Mon, Jul 28, 2014, 8:10 PM EDT - U.S. Markets closed


% | $
Click the to save as a favorite.

Berkshire Hathaway Inc. Message Board

  • intestartist intestartist Sep 30, 2008 4:04 PM Flag


    I know Warren Buffet supports Obama. So I guess he thinks that all the companies owned by Berkshire Hath. don't pay enough corporate taxes. Therefore he must believe that they earn too much for his shareholders.

    I'm shocked that Warren would want his companies to pay more and more taxes. This will mean that his stock value growth will GRIND to a Snail's pace.

    Come on Warren are you really that stupid!


    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Perhaps Warren knows that the price of civilizations is taxes. Perhaps he also knows that unfunded obligations are no good for anyone.

      (Or perhaps he's merely patriotic and appreciates that McCain is not only corrupt - but also a nut job!)

      • 1 Reply to vensh
      • Warren B. seems to have a tin ear when it comes to politics (note what happened when he was "helping" Scwartzenegger in CA via public statements about property taxes being too low; Arnold threatened to have him do pushups).

        Maybe he is so good at shielding his assets from taxes that he thinks everyone can afford the necessary help to do the same.

        And maybe, even though generally a very wise man with lots of life experience and financial acumen, he does not apply the same standards to government he applies to the companies in which he chooses to invest. For, if he did, he might appreciate that inefficient/ineffective management by politicians will ensure that needs will always grow faster than available revenue, libs/dems have no fear of unfunded obligations (not that Republicans have been much better over the past eight years, but Sen McCain is at least also talking about cost suppression, and not solely increasing programs ad infinitum), and the average American is torn between struggling harder and physically rebelling.


    • Reading through these responses, I have to wonder if so many of you have been asleep for the past 8 years. Concerning the current choice, do you really believe in you hearts that McCain or Palin can handle the global train wreck that's happening as a result of Republican philosophy? Do you really believe either of them has the smarts, or steady patience to bring us out of these messes? I'll take the brilliant Obama, who also knows how to choose a good team, and Biden, with so much experience over their opponents in a heartbeat!

      • 2 Replies to griff57_12540
      • doylesee Oct 7, 2008 6:16 PM Flag

        Do you honestly think Clinton has nothing to do with this? Or the Democratic congress?

      • You start with a bad foundation, that is also contradictory.

        If it is a "global train wreck", how do you conclude it is "a result of Republican philosophy".

        Last I checked, the Democrats have been in control of both houses of congress awhile, and one of the President's problems is a tendency to sign legislation they send him, even though they have been atrocious at supporting him in such areas as presidential appointments.

        Unless Congress is brought under control, the presidency will be a secondary (albeit an important) concern.

        "Brilliant" is relative, and to equate brilliance with abilities in such areas as decision-making looks like a bad mistake.

        A more experienced president, with an understudy VP, is a far better choice than the other way around. I don't think Joe would be able to tell Barry to sit quietly and learn.


    • ips1900 Oct 6, 2008 3:22 PM Flag

      Lip gloss vs hair plugs, over bleached teeth and Botox. And Biden still looks creepy.

    • Barry spends virtually all his time running for higher office, he doesn't have time left for actual experience.


    • Look, Republican "trickle down" economics, Regan/Bush(Sr.).... 12 years, S&L (banking) crisis, recession from 1990-1991, Bailout.

      Republican, "trickle down" (cut taxes for the rich) economics, GW Bush, 2000-2008, 8 years... what happens? Banking/Mortgage crisis, Bailout, and if you don't believe its a recession (if not by the "official definition" - good laugh.

      I think I'll take a "change". May not be better, but given history, I'll pick another party than the people that have created serious banking downturns/bailouts.

      • 2 Replies to captnzilog
      • Wait - we forgot to mention the CRASH of '87! How could I forget - I lost a well-paid job in Feb. of '88.

        The Bushes have been on the scene in US politics for close to 100 years. Prescott Bush = WWII profiteering - read up on it. George the First was in the CIA when JFK was assassinated, although he denies it. There are a multitude of discomfitting facts about the Bushes that, upon review, make one increasingly uncomfortable. This country cannot afford four more years of blatant oligarchy. The US is a country, not some private corporation. We are a people, not an army of subservient employees that bow to an elite clique of boardroom executives. We need to reclaim the nation for which our own fathers sacrificed so much to protect.

      • It might be good to learn a bit more about what the "change" is to entail.

        A flaw so far has been voter expectations any pain will be borne by others. By now, we should have figured out tax increases on the "rich" won't make a great deal of difference--there are not enough "rich".

        In fact, Barry's statements that 95% will pay the same or less under his "change" already factor in the 2010 termination of the Bush tax cuts; i.e., those are not considered tax changes at all (they are already treated as a done deal).

        So, if Barry should win, when your taxes rise, remember your statement here.


    • Most U.S. corporations pay effective tax rates of zero thanks to loopholes. HOw would YOU recommend we pay off the half-trillion dollar debt we owe to China? Tax the middle-class some more?

    • Dont overcomplicate anything.

      The good WEB wants to have lower taxes for poor folk. And more for Corporate bigwigs. Simple as that.

      Akin to Barack Obama's line of reasoning. Or vice versa of course.

    • you funny

      • 1 Reply to jordan30003000
      • I'm serious about this. Obama promises to raise taxes on corporations despite the fact that USA has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. This will seriously slow the growth of Warren's businesses. He will have much less profits to sink into purchasing more companies and businesses.

        If Warren really wants his shareholders to benefit he should be asking Obama to lower the corporate tax rates and you would see real increases in value of his companies and the creation of many more jobs as a result.



        Taxing corporations will SLOW the economy and stomp on the value of his stock.

        Furthermore, Obama wants to increase the taxes on dividends too. I know Warren does not currently pay dividends but the publicly traded companies he owns shares in do pay dividends and they will be worth less if taxes go higher....PERIOD.


128.37+0.82(+0.64%)Jul 28 4:00 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.