Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Another Rich Republican Not Paying His Fair Share...

Posted 2 years ago on April 20, 2012, 6:31 a.m. EST by tep22 (1)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Oh wait, no, it's a Democratic Party Icon....

More Money, More Problems MSNBC host Al Sharpton’s 2004 campaign owes nearly $1 million to creditors and federal government, records show April 18, 2012

MSNBC’s Al Sharpton is reeling in debt and back taxes.

The liberal provocateur owes nearly $1 million to creditors and the federal government as a result of his failed bid for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination.

His campaign’s unpaid bills exceed $888,000, according to federal filings.

It is unclear why Sharpton has not paid his creditors. He does not lack for income.

Sharpton has his own primetime talk show on liberal network MSNBC, a platform he used to drive the Trayvon Martin shooting story that rocked the nation and led to the arrest of Democratic neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman.

In August 2011, Sharpton took over the 6 p.m. slot from Keith Olbermann, who earned more than $4 million per year working in the same slot at the network. Sharpton also drew a $240,000 salary from his nonprofit group, National Action Network, in 2011 even as the group racked up nearly $1 million in unpaid federal payroll taxes, interest, and penalties.

NAN has dealt with major finance issues in the last few years. The nonprofit raised $3 million in 2010, and paid off its state back taxes in 2011, but still owed $883,000 in unpaid federal payroll taxes in December. The group also owed more than $200,000 in loans to one of Sharpton’s for-profit enterprises.

Sharpton, who has endorsed President Barack Obama’s calls for taxing the rich, has his own tax issues. He owed the IRS $2.6 million in income taxes in December 2011, as well as almost $900,000 in New York state taxes.

Sharpton financed his presidential run, in part, by borrowing large sums of money from his struggling nonprofit.

Sharpton borrowed more than $181,000 from NAN—money that is now supposed to be refunded. Sharpton also loaned $145,000 to the campaign to finance a fundraising push.

His largest creditor is the federal government; the campaign owes the Federal Elections Commission and the U.S. Treasury Department more than $225,000.

Sharpton could not capitalize on his national reputation as a rabble-rouser in the 2004 Democratic primary, losing out to Sen. John Kerry (D., Mass.). But he did make waves in the race, slamming then-frontrunner Howard Dean for not having enough minorities on his campaign—a charge that has also dogged the Obama campaign—during an Iowa debate.

Sharpton skipped out on debts big and small. In addition to the six figure sums he borrowed from his nonprofit and leveraged from campaign consultants, he has not paid a $0.33 charge to a group called Xpedite, as well as a $2.50 ATM fee to Amalgamated Bank.

Sharpton’s presidential committee owed more than $900,000 to creditors late in 2011, according to Politico, after paying down the $208,000 in civil penalties the campaign owed the FEC for “failing to report accurately all receipts and expenditures, receiving excessive and prohibited in-kind contributions and accepting impermissible corporate contributions,” according to the FEC. The campaign has established a payment schedule to address the fines for campaign violations and other federal charges, according to the FEC.

“Now that the civil penalties have been satisfied, the campaign is contacting vendors to construct a debt resolution plan that must be submitted to the FEC for approval,” spokeswoman Rachel Noerdlinger told Politico in November. “While Rev. Sharpton, as candidate, helped to raise the money to resolve the civil penalties, the additional debt will be reviewed by the campaign and remedied in accordance to FEC’s rules and regulations.”

Calls to Sharpton’s creditors have not been returned.

http://freebeacon.com/more-money-more-problems/

108 Comments

108 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Yup. goes to show that the whole system is corrupt, and both Republitards and Democrats are corrupted by it. Only right wing morons, though, defend that system.

Sharpton, of course, is not an elected representative, and the problem lies with them, now, doesn't it? So just another attempt to distract and distort by a right wing troll. What a surprise! Who could have guessed that would ever happen?

[-] -1 points by JonFromSLC (-107) from West Valley City, UT 2 years ago

they're all corrupt. If you still subscribe to the pipe dream that one side is worse than the other then you're a dipshit.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Not entirely true. Both may be corrupt, but it is to varying degrees, and one side is actively evil. If you don't see that, you're simply a victim of inchoate rage.

[-] 0 points by JonFromSLC (-107) from West Valley City, UT 2 years ago

both sides are evil.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

I don't agree (not entirely, anyway). There are some differences and they are not inconsequential. I would absolutely agree that there is way to much overlap, but I feel your brush is too broad.

I won't keep arguing about this, though. So say whatever you want. Neither of us is likely to change the other's mind about it.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

I repeat....Have fun endorsing war this year. A vote for either is a vote for someone to be at work and get a phone call that their fuckin kid was blown up. Or their parents.

Sheep like you are the reason for everything right now.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Nice of you to jump right in there. You have made your one note bullshit song known before, you have repeated it ad nauseum. At this point there's nothing left to say to you except go fuck yourself.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

^ thinks being anti-war is bullshit.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Thinks doing anything about other than what his tiny brain understands is bullshit.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Another pro war guy enters the ring.

You know the country is fucked when the anti war guy is ganged up on by those that claim to be liberal....

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Who the FUCK is pro-war, moron?

You are not being "ganged up on" because you are anti war. It is because you are an idiot.

It is not an either/or choice between real reform and incremental reform. No options should be off the table, no action to make things better should be discouraged.

It is in uniting, not dividing, liberals and activists and anarchists and reformers and revolutionaries ALL that we grow strong enough to overturn half a century of decline and entrenched corruption.

All you want to do is divide reformers from revolutionaries. That would KILL OWS, and it is that STUPIDITY that people object to about you.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Bottom line is you will be endorsing war criminals, and I wont.

I know that sucks, but if you really cared, you would do something about it.

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Bottom line is you will be endorsing even greater war criminals, and criminals in every single other area of life, and you are too dumb to even know it.

It is not an either/or choice between real reform and incremental reform. No options should be off the table, no action to make things better should be discouraged.

It is in uniting, not dividing, liberals and activists and anarchists and reformers and revolutionaries ALL that we grow strong enough to overturn half a century of decline and entrenched corruption.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

^will vote for war criminals of the duopoly

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

^Will make sure Rebulbitards are in power to start a new war with Iran.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

^will cast a vote for war criminals and cant stand it

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

^Will make sure that greater war criminals get power, and is too stupid to see it.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

"greater war criminals"

This is the dangerous talk of someone who clearly doesnt care.

Some parties/people endorse war. Others dont.

It is as black and white as it gets.

[-] -1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

No moron, only idiots like you think there is a single way effect change. Your version of "caring" is completely uncaring, since you won;t look at facts that don't support your false self-righteous sense of superiority. You are taking a purely ego-bound position, but are so ego bound you are unable to step outside of it for a fraction of a second. You don't care about war: you care about your ego above all else.

If you were against war, you would work your ASS OFF to make sure those that are pushing for a NEW war, one with Iran, could never gain office. You would make sure that the courts weren't stacked against ordinary people. You would make sure that those RESISTING that jingoism would be in office instead. But you don't see that at all. After all, you might actually be forced to admit that not everything works in the way you decided it does.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

^Is fine with voting for, what he/she deems a "lesser" war criminal.

Sick.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

^ Is fine supporting the greater evil. And a brand spanking new war.

Sick.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

^will vote for war criminals

Thats all anyone needs to say about you. You endorse war criminals.

Disgusting.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Same EXACT thing can be said about you, only worse. You are simply too stupid to understand the implications of your actions.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7058) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

1sealyon

aburrunderyourblanket

aflockofdoofi2

BLOWCHUNKS

Boric

DanielBarton

Dell

engineer4

EricBlair

F350

Farmerbrown

HapteMikael

hchc

Ironboltbruce

JanitorInaDrum

jimmycrackerson

JuanFenito

MsStacy

po6059

Rebdem

RedJazz43

slammersworldwillnotbecensored

slizzo

EricBlair

Wellhungjury

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Are these all anti war people you dont agree with?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7058) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

What you guys don't is that if you want a new party you got to earn it, you do that by taking down one of the big guys.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7058) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

just a list of the GOP supporters both out in the open and hidden, you've never disagreed with any of them have you? just saying you take the time to chat with me, but these guys you must agree with.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

If someone backs the GOP they get the same treatment. I just dont ever see any on here. I did see the F350 guy on here a while ago, saying some dumb shit. I explained to him that his party was a big spending, big gov party also. He didnt like that. I told him the numbers dont lie.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28439) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

OH - BTW

Run a check on the financials of everyone who runs for office. Failed campaigns still need to be paid for and guess what it takes time. It is not like these things are run cash and carry - for heavens sake - NO - they do it like they want us all to live - ON LOAN.

Wonder how long it will take the current crop of losers to pay off their campaign debt? You Know Ron P. Icky Sanatarium, Michelle O'Bachman the Fig Newton etc. etc. etc.?

No it is not about party it is about politics. It is the same deal for all of them. Huh.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57367330/thousands-of-federal-workers-owe-back-taxes/

Thousands of federal workers owe back taxes

If they can't even collect the income taxes owed from their own employees properly...

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28439) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

What is up with that? I would think those records and accounts would be the most easily kept and rectified.

Huh.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57367330/thousands-of-federal-workers-owe-back-taxes/

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

There I go again, responding to a liar
this has nothing to do with republiclans - lie #1
this has nothing to do with "fair" share - lie #2


who signs your paycheck? david or charles or grover?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

A long lecture that misses one key answer-
While a candidate may be MORALLY responsible,
is a candidate LEGALLY responsible for campaign debts?
Or does the campaign have the same corporate shield that corporations have?

Is Leroy going to pay off all of his campaign debt?

[-] 1 points by iamreal (9) 2 years ago

I will not pay taxes, if you come to force me to pay them I will defend myself, I will be shot, I will die, do you want that on your mind, if you are so sociopathic not to care then I can't help you?

[-] 1 points by gregstafford999 (17) 2 years ago

"Oh.. NOW its a good idea to say Capitalists aren't PATRIOTS.. Love America? But Not Americans?" The Founder of the Occupy Movement said that first.. "Capitalists are not PATRIOTS." Check it.. http://bit.ly/GXcgpW

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Capitalism, free marketers who believe in Free Trade and globalism aren't patriots. Patriotism is a nationalistic sentiment. Globalism and Free Trade are anti-nationalistic in nature. Free Trade is the greatest wealth distribution scheme on the planet.... at our cost.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

Al who?

This is news? 2004!

Freebeacon is on the money.

Eight years too late.

[-] 0 points by tep22 (1) 2 years ago

NO. This is news from TODAY. He owed the IRS $2.6 million in income taxes in December 2011, as well as almost $900,000 in New York state taxes.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by TheMisfit (48) 2 years ago
[-] -1 points by takim (23) 2 years ago

how about warren buffet,.........he is fighting the IRS and owes about 1billion.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28439) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

takim (50),

Page 54 section 15 on the report helpfully provided by BetsyRoss (-48) :

http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/2010ar/2010ar.pdf

Shows a statement about net unrecognized tax benefits (?) and goes on to talk about past appeals to rulings as well as resolved items and subsequent payments ( all standard & legal practice for determining debt. actual or imagined ) stating that there is no unforeseen issue likely to be found - or ( my take ) we are doing well and there are no issues to be concerned about.

Show me where the government is taking hostile/aggressive/legal action to resolve an unpaid tax debt issue. Show me where Buffet is disputing a claimed debt by the government. Where is the law suit where is the tax case?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28439) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Prove that statement - post a link to an actual report.


[-] 0 points by takim (50) 36 minutes ago

how about warren buffet,.........he is fighting the IRS and owes about 1billion. ↥like ↧dislike reply permalink

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/2010ar/2010ar.pdf

The above link is to the Berkshire Hathaway 2010 Corporate Report.

According to page 54 of the company report, as of December 31, 2010… net unrecognized tax benefits were $1,005 million which equals about $1 billion.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28439) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Thanks for the business report BR.

A very detailed report on holdings and earnings - but was there supposed to be a tie-in to supposed unpaid debt to the IRS? I mean a nice report but where is a federal complaint for unpaid taxes?

http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/2010ar/2010ar.pdf

[-] 0 points by takim (23) 2 years ago

dka has an agenda and she/he/it is sticking to it. bufet owes the IRS a lot of money, about 1 billion dollars, and dumb barry is using buffet as the poster child to tax the rich.............all the while little warren is fighting the irs to NOT pay what he owes.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28439) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I believe what you are looking for [ as 1st you have not proven a fight or substantial disagreement exists ] is a standard appeal of of assertion that a debt exists this is a standard practice any taxpayer can avail themselves of if they feel there is a misunderstanding. Gee I wonder how any sort of misunderstanding could happen in the running and accounting of a Billion plus multifaceted portfolio by either the owner or the government? I mean its just simple math right?

[-] 0 points by takim (23) 2 years ago

"misunderstanding"? you must work for the democrats.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28439) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Nope sorry wrong conclusion I work for the people - PERIOD.

You're trying to discredit Buffet as a way to discredit what is being called the Buffet rule is pretty funny.

Go ahead and demonize him if you want/can. It does not change the fact that the rich need to kick in towards supporting their fair share.

It is funny that you would go after an idea that has merit by going after the guy who suggested that he should be paying more taxes.

[-] -2 points by takim (23) 2 years ago

ah, you "work" for the people. how much are the "people" paying you? you mean the people that agree with you. if you confiscated all the money that the so called rich have,................ you could run the govt for about 3 weeks. the problem is SPENDING , not taxes.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28439) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I receive nothing more than a sense of accomplishment for being here on this forum - my time is given freely to the cause of ending corruption and healing our country and world.

I agree spending is insane and that is another issue we are to deal with. As a starter we need to stop the government throwing money at problems around the world. Instead we need an active responsible and accountable GSA. This group of the government should be given purchase orders from the government for goods and services to be bought from the American private sector to then be shipped to relief areas for distribution training and implementation. We have seen monumental waste in sending money - money which is then put into private accounts and lived off of when the abusive government is chased out of their country by their people.

[-] -1 points by takim (23) 2 years ago

who knew that being a pawn was a accomplishment. Do you really believe it's only the GSA? How about obamas gambling away billions on " green energy" ? Do you really think that corruption will ever end? it's human nature. Not a good thing, but it's human nature.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28439) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Your reading comprehension needs some work ( as a starter ) as you seem to have overlooked the thrust of the rejoinder.

Give away billions on green energy? Don't you mean invest in new technology to reduce our dependance on fossil fuel? You fail to mention the as yet un-cancelled yearly subsidies to Fossil fuel, the obscenely profitable fossil fuel industry.

Corruption end ? No not bloody likely that is why "the people" need to be involved in a major way.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

If they were serious about reducing reliance, they wouldnt have just shot down ending the oil subsidies.

Its all a pony show to keep you believing. Because when they have this level of nationalistic propaganda, you HAVE to believe, otherwise it may seem your country is a fraud. And thats tough to swallow.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28439) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

That is exactly why the public needs to speak-up in Unity that this is not acceptable. We "The People" must reclaim our government and it will only happen with unity in cause.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

UNITY. This cannot be stressed enough. And this is why the "Get out and vote for Dems" people here drive me insane.

Occupy was HUGE in the beginning. Dems, Reps, Tea, Libertarians, End the Feders, etc. There is nothing partisan about ending corruption, ending the money in politics, ending the wars, and UNITING THE PEOPLE.

I cannot stress this enough.

[-] 4 points by DKAtoday (28439) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Stop talking politics and start talking issues. That is the key to unity.

I only point my finger at those who are beyond the pale in their actions against the health and prosperity for ALL in this country.

I suppose instead of saying repubs in office I should use their names. I guess I may be lazy in not listing them.

[-] -1 points by takim (23) 2 years ago

the obama criminal enteprise does "invest" in new technology, ,......."green energy" . they use it as a money laundering scheme. There are no subsidies for the oil industry. They use the tax code as does everyone who owns a home with a mortgage and under the tax code is able to deduct their real estate taxes off their income tax filing. The oil companies , acording to the tax code can deduct expense related to exploration or development., equipment purchases , and rig technicians salaries. The purpose of these deductions-as for any other industry or individual- is to ensure taxes are only levied on income after expenses.Any other business can do the same thing. There is a difference between tax deductions and subsidies. The " alternative energy" companies the white house is so fond of get federal subsidies. The wind and solar sectors take in about $12.5 bilion anually in direct subsidies.

[-] -1 points by takim (23) 2 years ago

www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45889 if you aren't too lazy , all you have to do is a simple search,....................type in . does warren buffet ows the irs back taxes?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28439) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Is there supposed to be a related story in that link? I ask because the link is not complete the reference link you posted goes to a news site but does not present a Buffet story. Try again.


[-] 1 points by takim (50) 0 minutes ago

www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45889 ↥like ↧dislike reply permalink

[-] -1 points by takim (23) 2 years ago

go to human envents and do your own search,...................if you're up to it.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28439) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Not my issue not my problem. Your accusation - prove it if you care to, or don't if you can not.

Again it's no skin off of my nose. It is your credibility in question.


[-] 1 points by takim (50) 26 minutes ago

go to human envents and do your own search,...................if you're up to it. ↥like ↧dislike reply permalink

[-] 1 points by tep22 (1) 2 years ago

How about Obama? He's wasting TRILLIONS yearly and doesn't give a crap about bankrupting the country.

You can't tax enough to pay for all his idiocy.

[-] -2 points by takim (23) 2 years ago

oh come on,........obama is a democrat and the darling of the MSM. Do you really espect they would actually report the news instead of printing agenda?

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

They dont report the truth on either side. Its all fluff.

[-] -2 points by e2420 (-28) 2 years ago

George Zimmerman is a registered Democrat? Damn Dems are just a bunch of racist profilers who should all be ashamed of themselves.

[-] 0 points by B76RT (-357) 2 years ago

And,..............................Zimmerman is married to a black woman.

[-] -3 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Don't forget about "Buffett Rule" Buffett not paying and avoiding paying 1 BILLION taxes owed to the US government.

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

So the rule is bad because it is named after someone who is not squeaky clean? When does a rule's name determine anything, as opposed to what the rule actually is?

More transparently fallacious arguments from the right. Yawn.

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

A rule that raises taxes named after a guy that is avoiding paying a BILLION dollars in taxes... yeah, I like it!

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28439) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

You have yet to prove that point. Saying it is so does not hold water. Show proof of an ongoing conflict. Making up stories to discredit a man who says that he and all those like him should be paying more taxes - by saying he is dodging right now is truly funny. Show proof or shut up troll.

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Owes Taxes Going Back To 2002... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/29/warren-buffett-taxes-berkshire-hathaway_n_941099.html

Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway owes $1 billion in back taxes... http://hotair.com/archives/2011/09/02/buffetts-berkshire-hathaway-owes-1-billion-in-back-taxes/

Report: Buffett's Berkshire Owes $1 Billion In Back Taxes

Read more on Newsmax.com: Report: Buffett's Berkshire Owes $1 Billion In Back Taxes... http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/buffett-irs-back-taxes/2011/09/01/id/409520

Warren Buffet May Owe A Billion Dollars In Back Taxes... http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45889

The truth about Warren Buffet and his taxes... http://www.topix.com/forum/city/caruthersville-mo/TI14AO3T0FNT7A40N

Good enough for you? Would you like me to teach you how to use Google to search for information?

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

The proposed law, regardless of its name, is a good one. If anything, it does not go far enough.

Conflating the function of the rule for the name of the rule is simply idiotic on its face. If the law against murder was named the Bundy Law, the name might stink, but the law against murder would still be a good one.

[-] -2 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Having a tax cheat say that the rich should pay more in taxes while he avoids his tax obligation is idiotic.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28439) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Again with the opinion and no facts. It is what I expect from you though.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Not having a law that says the rich should pay at least part of their fair share is idiotic. Keep harping on the name, not on the substance, idiot. It is what you are known for.

[-] -2 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

What percent of the money someone makes would you consider a "fair share"?

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Won't take you bait, asshole.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (7058) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

BTW if you don't think you can "win" this, it's only because he's trying to take you to his truf, the problem with these guys is they have no mind, when they run into one they're screwed

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

It's really not even a question of my knowing I can"win". He is simply so stupid, it's completely boring to engage at all.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7058) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I can't blame you on that, anyway, I'm reading/posting from Reich's book now, that'll tick them oiff for sure :).

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Is that book on line (hopefully for free - I'm flat broke) ? Or are you typing passages from it for us?

(And yes, Reich is very good. So is Krugman. And have you listened to the Warren lecture she gave at Berkeley? Pure gold.)

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7058) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

3 bucks on google, I got it will post excerts, first is up now.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Thanks very much.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7058) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

just got second one up

[-] -2 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Because you cannot or will not give an answer, because the reality is, you want the government to take it all.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (7058) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

If you insist

[-] -2 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

90% is, in effect, all.

[-] -3 points by MikeInOhio (13) 2 years ago

epa has a nasty mouth!

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Try as I might, no verbal obscenity begins to match the filth that is the sick brain of a troll.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7058) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

90% after the first million

[-] -2 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

How much prior to the first million?

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (7058) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

we do both agree that anybody luckely enough to be paying this top rate, .1% or so, should wake everyday and kiss the flag and say thank God I'm an American right?

[-] -2 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

When you start to take 90% of the money they have earned through their own initiative, they might not be so thankful to be an American.

Why should you not be considered greedy for wanting to take money away from people who have earned it?

Personally, I think anyone who covets what another has is far more greedy and immoral than the person who earns money and wants to use it as they see fit.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7058) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

really you're cool with that? if so we can move on.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28439) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Prove that avoidance statement.

Show where and how the government is going after Buffet for not paying taxes - show where Buffet is fighting the debt - show the conflict as it now unfolds - or just lay it out like it is ( your opinion to throw mud at proposed tax changes to collect money from the rich ).


[-] 1 points by toonces (196) 17 minutes ago

Don't forget about "Buffett Rule" Buffett not paying and avoiding paying 1 BILLION taxes owed to the US government. ↥like ↧dislike reply permalink

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Owes Taxes Going Back To 2002... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/29/warren-buffett-taxes-berkshire-hathaway_n_941099.html

Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway owes $1 billion in back taxes... http://hotair.com/archives/2011/09/02/buffetts-berkshire-hathaway-owes-1-billion-in-back-taxes/

Report: Buffett's Berkshire Owes $1 Billion In Back Taxes

Read more on Newsmax.com: Report: Buffett's Berkshire Owes $1 Billion In Back Taxes... http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/buffett-irs-back-taxes/2011/09/01/id/409520

Warren Buffet May Owe A Billion Dollars In Back Taxes... http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45889

The truth about Warren Buffet and his taxes... http://www.topix.com/forum/city/caruthersville-mo/TI14AO3T0FNT7A40N

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28439) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I'm sorry was this supposed to have proved something? You post a link to an OP-ED and links to other OP-Eds quoting the New York Post OP-ED.

"recent New York Times op-ed"

Where is the fact/proof of a legal battle or anything being pursued by the government? OP-EDs? come on!

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

I gave you several stories that have reported the failure to pay.

You are not participating with me in an honest discussion.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28439) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Opinion Editorials are just that Opinion. Why would I find that acceptable?

[-] 1 points by tep22 (1) 2 years ago

And like you were told, those article have to do WITH PAST TAXES.

Not the buffett rule, which would be a NEW TAX going forward.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

so, since this is ancient history, he should be forgiven and forgotten.

I think it is great a new tax law is named after a tax cheat.

[-] 1 points by tep22 (1) 2 years ago

No, I didn't say that.

I'd expect your beloved leader, the magic negro, to actually hold Buffett responsible for the taxes instead of constantly citing him as someone who wants it, and conveniently forgetting to tell the people the REST OF THE STORY in his stump speeches. It's eerily similar to Obama kicking the crap out of General Electric for exporting jobs and not paying taxes while blowing Jeff Immelt, the CEO of GE and making him his lead economic advisor.

Do you get my point yet?????????????????????

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by tep22 (1) 2 years ago

"Owed to the government"? How? Has it been assessed? NO.

He doesn't owe the billion unless it's part of the tax code. You act like everything everyone earns belongs to the gubment, and Obama letting us keep some of it is through his good graces. Get real.

[-] -2 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Owes Taxes Going Back To 2002... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/29/warren-buffett-taxes-berkshire-hathaway_n_941099.html

Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway owes $1 billion in back taxes... http://hotair.com/archives/2011/09/02/buffetts-berkshire-hathaway-owes-1-billion-in-back-taxes/

Report: Buffett's Berkshire Owes $1 Billion In Back Taxes

Read more on Newsmax.com: Report: Buffett's Berkshire Owes $1 Billion In Back Taxes... http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/buffett-irs-back-taxes/2011/09/01/id/409520

Warren Buffet May Owe A Billion Dollars In Back Taxes... http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45889

The truth about Warren Buffet and his taxes... http://www.topix.com/forum/city/caruthersville-mo/TI14AO3T0FNT7A40N

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

You should call the IRS!!

Seems everybody knows but them.

There ain't much I can do about. Taxes are for us little people anyway.

WE should tax and investigate the lot of them, Oooops there goes the debt.

[-] 1 points by tep22 (1) 2 years ago

None of the owed taxes have anything to do with the Buffett Rule. Get it?

The Buffett Rule would be in addition to those going forward if it actually passed, but it isn't the law as of today.

What you cited are taxes that he should have already paid.

[-] -2 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

So, the "Buffett Rule" means that you should promote an increase in taxes but you should do your best to not pay the taxes you owe under the law.... I can live with that. I think we should do the best we can to keep from paying taxes at all.

[-] 1 points by tep22 (1) 2 years ago

I'm not sure what you mean.