Liberty

Where did Buffett ever say that those already paying high rates should pay more? In fact, I think he'd probably want to make the US more competitive with other countries on that front. I think he's been targeting people making tens and hundreds of millions paying 15% because they were favored by some exception. If we forget about his secretary for a minute and look at his overall points:

That's kind of a long list.

Trump travels in time to debate George Bush and Ronald Reagan : https://mobile.twitter.com/Khanoisseur/status/790233621806190592/video/1

Elon Musk AMA about SpaceX:

Don't know about you, but if I heard something like this about the CEO of one of my companies, I would sell. I also wonder if Trump helps everyone who comes to him for financial help... Bet he doesn't. Clearly thinks he's special and above everyone else, so I'm sure he doesn't think a comparison can be made.

Q&A with Malone (2012, some things still very timely based on what has been taking place lately): http://www.multichannel.com/news/content/unleashing-liberty-malone-muses-global-cable-content-us-economy/359967#.WA0PDD8TpZ0.twitter

Hmm, very interesting. There's been speculation of ARM support on the Mac for years. http://www.iclarified.com/57138/apple-adds-arm-support-to-macos-sierra-kernel

Richard Branson's lunch with Donald Trump: https://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/meeting-donald-trump

Buffett either intentionally misleads about his taxes versus his Secretary or he is appallingly ignorant of how faulty his analysis was. 1. He used taxable income and not income to lower the denominator substantially which disproportionately impacted the calculations. 2. He included the employer portion of payroll taxes which disproportionately impacted the results. Once coudl further argue that this not only increased taxes for his secretary but it allowed him to act as if BRK (and thius himself as a look through owner) is not paying those taxes. 3. He excluded medical benefits form income which also disproportionately impacted results since the cost impacts the secretary more than him. 4. He includes payroll taxes but excludes future social security benefits, which for most people results in all the taxes plus being returned to them, which once again disproportionately impacted results. This accoutns for the majority of taxes the middle class pays. 5. He used himself as an example of the super-rich, which is problematic since nearly all of his wealth was not earned income but stock appreciation (Trump is also a bad example as his wealth is likely unrealized appreciation as well, except in real estate you borrow against the increase generating tax free cash flow). 6. He ignores corporate taxes entirely. As a business owner one could argue that you are paying whatever portion of the business you own. Of course the income of the business would need to be included as well. BRK has historically been a full tax payer. I'm not defending the particular example that he gave. You'd have to ask him to defend his choices. Maybe he would even say that he made a mistake with that example, but that his secretary isn't the reason why he thinks the way he does on this topic. I'm trying to look pass the tree to the forest. Do you disagree with his overall point that the taxation system in the US favors the wealthy, and that a lot of the backlash against elites and capitalism might go away if there wasn't the perception that there's a system for regular people ("suckers"), and there's a different system if you've got money/connections/power/top-shelf accountants & lawyers?... I feel like things would probably be a lot better if taxation was heavily simplified with lower overall rates but with fewer ways for sophisticated agents or influential industries to go much lower than those rates through clever structures and lobbying politicians for loopholes.

One more : http://variety.com/2016/biz/news/jessica-drake-donald-trump-sexual-misconduct-1201897982/ I believe that's number 11 now, I wonder how many more there are that just don't dare come forward because of all the negative attention.

Siri versus the new Google assistant.

http://www.linleygroup.com/newsletters/newsletter_detail.php?num=5606

It's all compromises. The senate is also super anti-democratic in many ways... but it also protects the smaller states from the bigger ones. The U.S. is a messy republic, not a messy direct democracy. I think the idea should be to keep refining the system and fixing the obvious problems (like partisan gerrymandering, or tacking on unrelated laws to big omnibus bills to pass them without scrutiny/debate) and not throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

This is a thread about Trump bringing Buffett into his fight and Buffett responding by being transparent about his taxes, so this was the topic. Saying "If he believed X he would do Y" is a strawman. I don't think Buffett agrees with your reasoning, and I don't either. Buffett has a right to express political opinions, especially on topics that he knows well (incentives, economics, taxation, etc). Buffett isn't saying that he thinks the government can better use his money than the Gates Foundation, he's saying that the current tax system is full of loopholes and exceptions and deductions and weird incentives, and that when you add it all together, it just so happens that the very wealthy are favored compared to say, the middle class, and that he doesn't think this is a good thing for the country because it breeds resentment against capitalism and the wealthy, among other issues.

So you're excusing his lying and hypocrisy, but the perception of it outrages you in Buffett? Pretty sure Buffett pays for all of his private use of the jet (he pays for Netjets time), and the company pays for company use. His salary doesn't pay for his lifestyle, the hundreds of millions that he made in his PA investing on the side pays for that stuff. But do you really want to attack the guy who doesn't even get a million in salary when the CEOs of companies a 100th the size of Berkshire, and that aren't getting nearly as good returns for shareholders, are paying themselves 100x what he's paying himself with huge perks and fancy offices? As for the rest, it doesn't make him a hypocrite, it just means that he made the comparison in a different way than you would've (it's arguable that payroll taxes are paid by employers, not by employees, even if the economic effect is probably the same). Regardless of the specifics, do you disagree that the current tax code could use an overhaul and that it currently allows certain privileged groups to pay much lower % than other groups, which might not be seen as fair? Personally, I get the feeling that he could've given any example to illustrate his point and you still wouldn't have accepted it, so it's not the flaw in his example that is problematic. Nobody's taking a choice away. All that Buffett is saying is that he thinks the current system favors the very rich and people in finance too much. Hedge fund billionaires pretending that what they earn isn't actually income isn't some law of nature, it's a system that was created a one point (back when nobody knew what a hedge fund was) and it can be readjusted. Everyone is still able to optimize their taxes, and they'd still be able to with a different system. And once you've paid your taxes under the law of the land, as Buffett does, then if you want to donate the rest, more power to you. I realize that higher taxation of the wealthy might negatively affect you and you have an emotional stake in this, but Buffett has a right to his opinion and he's stated it clearly. The hypocrites are those who pretend that they want lower taxes for the wealthy/finance people for the greater good while in fact all they care about is themselves.

I'm not a leftist, but I think you might be looking at things out of context, just the way some people want you to. Have you looked at each of those words in the context in which it was written (and by who it was said if not Hillary, and do you know that she automatically agrees with that person)? And wouldn't you agree that on all sides in politics some people and causes are puritanical, pompous, naive, radical, dumb, and there are some freaks who need to get a life? Seems pretty self-evident and uncontroversial to me. Not saying she never said bad things about people, but this sounds a lot like "gotcha" journalism... And wouldn't you like to know what Trump has been saying and writing in private? We've just got one tape and it's bragging about sexual assault...

Does it matter to you that Trump said he would release his taxes and that he blamed Mitt Romney for not releasing his taxes quickly enough and that all presidential candidates tend to release their tax reports to show transparency? Buffett is not being a hypocrite; he's not running for president and he's more transparent than Trump. Buffett never said that people shouldn't legally minimize his taxes, he's said he wished the tax system was different for everyone (it's not something that can work on a voluntary, one-by-one basis). And Trump is the one that brought Buffett into this by implicitly comparing himself to him (a laughable concept). At least when Buffett minimizes taxes it means more money for the Gates Foundation down the line; When Trump does it, it mostly means more golden thrones and giant portraits of him.

I have no idea who Terry Tate is, but that had a funny twist:

Q3 is out, including a litigation update: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20161021005227/en/Moodys-Corporation-Reports-Results-Quarter-2016

http://www.imore.com/pixel-iphone-7-and-grading-curve

Are you short KO in proportion to your ownership of it through BRK just to hedge it out, or is this a bigger short? Thanks.

Weird Al moderating the debate:

I think there's a difference between questioning things based on evidence (I think the Bush v. Gore election was on its face a very special case) and spinning conspiracy theories to try to excuse that he's losing based on the fact that many people don't like very much the person that they've been exposed to during this campaign (petty vindictive volatile narcissistic elitist billionaire liar who sexually assaults women and is hostile to minorities isn't the most winning ticket, even if you have a slick salesman). When a moderator at a presidential debate asks this question, the context matter. He's basically asking if you'll respect the will of the voters in the democratic spirit. He's not asking: "If there's evidence that the election's outcome was changed through illegal means, what will you do?". I think it's pretty implicit that if there's evidence of this kind of stuff, that you don't have to shut up and swallow it. But so far Trump hasn't done much more than state as fact that the election is rigged, with the implied conclusion that this is why he's going to lose. But if he loses, it'll probably be because he's not someone that most voters want as president. Any election where tens of millions of people vote will have irregularities, and he's set things up so that after he loses, he can point to some of them and claim that this is just part of some much bigger conspiracy and that he's really a winner, but the system's against him... He just can't ever admit that he lost, his ego won't allow it. He's running for president and he's bitter about the Emmy's, for crying out loud! I mean, if what Trump did here was such a logical thing to do, why was it never done before (afaik, or almost never)? Because he's the only politician who cares about electoral fraud? You think Teddy Roosevelt would've kept his mouth shut and done nothing if he had been aware of a rigged election? This is the US, not a third world country. Further proof that this isn't about some high minded ideals about fair elections: He came out and said he'd accept the result... if he wins.

Well, to be fair, at the time, it probably could've gone either way. It wasn't a given that they would make the right decisions to engineer a comeback.

Trump's salesman way of speaking is becoming a literary genre: ;D Also, looks like this is getting to him: