Swill Bin favorite rich guy slams stock buyback critics

https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/warren-buffett-slams-critics-stock-buybacks-after-democrats-scrutiny-economic-illiterate

And in so doing implies he thinks Biden is an economic illiterate given this quote from his annual letter to shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway.  

"When you are told that all repurchases are harmful to shareholders or to the country, or particularly beneficial to CEOs, you are listening to either an economic illiterate or a silver-tongued demagogue (characters that are not mutually exclusive)."

We have a favorite rich guy?

I thought we were using "wealthy", not "rich".

If we have one, wouldn't he be someone who has donated $$$ to MSU?

Should we open the floor for nominations?

edit -

Axios wrote:Buybacks are a form of financial engineering; often they're paid for not out of profits but from borrowing money in the debt markets.

https://www.axios.com/2023/02/27/why-investors-like-warren-buffett-are-so-fond-of-stock-buybacks

Of course Ishbia unless he starts getting into politics... then, probably NOT Ishbia.

Broad gave a bunch of $$$

Izzo has too.

Steve Smith?

We don't have a favorite rich guy. However, GreenWay is launching a new cafeteria-style restaurant in Warren called Warren Buffet.

Did I miss the poll? Is voting still open?

kingstonlake wrote:Did I miss the poll? Is voting still open?

I think it has been decided for us even though our favorite rich guy is obviously Guest.

kingstonlake wrote:Did I miss the poll? Is voting still open?

I'm thinking this is only the nomination thread, as Herr RQA has informed us of the need for this position.

Once we have the nominations you can start the polling thread?

I nominate Guest. He is long gone from the board, but he definitely has money stored in old raw milk glass bottles that are buried all over Mio.

RQA and TM both retired in their 40's like good Rs do... So how about them?

I would like to nominate Jack Nicklaus

AvgMSUJoe wrote:RQA and TM both retired in their 40's like good Rs do... So how about them?

That makes me frugal, not rich. LOL!

TravelinMan wrote:

AvgMSUJoe wrote:RQA and TM both retired in their 40's like good Rs do... So how about them?

That makes me frugal, not rich. LOL!

Then officially we have it... TM is the board cheapskate. RQA is the rich guy.

AvgMSUJoe wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

That makes me frugal, not rich. LOL!

Then officially we have it... TM is the board cheapskate. RQA is the rich guy.

I can live with that.

tSwill will now raise RQA's marginal tax rate to 99% and redistribute the spoils to programs that help posters like Cam and OTPT.

Rick Saunders wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

I think it has been decided for us even though our favorite rich guy is obviously Guest.

Though of empty pockets and children in college, indeed I rich be.

Who is rich? He that rejoices in his portion. Money never made a man happy yet, nor will it... There is nothing in its nature to produce happiness. The more a man has, the more he wants. Instead of its filling a vacuum, it makes one. If it satisfies one want, it doubles and trebles that want another way.

Well TN is saying we all are, so there is that.

Buy backs serve a purpose.  

However in years with historic profits that are already rewarding stockholders, he plan to buy back stock to further increase stock prices could be tweaked.   

For example, add a 20% Federal Tax to the buy back 10% to the company for funds allocated for the buyback and 10% on the profits realized by the stockholders who sell the stock back.  

PS 

Turtleneck, 
Can interest you in a Nut House franchise opportunity?

Then you can be your favorite Swill rich person in addition to being your Swill favorite person.

GRR Spartan wrote:Buy backs serve a purpose.  

However in years with historic profits that are already rewarding stockholders, he plan to buy back stock to further increase stock prices could be tweaked.   

For example, add a 20% Federal Tax to the buy back 10% to the company for funds allocated for the buyback and 10% on the profits realized by the stockholders who sell the stock back.  

PS 

Turtleneck, 
Can interest you in a Nut House franchise opportunity?

Then you can be your favorite Swill rich person in addition to being your Swill favorite person.

Are you talking about St. Lawrence in Bay City?

AvgMSUJoe wrote:RQA and TM both retired in their 40's like good Rs do... So how about them?

Wasn’t TM like 32? And isn’t it rQa who is benevolent to his employees and lets them work 4 hour shifts? Or do I have them mixed up?

Anyway, I vote those two our favorite rich guys. Fuck Ishbia. He shoulda bought the Packers. And fuck any other rich guy who crashes a spaceship on our campus and calls it art.

Turtleneck wrote:We don't have a favorite rich guy. However, GreenWay is launching a new cafeteria-style restaurant in Warren called Warren Buffet.

It was time to expand my footprint beyond new car sales in Central Lower Michigan. But when you want the best deal anywhere, be sure to visit the middle of the Mitten: Stop by Harrison Ford.

Also, I thought George Soros was our favorite rich guy? I didn’t get the memo. When did that change?

tGreenWay wrote:Also, I thought George Soros was our favorite rich guy? I didn’t get the memo. When did that change?

Yesterday according to Herr RQA

I think the outrage caused by stock buybacks started with companies accepting Covid money in the same year they were doing buybacks, which is complete shit.

Motown Spartan wrote:I think the outrage caused by stock buybacks started with companies accepting Covid money in the same year they were doing buybacks, which is complete shit.

Maybe for widespread outrage?

Progressives have been outraged ever since the income taxes on capital gains were changed from being the same as the rest of income to 20%, during George W Bush, I think at the beginning of the Reagan Administration.  That bunches of the Trump Corporate Tax Cut money were used for stock buy backs was also an outrage. since the argument for the tax cuts was that companies would use it to expand their businesses.

As noted, stock buy backs are stock manipulation and tax avoidance, and with corporate management borrowing money to buy back stocks it has become a way of reduction of the financial health of the balance sheets of some companies.  (Companies which have too much cash who do it are only avoiding taxes for those selling the dried-out stock. (If more stock issued waters down stock value, then reducing outstanding stock must be "drying" stock value ))

The top cap gains rate of 20% only applies to those earning more than like $492,000. The vast majority of Americans pay a top rate of 15% while many others pay 0. So, more than 95% of tax payers pay lower cap gains taxes than 20%.

However…of that 95%+ of Americans, more than 80% is held in tax deferred accounts that are taxed at regular income tax rates when withdrawn, which can be more or less than 15%.

Taxes are fun. Buy backs aren’t bad except when done so with taxpayer money.

Motown Spartan wrote:The top cap gains rate of 20% only applies to those earning more than like $492,000. The vast majority of Americans pay a top rate of 15% while many others pay 0.  So, more than 95% of tax payers pay lower cap gains taxes than 20%.

However…of that 95%+ of Americans, more than 80% is held in tax deferred accounts that are taxed at regular income tax rates when withdrawn, which can be more or less than 15%.

Taxes are fun. Buy backs aren’t bad except when done so with taxpayer money.  

Thanks for the detail, and for pointing out the taxes on IRAs / 401ks / etc, where many of the 99% have their stock investments, and the unfairness of that should be clear.

Another unfairness is that much of the stock is owned by the 1%, so they are the ones getting a huge tax break.

Even more unfair is the rule which resets the purchase price of stock to the value on the day of the death of the former owner so that taxes on the capital gains during the former owner's lifetime on inherited stock are never paid.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Motown Spartan wrote:The top cap gains rate of 20% only applies to those earning more than like $492,000. The vast majority of Americans pay a top rate of 15% while many others pay 0.  So, more than 95% of tax payers pay lower cap gains taxes than 20%.

However…of that 95%+ of Americans, more than 80% is held in tax deferred accounts that are taxed at regular income tax rates when withdrawn, which can be more or less than 15%.

Taxes are fun. Buy backs aren’t bad except when done so with taxpayer money.  

Thanks for the detail, and for pointing out the taxes on IRAs / 401ks / etc, where many of the 99% have their stock investments, and the unfairness of that should be clear.

Another unfairness is that much of the stock is owned by the 1%, so they are the ones getting a huge tax break.

Even more unfair is the rule which resets the purchase price of stock to the value on the day of the death of the former owner so that taxes on the capital gains during the former owner's lifetime on inherited stock are never paid.

Agree to disagree.  I deal with people every single day that have net worths of less than a million dollars, and many with less than a half a million dollars that benefit from the capital gains cost basis reset rules.  Just because they favor the wealthy doesn’t mean they don’t benefit the middle.

Motown Spartan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Thanks for the detail, and for pointing out the taxes on IRAs / 401ks / etc, where many of the 99% have their stock investments, and the unfairness of that should be clear.

Another unfairness is that much of the stock is owned by the 1%, so they are the ones getting a huge tax break.

Even more unfair is the rule which resets the purchase price of stock to the value on the day of the death of the former owner so that taxes on the capital gains during the former owner's lifetime on inherited stock are never paid.

Agree to disagree.  I deal with people every single day that have net worths of less than a million dollars, and many with less than a half a million dollars that benefit from the capital gains cost basis reset rules.  Just because they favor the wealthy doesn’t mean they don’t benefit the middle.

Sorry if it sounds like I was saying there is no benefit to the 99%, just that much of the benefit is for the 1%, who btw, tend to earn more of their income via income from investments, which means the income tax avoidance via capital gains is meaningful to their taxes paid. There are plenty of studies which back this concept up.

(Let's not get into the obscene practice of the super wealthy of borrowing money with their investment portfolios as supposed collateral who thus are able to claim much lower amounts of income than they enjoy)

(Also, I mean by the "the 99%" and "the 1%" that these are place holders for dividing where the income of the group comes from, and not percentages of the population)

AvgMSUJoe wrote:RQA and TM both retired in their 40's like good Rs do... So how about them?

In the name of full transparency, I am not retired.

Rick Saunders wrote: Money never made a man happy yet, nor will it....

True, but as Cher (IIRC) said: "I've been poor and I've been rich, I prefer rich"

Motown Spartan wrote:The top cap gains rate of 20% only applies to those earning more than like $492,000. The vast majority of Americans pay a top rate of 15% while many others pay 0. So, more than 95% of tax payers pay lower cap gains taxes than 20%.

However…of that 95%+ of Americans, more than 80% is held in tax deferred accounts that are taxed at regular income tax rates when withdrawn, which can be more or less than 15%.

Taxes are fun. Buy backs aren’t bad except when done so with taxpayer money.

The capital gains tax should be low, even zero, as that allows for the most efficient flow of capital which leads to a better economy which makes your life better.

RQA wrote:

Motown Spartan wrote:The top cap gains rate of 20% only applies to those earning more than like $492,000. The vast majority of Americans pay a top rate of 15% while many others pay 0. So, more than 95% of tax payers pay lower cap gains taxes than 20%.

However…of that 95%+ of Americans, more than 80% is held in tax deferred accounts that are taxed at regular income tax rates when withdrawn, which can be more or less than 15%.

Taxes are fun. Buy backs aren’t bad except when done so with taxpayer money.

The capital gains tax should be low, even zero, as that allows for the most efficient flow of capital which leads to a better economy which makes your life better.

That’s plain dumb shit. Elon isn’t gonna fuck you kid

RQA wrote:

Motown Spartan wrote:The top cap gains rate of 20% only applies to those earning more than like $492,000. The vast majority of Americans pay a top rate of 15% while many others pay 0. So, more than 95% of tax payers pay lower cap gains taxes than 20%.

However…of that 95%+ of Americans, more than 80% is held in tax deferred accounts that are taxed at regular income tax rates when withdrawn, which can be more or less than 15%.

Taxes are fun. Buy backs aren’t bad except when done so with taxpayer money.

The capital gains tax should be low, even zero, as that allows for the most efficient flow of capital which leads to a better economy which makes your life better.

Only true if the supply side is constrained by too little capital, which in the US isn't the case.

The last couple years have shown that the constraints are on the demand side of the equation, which we all knew by the fact that businesses could find nothing better to do with their additional cash than stock buybacks.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

That’s plain dumb shit. Elon isn’t gonna fuck you kid

Travis tries to argue against a low (preferably zero) capital gains tax rate.

RQA wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

That’s plain dumb shit. Elon isn’t gonna fuck you kid

Travis tries to argue against a low (preferably zero) capital gains tax rate.

Not arguing with you because you’re not worthy of that just telling you you’re a dumb fuck

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
Not arguing with you because you’re not worthy of that just telling you you’re a dumb fuck

And more arguments against a low capital gains tax from Travis. I guess that's the best he can do.

Cameron wrote:

RQA wrote:

The capital gains tax should be low, even zero, as that allows for the most efficient flow of capital which leads to a better economy which makes your life better.

Agree... that might be the dumbest thing I've read on tSwill.

Turtleneck wrote:

kingstonlake wrote:Did I miss the poll? Is voting still open?

I think it has been decided for us even though our favorite rich guy is obviously Guest.

You sonuvabitch! I told you that in SECRET! Let’s fight!