http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...e-will-release-his-tax-return-if-murdoch-does Warren Buffet is a total tool. I had a better word to call him but then I realized the profanity filter would block it out. Warren Buffet made his personal tax return a political issue when he claimed he paid taxes at a lower rate than his secretary. When he's called on it, he says, sure I'll release my tax return -- but only if Rupert Murdoch does. But Rupert Murdoch hasn't make his tax return an issue. There is no reason he should have to release his tax return. Buffet knows Murdoch isn't going to play this stupid game, so he's safe.
There is a place on your income tax return where you can pay extra taxes, I'd really like to know how much extra Buffett has added to his taxes.
Buffet picks a prominent conservative as a random victim of this ploy to avoid showing his tax return. He might as well say, let's see Rush Limbaugh's tax return... Let's see Glen Beck's tax return... Let's see Sean Hannity's tax return... Let's see Ann Coulter's tax return... Let's see Joe the Plumber's tax return... Buffet lied when he said his secretary paid a higher tax rate than he did and now he's been called on his lie. He's looking for a way to weasel out of this trap he's gotten himself into. Show your tax return Warren Buffet, or ****.
Actually, he did not say that at all. You see, I actually read the article. Here is the part which indicates your statement is indeed incorrect. Asked about the Republican requests and Journal editorial, Buffett agreed to turn over the documents, according to Reuters. But he asked that Murdoch return the gesture in kind. He certainly appears to never have stated that he would turn over his returns only if Murdoch does. Your thread appears to be solely based on the title of the article and not the actual contents of it.
Which is a pretty funny statement as it seems Republican politicians are demanding the tax returns of a private citizen to score cheap political points amongst their sycophants. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20110237-503544.html
This nonsense has been thouroughly debunked. The first indication that it was made up partisan bull(*)(*)(*)(*) should have been when it sounded ridiculous. Unfortunately, sounding ridiculous did not seem to stop the right wing echo chamber from repeating it and taking it to heart. When examined and fact checked, GE clearly did pay taxes and clearly did not get a $3.2 billion tax refund. http://www.propublica.org/article/setting-the-record-straight-on-ges-taxes/single GE's 2010 financial statements reported a $3.25 billion U.S. "current tax benefit," which is where the Times, which declined comment, got its $3.2 billion "tax benefit" number. But a company's "current tax" number has nothing to do with what it actually pays in taxes for a given year. "Current tax benefit" and "current tax expense" are so-called financial reporting numbers, used to calculate the profits a company reports to shareholders. They have nothing to do with what a company sends to (or receives from) the IRS. "Any correlation between the 'current tax expense' and the current tax payable is likely coincidental," says a leading tax authority, Ed Outslay, Deloitte/Michael Licata professor of accounting at Michigan State University's business school.
Propublica? LOLOLOLOL. They only returned the refund after being caught. Sites like Propublica, media matters and Stink Progress definitely rely on the gullible to spread their BS.
Dude, your news story you cited just now was a fake press release. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...on-fake-ge-press-release-about-companys-taxes So not only have you been proven wrong, you are insisting you are right with what has now been shown to be an article that was completely false. So let me state again, you are wrong. The tax refund nonsense has been thoroughly debunked, and now your defense to claiming it has also been thoroughly debunked.
LMAO read your own article : "Asked about the Republican requests and Journal editorial, Buffett agreed to turn over the documents, according to Reuters. But he asked that Murdoch return the gesture in kind." Buffet has been saying this for years (but it never was an issue) he also has been saying what he pays in taxes for years: around 18% total taxes combined.
NPR BLOGS? Really? Do you have anything from a reliable news source or just crapola blogs? I'm sure if it was wrong the AP printed a retraction, where is it?
OK. Murdock declines. Can we please see Buffet's tax returns now? Or do they keep them in the same secret vault with Obama's college grades?
I am sorry, but sitting there and denigrating the source will not make you right. You were twice wrong in this thread. First with your claim about GE, second with you use of a debunked article to support your claim.
Please. Your attempt to move some goal posts in an effort to save an obviously erroneous OP will not be successful.
Not at all. The claim was that Buffet did not actually demand Murdock's tax returns as a condition before releasing his but only "requested" to see them. OK. Murdock declines Buffet's kind offer. Now can we see Warren Buffet's tax returns?
Not really, most taxes are limited to a certain maximum amount, or are only deducted up to certain amounts. Anything beyond those you dont pay taxes and it brings down the average % of total taxes you pay.
