Replies

The statement that Buffet is taxed at a lower rate than his secretary is is not necessarily BS; it's just incredibly deceptive. If Buffet's secretary is taxed only on her salary, then she does pay a higher rate than Buffet because income is taxed differently than capital gains are, but so what? It's apples and oranges.

Unfortunately, too many people in this country today probably don't even know the difference between income and capital gains, much less the differences in how they are taxed. All too easy prey for Obama's and Buffet's incredibly transparent attempt to deceive them. Anyone with a brain should be asking themselves, what's in this for Buffet? The answer is that while he doesn't pay income tax many small business owners, whose businesses Buffet would like to demolish then buy for pennies on the dollar, do. He knows that the "Buffet rule" won't hurt him one bit, but it will create a new pool of potential acquisition targets for Berkshire Hathaway.

I think the Republicans should counter this by recommending, as others have pointed out, that total net worth be taxed. Then you would see old Warren sing a very different tune. This won't happen, of course (and for good reason) but it would be fun to watch them backpedal if it were to be proposed.

Then you would see old Warren sing a very different tune.

Probably not. Warren doesn't pay his taxes anyway.

"How Much is Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Back-Tax Bill Exactly? About $1 Billion"

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/how-much-is-buffetts-berkshire-hathaway-back-tax-bill-exactly-about-1-billion/