SouthernYankee

I would applaud both Buffett and Romney, and whomever else, can follow the law and pay as little in taxes as they have to. They are not the ones who are changing the rules under which people made decisions. Although I may never have the problem of running into this $3million cap (I will try my best though!), the person who is pushing this is the president, and his name is Obama. Him and this administration, as well as many others in the liberal/progressive political sphere, have been looking at this pool of money for a long time, and have been trying to figure out ways to get their greasy palms on it. Beware the politician who says he wants to help, as he will look to do so with your money, not his!

Posted by: rkbabang « on: Today at 07:09:48 AM » Insert Quote Quote from: ERICOPOLY on April 07, 2013, 12:32:13 PM I think I am now officially a Republican. I just need to go and register (formality at this point). Hopefully my vote in the primaries for the most pro gay-marriage and pro secular-education candidate (etc... etc...) will reform that party to something I find far less revolting. It's not a completely broken party, but just needs major renovation. Eric, I think you'll find that (all campaign rhetoric aside) Republicans aren't all that keen on reducing taxation. There's billions of people in the world in need of bombing and that takes cash. Lot's of it. ;D Good way to end it!

"Still waiting for a reasonable argument against what I actually wrote." -Otsog, If an individual makes an agreement, through their representatives, with the government, in the form of a ROTH IRA, and that agreement says that any gains accrued in that account will be tax-free (0%), how is the carrying out of that agreement considered a tax-credit, or a tax-break, or whatever else you want to call it? This proposal is a political proposal, if you want to argue the politics, that is something else entirely. I put my money in a Roth IRA (after-tax money) because I thought it was a better deal. An old accountant actually always recommended to his clients that they go with a traditional IRA, where you put the money into an account pre-tax. He always said he did not trust the government to hold up their end of the bargain. It is starting to look like he might have been right. Again, though, that is part of a political argument.

"You simply haven't been taxed in the first place in your ROTH IRA gains." -As per the agreement an individual made with the government they choose to live under. The seed money ($5000 max per year, I believe) for the Roth IRA was taxed, and that is all the tax each individual is liable for. After that, the government has no claim on any money within that IRA account. In my way of thinking, that is neither a tax credit, a tax break, or whatever other fancy names you want to call it. To be honest, I was not even aware of the fact that if I was to die before age 59-1/2, my wife/children would have to pay the penalty when they receive that money. From this point on, it is a political question, and that is why Obama included this idea in his budget.

Otsog, I can't think of it as a tax break because the law allowed me to enter into an agreement with my Federal government, which said that I could put after-tax money, up to $5000 per year (I think that is the amount), into an account which can't be touched until I am a certain age, and when I do start to use that money, they (the Federal government), will not tax it. The money is not guaranteed, and if there are any losses in that account, I don't believe you could claim them on your tax return. The money is mine, the government has already taxed it, to go beyond this point is, I'll say it again, a political discussion. I do not think they have a right to any of that money, be it the original amount, or any increase thru dividends, capital gains, etc. Cheers.

Otsog, Bottom line, as someone already commented, this is simply something put forward to please voters who are jealous of people with wealth, and will be swept under the bus at a later date. If our government does go forward with something like this, there will definitely be ways around it, as Ericopoly has already shown. This topic is better examined on a political blog. Cheers.

Re: Obama to cap tax-preferred retirement accts to $3MM « Reply #44 on: Today at 01:26:12 PM »Quote Quote from: SouthernYankee on Today at 01:24:20 PM Re: Obama to cap tax-preferred retirement accts to $3MM « Reply #25 on: Today at 11:56:10 AM »So, nothing... other than platitudes Kind of funny seeing a huge government hand-out program getting curtailed being attacked for being 'socialist'. An individual setting aside their own money for their retirement is now considered a government hand out? Am I missing something here? Yes you are. The part where you get tax breaks for setting it aside in a certain fund approved by the government. -I don't get any tax breaks. I made an agreement with the government that this money, which I already paid taxes on, if I put them into a certain type of account, which is not available for me to use until a certain age, will then be income which will not be taxed. That is a lot different than getting a tax break, unless you believe that the money is the government's and not mine. If you believe that, I will not argue with you, because I will not be able to change your mind, whatever I say. Cheers!

Re: Obama to cap tax-preferred retirement accts to $3MM « Reply #25 on: Today at 11:56:10 AM »So, nothing... other than platitudes Kind of funny seeing a huge government hand-out program getting curtailed being attacked for being 'socialist'. An individual setting aside their own money for their retirement is now considered a government hand out? Am I missing something here?

Sorry about the double dose!

"He's not really a socialist, rather he has made himself very wealthy from peddling socialism (his books)." -The socialist in charge is always wealthy. Funny how that works out. It seems to be a feature, instead of a bug.

"He's not really a socialist, rather he has made himself very wealthy from peddling socialism (his books)." -The socialist in charge is always wealthy. Funny how that works out. It seems to be a feature, instead of a bug.

CONeal, I'll give you a hint. Any person who does not take Obama to task will find plenty of ways to make sure how to NOT pay more in taxes, or to figure out different ways around any of these rules. Just follow their lead. ;) I love this line: "Under current rules, some wealthy individuals are able to accumulate many millions of dollars in these accounts, substantially more than is needed to fund reasonable levels of retirement saving." The government will now define "reasonable" for all of its "subjects". :(

Personally, I am thrilled he made plans for his wealth to be given to charity. They will, most likely, spend it a lot more wisely than the SOB's in Washington, DC. That said, it was his decision, and he could have done whatever he wanted with it. He earned it, it's his choice. As for myself, I try to follow the tenets of my religion in regards to monetary contributions, yet the contributions of my time is where I find the most value. Cheers.

Beware, to those who believe in certain signs: "A $1,000,000 stock price for one A share" = $666 (and change) for the "B" shares. Some say money is the root of all evil! :D Cheers!

PlanMaestro, For your false analogy to apply, I think Keynes' has to be followed in totality, not just when there is trouble. That said, I believe there is one paragraph in that satire that may be true: "However, Keynes did not advocate using debt financing to stimulate the economy. Rather, he argued that government should save in the good times and spend in the bad." The analogy works, because like Krugman, governments had not followed the first part of the equation, which is to save (not balance) during good times, so that you can spend more during bad times. I would love to read about one government which saves during good times to prepare it for the bad times. (Well, I have read about Texas, and Alaska, so maybe my wish is to read about some places where I would be shocked.)

Quote from: bargainman on Today at 07:33:33 AM There's also the built in advantage of their AAA/AA credit rating. A friend worked for Clayton homes, and he said they could basically access credit at insanely low rates since they were part of BRK. Their competitors had no such advantage. From what I remember, BRK issues the debt to get the low rate. They then add 100 basis points for Clayton to use the funds. -I believe BRK was able to buy Clayton Homes at a reasonable price (much lower than their shareholders wanted) because of the situation where Clayton could not get financing on its own. They were just like any other company in that industry, weak. With Berkshire behind them, though, their positive attributes showed more clearly.

Just this morning I heard an ad on the radio about how Citgo was donating fuel to "poor" people here in the United States. The person speaking was a Kennedy (I think it was Joe Kennedy, which kind of makes me think of Jane Doe). Maybe Citgo (and the Chave government) should stop giving away fuel, and try selling it instead.

A friend of mine has used airbnb.com for rooms in Los Angeles & NY, maybe try that for Omaha? If I am able to go, that is what I will look at.

rkbabang - +1 for each post, as well as to the other posters who see this event as a single event, where the perp is the problem, not the weapon he used. Parsad - a big fat MINUS for, once again, starting a thread which has NOTHING to do with value investing, BRK, or Fairfax! God bless the victims, and their families! *Don't own a gun, and have only shot a .22 airgun*

The United States Constitution sets up the rules for how a budget is passed. Any bill that spends money must originate in the House, as far as I know. The House passed a budget, meaning those members are on record regarding how the budget should look. The majority of those members were just re-elected to office, and the same party controls that body. The Senate, on the other hand, has not held a vote on that bill passed by the House. For some reason, the person (and his party) who controls that body will not let that bill come to the floor to be debated and/or voted on. Yet, both parties claim to be acting in accordance with the law, and both parties are equally blamed. The majority of those members were just re-elected to office, and the same party controls that body. Perhaps Mr. Buffet should write an opinion piece dealing with the rules of the institution empowered to collect those taxes he wants them to collect. After he does that, the side that opposes him may be more receptive to his proposals.

If the amount of money the Treasury confiscated from their citizens for the year 2009 was able to balance the budget for a prior fiscal year (2004), is that proof that spending is the problem, as opposed to the rate of taxation? I do understand that entitlement spending will rise every year with an increased number of retirees, inflation, COLA, etc. Of course, those increases would not result in TRILLION$ deficits so soon.

"SouthernYankee, is that you!?!? We missed you!" -That was funny, you just never know who your biggest fans are!! ;D I'll stay out of this, other than to say I will do EVERYTHING in my power to prepare my family for the future, be it putting money aside for college, retirement, life insurance, medical bills. I do understand deepValue's question, though. How it is that so many people who DO for themselves think that a few masterminds can make ALL of the correct decisions for millions is simply ludicrous, to me anyway. Call me crazy, call me maybe, but I, thankfully, will say don't call me dependent on Chuck Schumer's next Sunday night press interview. Oh, and tell President Obama, if he goes back on Letterman, the answer to one of the questions was "over $16 TRILLION"!! mhdousa, How did I do!!?? ;)

Liberty, Keep government out of the marriage business. I agree with you.

Ericopoly, You cheapen both words.

Liberty, I was trying to show you what Cardboard may have read to lead him to write what he wrote. That is all. I did not blame you, I was giving a reason why another poster may have written what he wrote, which you responded to.