for the middle class.

[djAdvocate]

Dec 12, 2012 23:08:48 GMT -5 formerexpat said:

www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/12/berkshire-buyback-idUSL1E8NCITK20121212?feedType=RSS&feedName=rbssFinancialServicesAndRealEstateNews&rpc=22

Warren Buffett's $1.2 billion share buyback from a single unnamed investor likely helped that person's estate save substantially on taxes, just one day after the Berkshire Hathaway CEO said the rich should actually be paying more, not less, when they die.

...

Berkshire said it bought 9,200 Class A shares from "the estate of a long-time shareholder," whom it did not name, at $131,000 per share, a price in line with where Berkshire has traded in recent weeks.

Buffett's assistant didn't respond to a request for comment on the shareholder's identity. The shares represent 1 percent of Berkshire's Class A stock.

The repurchase came less than a month ahead of the looming "fiscal cliff," automatic tax hikes and spending cuts set for Jan. 1 that the White House and members of Congress have been negotiating to avoid.

$131k x 9.2k = $1.2 billion.

That's a lot of savings if the capital gains tax increases to 20% (about $60m).

Good ole Warren - looking out for the middle class.

he has done more for the middle class than most. BK has over a quarter million employees, and gobs of investors that have benefited from him. but i guess he is supposed to act like mother Theresa and give it all away at tax time?

gmafb

[mwcpa]

Judge Learned Hand
"Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the
treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister
in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands." (Gregory v. Helvering 69 F.2d 809, 810 (2d Cir. 1934), aff'd, 293 U.S. 465, 55 S.Ct. 266, 79 L.Ed. 596 (1935))

Just because one says the law should be changed does not mean they should pay more than the law legally requires.... I personally disagree with a 15% tax rate on the trading of public securities, but, I advise clients how to arrange their affairs under the law to minimize their tax, that is not hypocrisy, that is complying with the laws that Congress wrote.

[mwcpa]

"That's a lot of savings if the capital gains tax increases to 20% (about $60m)."

Assuming the entire sale price was subject to tax.... which is more than likely not the case.....

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

Dec 13, 2012 4:50:09 GMT -5 mwcpa said:

"That's a lot of savings if the capital gains tax increases to 20% (about $60m)."

Assuming the entire sale price was subject to tax.... which is more than likely not the case.....

Which has nothing to do with the price of rice in China...the OP is about Buffett assisting a wealthy investor avoid estate taxes.

Gotta love it.....

[mwcpa]

1.2 billion in cash... 1.2 billion is stock.... hmmmm.... same estate tax to me.....

the comment was in reply to an income tax matter (".... assuming capital gains tax goes to 20% from the current 15%.....") (both I am against for publicly traded securities.... I like Reagan's approach here.... income is income, taxed the same way... he did it at 28% and the capital markets did not collapse)

[happyhoix]

Dec 13, 2012 7:01:19 GMT -5 Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ said:

Dec 13, 2012 4:50:09 GMT -5 mwcpa said:

"That's a lot of savings if the capital gains tax increases to 20% (about $60m)."

Assuming the entire sale price was subject to tax.... which is more than likely not the case.....

Which has nothing to do with the price of rice in China...the OP is about Buffett assisting a wealthy investor avoid estate taxes.

Gotta love it.....

Yeah we get it, Buffet, the second richest man in the US, came out in favor of the very wealthy paying more tax, and now he's become the favorite whipping boy for the very rich and the very rich-wanna-be's, who are now going to scrutinize every transaction Berkshire Hathaway does to try to cast Buffet in a bad light.

I doubt Buffet was even aware of this transaction taking place.

[Value Buy]

Why was Berkshire even doing this for an estate?
I thought public companies had to announce buybacks before they happen.
Why wasn't this private person just told to sell the stock on the open market, like most investors.
Sounds like special treatment for a special investor.
After all, this was not a fund or corporation, but an investor.
Of course, at a billion dollars, I understand it was a corporation rather than "a rich person", hence Warren had no trouble helping a corporation escape taxes.
He just wants "rich people" to pay "their share".

Is he becoming senile?

[Bluerobin]

It also boosted the share price by about $4k. Smart move by Berkshire Hathaway. Buffet was just looking out for his company.

[Value Buy]

Dec 13, 2012 8:44:06 GMT -5 Bluerobin said:

It also boosted the share price by about $4k. Smart move by Berkshire Hathaway. Buffet was just looking out for his company.

Because of the after the purchase announcement of the purchase,
or because he overpaid?
Or was it simply because the stock market was having an up day? price

[usaone]

Jamie Diamond and Lyod Blankfield also said this week that the rich will need to pay more in taxes.

But you middle class folks keep sticking up for them.

Rich will pay more in taxes and the middle class will have benefit cuts. Its the only way to dig out of this.

[Value Buy]

Dec 13, 2012 8:54:48 GMT -5 usaone said:

Jamie Diamond and Lyod Blankfield also said this week that the rich will need to pay more in taxes.

But you middle class folks keep sticking up for them.

Rich will pay more in taxes and the middle class will have benefit cuts. Its the only way to dig out of this.

When will the President and Harry Reid tell Congress, and the middle class that last sentence you wrote?

[rockon]

From my recollection Buffet suggested raising the highest rate for income tax. A tax that of course has little effect on him or his investment income. That is the hypocrisy. Most people thought he wanted to pay more himself. I don't not see any hypocrisy in him using the tax laws that are legally available to him whether he likes the law or not.

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

Dec 13, 2012 9:09:20 GMT -5 rockon said:

From my recollection Buffet suggested raising the highest rate for income tax. A tax that of course has little effect on him or his investment income. That is the hypocrisy. Most people thought he wanted to pay more himself. I don't not see any hypocrisy in him using the tax laws that are legally available to him whether he likes the law or not.

His hypocrisy is that he argues for higher taxes on principle, then turns around and uses the tax code to reduce his taxes based on principle.

[usaone]

Most americans know some benefits will be cut. If you are younger than 39, you will have to work an extra 18 months until you will be eligible for full SS benefits. Not exactly world ending.

[usaone]

First you pass the tax hikes on the rich and then you pass the benefit cuts on the middle class. From a PR point of view thats the smartest way to do it.

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

You miss the point. He argues that the law should be changed. Until it is, he follows the law as it is written. No hypocrisy at all, no matter how much people want to try to spin it that way.


Then he is not in favor. He abhors the tax breaks and loop holes he uses, yet he uses them anyway.

[jkapp]

Dec 13, 2012 4:47:05 GMT -5 mwcpa said:

Judge Learned Hand
"Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the
treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister
in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands." (Gregory v. Helvering 69 F.2d 809, 810 (2d Cir. 1934), aff'd, 293 U.S. 465, 55 S.Ct. 266, 79 L.Ed. 596 (1935))

Just because one says the law should be changed does not mean they should pay more than the law legally requires.... I personally disagree with a 15% tax rate on the trading of public securities, but, I advise clients how to arrange their affairs under the law to minimize their tax, that is not hypocrisy, that is complying with the laws that Congress wrote.

Yet corporations are condemned for doing the same...I just find that rather hypocritical.

what I'm hearing from people is that: when Democrats try and pay the least amount of tax it's ok...when Reps/corporations do it, they are evil, gredy bastards robbing the middle class.

Just another example of double standard, hypocritical bullshit...

[zibazinski]

Why is anyone surprised. Kennedy's who have their money so well tied up that taxes are virtually nil are the biggest mouthers of everyone paying more. Dems pull this crap all the time and have for decades. I watched this union wench on tv last night. She was some fat cat when the workers she represents have been laid off for decades but she sure isn't hurting financially. She still gets her fat cat salary. Plus, other perks.

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

I will grant you that Mitt Romney took some unfair heat for his tax rate during silly season, but I don't see corporations demonized for paying their legal share.


Well if you lived in civilization instead of the back woods, you'd be reading/hearing this in the news...

[The Captain]

Dec 13, 2012 8:39:39 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Why was Berkshire even doing this for an estate?
I thought public companies had to announce buybacks before they happen.
Why wasn't this private person just told to sell the stock on the open market, like most investors.
Sounds like special treatment for a special investor.
After all, this was not a fund or corporation, but an investor.
Of course, at a billion dollars, I understand it was a corporation rather than "a rich person", hence Warren had no trouble helping a corporation escape taxes.
He just wants "rich people" to pay "their share".

Is he becoming senile?

Berkshire class A shares have NEVER been split nor have they ever paid a dividend. They were designed to be held by long term value/growth investors rather than short term speculators. Because of this they are the highest price shares on the stock exchange and there is not much of a liquid market for substantial blocks. This may explain why the company would be willing to buy back it's own non-liquid shares. It is not uncommon for large corporations to buy back large blocks of shares from long-term shareholders at fair market price (which is what happened here).


The B shares represent a much lower amount of voting right or control and do split so they have a lower cost. Neither series pays a dividend so I truthfully cannot understand why the market reacted favorably to the buyback (other than A shares can convert into B shares but not vice-versa).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkshire_Hathaway

[vandalshandle]

I support the idea that defense spending should be cut in half. However, if I ever find myself stranded on a flotation device off the coast of California, and the Coast guard comes by and offers to take me aboard and save me, I will accept that offer.

I guess that makes me a hypocrite.

[Deleted]

Dec 13, 2012 9:39:08 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Let me bring it down to a level schmucks like us can understand.

It's good to know that we now have approved name calling on these boards since a MODERATOR himself is doing it.

However...I somehow think if I did it then I'd get a "reprimand".

Stay classy dem!

[fairlycrazy23]

Buffett is a hypocrite because, he can on his own voluntarily send more money to the government.


Senator Blowhard who voted against stimulus but still took stimulus money for his state wouldn't be a hypocrite because the stimulus was going somewhere anyway.

[Deleted]

It appears that you have, in fact, stayed classy, dem.

[vandalshandle]

Dec 13, 2012 13:14:20 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Dec 13, 2012 13:02:33 GMT -5 @financialtexan said:

It's good to know that we now have approved name calling on these boards since a MODERATOR himself is doing it.

However...I somehow think if I did it then I'd get a "reprimand".

Stay classy dem!

I saw that as something of a joke with SF- him and I are "Schmucks". However, I am reporting it to mods in case I can't see the forest for the trees here.

Report me, too, you schmuck!!!!!!

[mmhmm]

Yep, the post was reported as deminmaine said. No, the post isn't insulting. It's obviously tongue-in-cheek as it refers to "us" (which, includes the poster) as "schmucks". Get a grip, FinancialTexan. You're seeing things that aren't there.

mmhmm, P&M Moderator

[The Captain]

mmhmm, while you're here can I confirm that "getting your Irish up" is also not insulting?

Apparently it may have a different meaning than what I grew up with...

[mmhmm]

I don't think that's insulting, thecaptain. It would depend a lot on the context, and how it's said; however, getting one's Irish up is pretty commonly used and isn't considered to be generally insulting.


mmhmm, Administrator

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

With Buffett, the devil is in the details. The main industry he is in, is insurance.

By lowering the amount of an estate where taxation begins, necessitates the need for more and more life insurance that heirs to an estate need to buy to provide money to pay estate taxes.

Guess who stands to benefit from this???