Warren Buffet: "BTC probably rat poison squared"
- Thread starter PirateDawg
- Start date
- Status
It's evil because it has the ability to have exponentially more influence and global power than he has had in his lifetime. He thinks he knows more than others.
You are claiming that he thinks something is evil just because it will have more power than he has. Does Buffett have a track record of claiming things are evil if they have more power than he has?
Of course he doesnt. He had a chance to tear down the Fed, which also has more influence and power than he has, but he didnt.
"It's got magic to it", says Buffet. Magicians, we know from childhood, are entertaining, but at the end of the day, it's all just tricks up their sleeve: nothing they do is real.
With Stocks and Bonds there is collateral. There is nothing behind Bitcoin.
With Stocks and Bonds there is collateral. There is nothing behind Bitcoin.
I don’t think you realize how it works. If I tell 10 people to invest in it. Then they tell 10 people to invest in it. We are all gonna get rich. Math.
I would like to thank my teammates for helping me reach my goal by selling Plexus. I now get to vacation at a Pacific Island because of you all.
Last edited:
What is the significance of a billionaire investor being bearish on bitcoin? Is it any more significant than a billionaire investor being bullish on bitcoin?
Paul Tudor Jones
Bill Miller
Stan Druckenmiller
Mike Novogratz
Personally, I have an opinion on bitcoin regardless of billionaires being bullish or bearish.
It's also funny to me that of all the critics of bitcoin (there are many), it seems people's favorite is a 91 year old who used a flip phone up until 2020 and claims he has sent one email in his life.
Paul Tudor Jones
Bill Miller
Stan Druckenmiller
Mike Novogratz
Personally, I have an opinion on bitcoin regardless of billionaires being bullish or bearish.
It's also funny to me that of all the critics of bitcoin (there are many), it seems people's favorite is a 91 year old who used a flip phone up until 2020 and claims he has sent one email in his life.
Yes. But the global markets with new trends have changed what's predictable that he's so good at. And he hates it.
The big question is what does the Bilderberg Group have to say about the new kids on the block dipping into the real monetary power base? Remember back on June 4, 1963 when President Kennedy signed Executive Order 11110? This order stripped the Federal Reserve from absolute monetary power in the USA which had global implications. JFK was the new kid on the block and look what happened 5 month later?
“Crook” may be harsh for someone who is taking advantage of all the loopholes our intelligent legislators created for him and other rich people. It is entertaining though to see people like him then turn around and saw the rich should be paying more in taxes. It’s all lip service to the “eat the rich” crowd.PBDog said:
Actually, for bitcoin, people's opinion more or less establishes what it is or isn't. Not so different from fiat currency, but at the end of the day, there is at least the fact that for most major currencies, people living or doing business in the nations issuing the fiat currency have to have that currency to pay taxes. Bitcoin doesn't even have that. It's worth something as long as people think it's worth something.
I think we may be past the point where any individual or small group of billionaires are going to move the needles on bitcoin. May change if there is some sort of hiccup (or if a rival cryptocurrency starts to become dominant).
He's not a crook. He's just a disingenuous *** hole. His secretary probably recognizes more income than he does each year. He most likely just borrows against his stock holdings to supplement his $100k salary so doesn't have any "income" to tax beyond the $100k.
His next two up and coming stock pickers make more like $23M each. I can guarantee you his secretary doesn't pay more in taxes than they do.
All of this is kind of a pointless argument. Warren paid a half billion in taxes in 2021.
Warren Buffett owns 15% +/- of Berkshire Hathaway. Berkshire and its companies paid $3.3 Billion in corporate federal income taxes last year (Almost 1% of all corporate income taxes collected in 2021 came from Berkshire-- which is a whole other can of worms.)
So if Berkshire paid $3.3 BN and Buffett owns 15%, ole Warren paid $495 million in federal income taxes in 2021 by proxy. And if anyone doesn't think paying federal taxes through your business counts, well don't open a c-corp or s-corp. You will be sorely dissatisfied with the outcome.
So total tax revenue/divided by population, Warren covered an equivalent of about 42,000 peoples taxes last year.
Warren Buffett owns 15% +/- of Berkshire Hathaway. Berkshire and its companies paid $3.3 Billion in corporate federal income taxes last year (Almost 1% of all corporate income taxes collected in 2021 came from Berkshire-- which is a whole other can of worms.)
So if Berkshire paid $3.3 BN and Buffett owns 15%, ole Warren paid $495 million in federal income taxes in 2021 by proxy. And if anyone doesn't think paying federal taxes through your business counts, well don't open a c-corp or s-corp. You will be sorely dissatisfied with the outcome.
So total tax revenue/divided by population, Warren covered an equivalent of about 42,000 peoples taxes last year.
Well, Warren Buffet advocates raising taxes on people that make one tenth of what he does in a given year by claiming he doesn't pay taxes and claiming that his secretary pays a higher tax rate. And while Biden is terrible enough that the probably can't get any significant tax increases through the senate right now, it's very much a political possibility to raise taxes a lot. Even under Obama, the only reason the tax increases weren't bigger and more damaging is that so many democrat voters define the rich people that should pay more taxes as people that are richer than them.
So I would say it's less of a pointless argument than most political discussions, as it's actually alive issue, even though it's pointless in the sense that it isn't going to change anything.
nobody look at the bitcoin price lol
Monday morning is time to get back to work. #Bitcoin pic.twitter.com/JlufLXRT9W— Michael Saylor⚡️ (@saylor) May 9, 2022
Monday morning is time to get back to work. #Bitcoin pic.twitter.com/JlufLXRT9W— Michael Saylor⚡️ (@saylor) May 9, 2022
He's a disingenuous ******* because he's right and you don't like it? I think you mistook looking in a mirror for Buffet.
https://www.propublica.org/article/...ds-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax
That article doesn't show that he's right. According to that article, Buffet's paying an ~19% effective income tax rate. Bezos is paying ~23%. Bloomberg is paying 3% (the only one that is really out of whack; I'm assuming he had some pretty big losses prior to 2014 that he was carrying forward). And Musk is paying ~30%.
Of course that's all pretty irrelevant without knowing what they are including or excluding from income, and it also ignores tax incidence all together and so doesn't give any of the listed people credit for the corporate taxes they bear the burden of. But taking their article at face value, everybody but Bloomberg is paying a pretty significant effective tax rate and of course paying many multiples of what most people will pay over their entire life.
Only if you ignore social security (and probably not even then). Thanks for showing who the disingenuous one is.
Corporate taxes are not income taxes, no more than index fund fees are income taxes. Both are known costs incurred against a gain. The net is the profit, the profit is the income.
People aren’t paying tens of millions of dollars in social security tax. And corporate taxes are income taxes, just like FICA. They are just levied at the corporate tax level. Ignoring them makes as much sense as claiming employees don’t bear any of the cost of the ‘employer’ side of fica.
Exactly. Secretaries are paying 12% income tax for SS, billionaires are paying none. But you knew this.
In most cases corporate taxes are not income, they're a cost, same as sales taxes, property taxes, fines, losses, etc. Costs are not counted as income taxes by serious people.
Besides, if you were paying attention and not being disingenuous, you'd know that corps aren't paying much in corporate taxes these days either.
12.4% for SS, 15.3% when you add in Medicare. But it doesn't make sense to attribute the employer side of FICA to employees if you aren't also attributing at least a portion of the corporate income taxes to stock holders.
What serious person says taxes are not income, but a cost? Corporate income taxes are a tax on income, just like the individual income tax is. Saying they are a cost doesn't make them not an income tax anymore than saying personal income taxes are a cost make them not an income tax.
Some corporations that are growing quickly are able to defer taxes because of depreciation incentives related to investment. But corporate taxes are paid and you have to include them when discussing the tax burden of the affluent or wealthy (and also of wage earners that have money in a 401k/IRA type vehicle, because those are taxes they don't get the benefit of deferral on).
But it's better and more accurate to not think of corporations as bearing the cost of any taxes at all. Corporations are just pieces of paper and taxes are paid by people. They may be borne by owners, workers, or customers, but they aren't borne by pieces of paper.
It makes perfect sense, they are different things entirely. SS is intentionally a tax on income, intended to pay for retirement out of that reduction in income, an intentional tradeoff. Corporate taxes are to pay for the cost of society and especially the costs born on society by that business (road use, garbage disposal, etc). Only some of those taxes are based on income, but they have nothing to do with income, it's just a convenient way to try to fairly scale payments with size. It's just another cost of the business. And business costs aren't income taxes. If the taxes were designed instead to scale with number of employees, would you still call it an income tax? Perhaps you need to explain why you think business property taxes aren't an income tax.
You take the revenue, you subtract the costs, you get profits. Profit is income. Taxes are a cost. Don't let the fact that we give the business a tax break by basing some of those costs off profit instead of gross revenues fool you, as that's just intended to not penalize high revenue-low profit enterprises.
What's Google's tax rate again? Corporate taxes are paid, but often they are so low these days that you can't just assume the wealthy are paying so much there that it offsets their massive income tax breaks. Especially as the billionaires are almost exclusively getting both.
The wealthy get even better tax breaks than the 401k one middle class earners get. Peter Thiel got a $5B break on his Roth.
It's better to think of corporations as investments. Investments generate a return. Taxes are part of the cost that weighs against the return. It's why tax exempt bonds have different valuations from taxable bonds. The cost of the tax is already built into the evaluation of the investment. Giving a corporate tax break is double dipping. But there's a whole class of disingenuous people that want tax breaks at everyone else's expense, so they pretend otherwise.
I don’t think anyone believes the secretary literally paid a higher dollar figure than Buffett did. He’s saying the secretary paid a higher percentage of his/her income in taxes. And he’s right.
Calling Warren Buffett of all people a disingenuous ******* is one of the funnier things I’ve seen on here. The guy is one of the very few billionaires out there who has actually been an admirable steward of both his wealth and his knowledge about investing. He’s made many, many people rich by passing along his knowledge about investing principles, and he’s also set up a fund to literally give away 83% of his wealth to charitable causes.
He’s been outspoken for years and years about being in favor of people in his wealth demographic absorbing a higher tax burden. It’s not like he can force the government to take more of his money. If he overpays income tax, he gets a refund. There’s not much else he can do beyond what he already has to legitimately get his point across.
There are two rather significant things
backing the dollar (but these aren't the only two). The world's most capable military and a dollar value of around 190 trillion with regards to total national assets. A third thing is an economy that continues to add debt slaves with no population reversal in sight. This makes bond buyers look at our debt favorably which is why coupon rates can remain so low with a national debt soaring over 30T dollars.
backing the dollar (but these aren't the only two). The world's most capable military and a dollar value of around 190 trillion with regards to total national assets. A third thing is an economy that continues to add debt slaves with no population reversal in sight. This makes bond buyers look at our debt favorably which is why coupon rates can remain so low with a national debt soaring over 30T dollars.
Replied to the wrong post 86. I was just pointing out that Buffett paid plenty in taxes.
Oh and have fun with Boom Boom... I won every battle with that guy and somehow lost the damn war.***
View attachment 24413
Oh and have fun with Boom Boom... I won every battle with that guy and somehow lost the damn war.***
View attachment 24413
- Status
Latest posts
-
-
Who the hell are the Cleveland GUARDIANS- Latest: Bulldog Bruce
-
Get unlimited access today.