Home | About | Donate

The Kindly 87-Year-Old Man Who Took All the Schoolkids' Lunch Money


#1

The Kindly 87-Year-Old Man Who Took All the Schoolkids' Lunch Money

Paul Buchheit

He seems to stand out as the one beloved billionaire among us, a man who admitted he doesn't need a tax cut and promised much of his fortune to charity.


#2

Okay, but he didn’t take kid’s lunch money. He didn’t pay taxes in the amount that the National nutrition program is. Which yeah, is taking their lunch money.

Did anyone miss that 2012 congress bill where home owner now have to keep their mortgage insurance payment for 12 years and in some cases the life of the loan?
the mortgage insurance payment is the insurance on the mortgage - for most people over $100 per months. They used to let you dump it after 5 years. you only get it for an FHA loan. I was ready to dump mine and looked forward to paying $133.00 less on my house payment each month but found out congress snuck that through - if I’m lucky I only have to pay the extra $133.00 for 7 more years but it could be longer- or refinance out of an FHA loan - which is out of the question right because it will extend the life of my loan and at a higher interest. It’s just another way we little people have to pay thousands more while these billionaires pay nothing. That was the point - to fund all these military programs and the gov since the big money makers no longer are required to.

All of these people and companies not paying income tax should be banned from our public roads, public utilities and public services like police and fire. They are the true traitors to the USA.


#3

All you can cheat Buffett


#4

The “Sage (?!?) of Omaha” never claimed to be a philanthropist, and he gives the lion’s share of his “charity” to Bill the Shark Gates. His kindly old grandfather image notwithstanding, there has never been much to distinguish him from other people who “make” money by buying and selling “financial assets,” which amount to money surrogates, some of them actually called “near monies.” His kids are apparently a little less interested in raking off and a little more interested in doing good.


#5

Evidently the author does not understand the difference between creating wealth (growing the economic pie, creating jobs, paying salaries (and also providing goods to consumers at reduced cost, which raises the standard of living) vs. “taking societal largesse” - which is what the government does through taxation. It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, but it is a crime to write articles on this topic while remaining in that state of ignorance.


#6

We need a direct tax on wealth – on financial assets – over a certain amount, like $5 million or $50 million. France had such a tax until October 2017. A few European nations have this tax. Over the past 9 years the “household net worth” has doubled, from $48 trillion to over $98 trillion, and adjusting for inflation that’s an increase of almost 80%. It’s huge – the federal government will spend $4.1 trillion in 2018, in comparison. “State and local governments collected a combined $488 billion in revenue from property taxes, or 17 percent of general revenue in 2015.” states the Tax Policy Center. A commensurate tax on financial assets would yield $1.1 trillion, equal to 39% of all “on-budget” revenue. So, excluding Social Security which is “off budget” pension plan, about a third of all federal spending would be paid for with this tax. I calculated that everyone earning less than $200,000 a year, about 93% of households, would not pay income taxes, and the budget could be balanced. In the 1950s the top rate was 91% on any dollar more than $1 million earned. Corporate taxes were also triple what they are today, that is the share of tax revenue was 30% not 10%. My blog: http://benL8.blogspot.com, from essay called A Radical Populist Budget.


#7

That needs to be balanced against what they got back in turn, which was the author’s argument. Did they really create in the first place, much of what they built wealth on was financed by the public in the first place. Most scientific research for example is funded by the government which private businesses take advantage of. Throw in all the other public services and there is a huge outlay of cost by taxpayers for them to be able to do business.
And how much of that 200 billion was used to create jobs and wealth for the rest of us, considering that 200 billion for the most part is going to them and not the rest of us.
It isn’t social largess the government takes from them, it is the funding so that rich people have a safe place to reside and do business, instead of say somalia which doesn’t take any money from a business, but then businesses have to fend for themselves.


#8

Surprising … Warren Buffett and his Brokeshire Hathaway is a WHORE, and now they’re busy telling all those poor slobs they bilked out of money at Wells Fuckgo that they’re “going to make it right!” Worthless flokking narcissistic hoarding dregs!


#9

Doesn’t it make you long for the days of the guillotine???


#10

Yeh, he’s supposedly the ‘Oracle of Omaha,’ he’s really nothing more than a proud member of the narcissistic hoarding dregs – Goddess, do we need about 500 fewer phuqs like him!


#11

Right on Paul, tell it like it is.

If Berkshire Hathaway’s CEO doesn’t need the tax break, it was so kind of him to say so, while taking full advantage of it. Oh, and he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary, too. How white of him to say so, while also taking the tax break. And folks love him why? Because he says he’s gonna give it all away when he dies? Good grief!