‘The Secretary Speaks!’ ABC Again Champion’s Obama’s Poster Girl for Higher Taxes, Contrasts Her Rate with Romney’s
“The secretary speaks,” ABC fill-in anchor David Muir excitedly teased at the top of Wednesday’s World News, “billionaire investor Warren Buffett and his secretary, who pays a much-higher tax rate than him. He says not fair. She’s now at the center of a huge debate. What does she think? An ABC News exclusive.” Muir promised that “tonight we hear from the secretary for the first time,” but she merely got to utter one sentence as ABC used her as a poster girl to hike taxes.
Reporter Bianna Golodryga recounted “a hero’s welcome” back in Omaha for “for a secretary thrust into the spotlight” by sitting as a stage prop behind the First Lady at Tuesday night’s State of the Union address. President Obama, Golodryga helpfully explained in advancing Obama’s agenda, called for a minimum 30 percent tax rate on millionaires “after Republican candidate Mitt Romney revealed he made almost $43 million over two years, paying a tax rate of 13.9 percent in 2010, not Debbie’s 35.8 percent.”
That 35.8 percent claim for secretary Debbie Bosanek is highly dubious. She may be in that bracket, but is that really her effective rate on all of her income and not just her marginal rate? Does she rent and not get a mortgage interest deduction? Does she have any deductions for dependents? Golodryga did not say on air nor in the ABCNews.com version which at least mentioned Buffett is “a Democrat and Obama-supporter.”
The average effective federal income tax rate for taxpayers is 11 percent, I noted in my January 24 post, “Nets Use Romney’s Taxes to Advance Obama’s False ‘Fairness’ Narrative,” which includes a table showing those earning between $50,000 and $75,000 pay an average effective income tax rate of 7 percent, 8 percent for those taking in $75,000 to $100,000 and 12 percent for those between $100,000 and $200,000.
No matter what Buffett pays her, if she’s paying 35.8 percent she has an awful accountant. More likely, she’s paying a lot less, maybe even at a lower rate than Romney since, as USA Today reported last week, “he's paying a higher tax rate than the majority of taxpayers.”
Bosanek’s one soundbite in Golodryga’s piece: “Right. I feel like an average citizen. Maybe I should say I was representing just the average citizen, who, you know, needs a voice and wants to be treated fairly in the area of taxation.”
This is hardly the first time ABC’s World News has championed Warren Buffett’s quest to raise income tax rates. Last September, Golodryga gushed:
Today, an unassuming secretary who lives in Omaha and happens to work for billionaire Warren Buffett may be the arbiter of what is fair and not in America. Buffett, worth $50 billion, recently expressed outrage that under the American tax code, he paid just 17.4 percent of his income in taxes while his secretary paid double that rate at 33 percent.
(Note 33 percent for Bosanek just five months ago, not 35.8 percent)
A month earlier, “Billionaires on notice,” ABC anchor Diane Sawyer teased World News in trumpeting, as did CBS and NBC, a New York Times op-ed by Buffett. Sawyer heralded Buffett’s quest: “Is it time for the mega-rich to pay at least the same tax rate as their secretaries? And if they did pay their fair share, would it fix America's schools or roads?”
Plus, January 5: “ABC Exploits Kim Kardashian Gimmick to Champion Left-Wing Quest to Raise Tax Rates”
The corresponding MRC BiasAlert has a transcript of the Wednesday, January 25 World News story.
- Brent Baker's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Mondale's "raise you taxes"
Submitted by ray johnson on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 11:04am.
Mondale's "raise you taxes" pledge didn't get him very much in '84. I'm guessing this will eventually be seen as a non-starter for the dims.
I am pretty sure she is
Submitted by ricklail on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 11:05am.
I am pretty sure she is taking all the deductions she can get. If she makes between 200K and 500K as has been reported she has to have an accountant. I heard that she has 2 homes. The MSM is not going to look into her finances like they have Romney's. I am not sure where she works but I'd bet my next grandchild that it is in a state with no income tax or a low income tax. She could stop this BS of being used as a prop by Obama but I suspect she supports the RBFSOB.
I was thinking
Submitted by KornKing on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 11:18am.
Did the idiot reporter ask to see a copy of her tax return?
No because
Submitted by misterbee241 on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 11:46am.
she wouldnt understand it if she read it.
That was going to be my point as well
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 1:01pm.
She's been made a national celebrity by the Warren Buffett, the Democrat party and the President of the United States- all on the basis of her tax return. She sat with the FLOTUS at the SOTU. She was portrayed -by implication- as the personification of middle-class America and now we learn she's the proverbial 1%'er. The President is proposing a plan that is based in half on her employment position and income.
She should release her tax returns.
Immediately.
I'm not a fan of the right
Submitted by ThatDude on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 11:22am.
I'm not a fan of the right running a Joe the plumber on this lady. However, if they want to keep trying to score political points on this story, then I'd like to see how she managed to pay 35.8% in taxes.
A curious point that I haven't yet heard being made. If she must be making at least 200k to be in a high enough tax bracket for the noted rate, then isn't she one of the people Obama was saying he wanted to raise taxes on? I seem to recall Obama going on and on about how those earning 200k+ need their taxes raised and must pay their fair share. In this light, everyone seems to be missing the elephant in the room. Obama and the dems aren't against this woman paying such a high rate, they want everyone to pay that much and more (excluding their pet interest groups.)
Context: it matters.
You've got it, ThatDude
Submitted by Galvanic on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 11:37am.
All we know about the income of Buffett's secretary is that, according to Buffett in a throwaway line, his tax rate is lower than hers.
Obama grabbed the quote and he and his MSM friends have been extrapolating all kinds of questionable assumptions from it. I can't imagine, for instance, the secretary of the CEO of a huge corporation paying 35% on her income.
None of the wild speculation should even be considered until we know for a fact just how much she paid in Federal income tax.
I agree Galvanic.
Submitted by Order270 on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 12:11pm.
I got caught up in Obama's game on the debt ceiling fiasco last year. His game is to throw something out there with a lot of holes and wait for the assumptions on filling in the blanks.
According to one web site on tax rates,
Submitted by UpNorth on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 11:53am.
if her tax rate is 35%, her taxable income is a minimum of $379,150. So, one has to wonder what her gross income was.
We need to do our part.
Submitted by ljacone on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 11:14am.
And by doing our part I mean we need to fight this misinformation as vocally and as often as possible. Push those links out over Twitter and Facebook as much as you can. Call out anyone in your life who claims that Romney pays less taxes than a secretary. Scream it from the rooftops if you have to. We have to fight these ridiculous, inane, and outright FALSE concepts in every possible avenue.
Too many morons hear this stuff and get out the torches and pitchforks and start screaming to Eat The Rich. We need to counterprogram this idiocy with some honest-to-God FACTS, something Left knows nothing about.
I am getting sick and tired
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 11:28am.
I am getting sick and tired of this "fair share" cr@pola. The current tax code we have does nothing but give the Dems fodder for their class warfare rhetoric. If I was interviewing Buffet and his secretary I would be asking her what is her total compensation? What if any deductions she was using?
I am sure Buffets secretary is making a nice salary. I have a friend of mine who is an Executive Assistant ( or something like that) to one of the higher ups in her company. The company is a well known financial firm. Her salary is a minimum of 90k and her bonus will put her over the 100k mark. So if my friend is making 100k a year you can bet Warrens secretary is doing a lot better.
I also hope the Republican/Conservatives out there will constantly remind folks that rate that Romney is paying is on capital gains which is much lower.
I am assuming that she lives in Nebraska since Berkshire Hathaways Headquarters are located in Omaha and the Income Tax there is quite low by the looks of it.
All in all this is BS the LSM is pushing so they can support President Downgrades class warfare attacks.
Obama is a dolt to have not vetted Buffett's tale of woe
Submitted by frank14 on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 11:32am.
He's hardly the smartest president ever...but definitely the laziest.
THE ONE-PERCENT: Warren Buffett’s Secretary Likely Makes Between $200,000 And $500,000/Year. “I have nothing against Debbie Bosanke earning a half million or even more. Buffet is a major player in the world economy. His secretary deserves good compensation. At her income, however, she is scarcely the symbol of injustice that Obama wishes her to project.”
I’d like to see her income tax returns. And Warren Buffett’s.
UPDATE: Buffett and His Secretary Can’t Get Their Story Straight on Taxes. “Chalk this up as the first strategic blunder of the Obama campaign. The poster-child of their class warfare narrative, Warren Buffett’s secretary, has just made a tax claim that, if true, reveals her to belong in the top 1% of income earners in America.”
MORE: Meet Warren Buffett’s Poor Secretary.
It's even worse than that Frank
Submitted by ckc1227 on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 5:18pm.
All this time Warren has been crying about not paying enough in taxes, he's been fighting the government to avoid paying millions in taxes he already owes, but doesn't want to pay. Was that mentioned in the Republican response the other night? No.
⇒ Obama the sexist pig
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 11:37am.
If Buffett's "secretary" were applying for a job, it would be for "executive assistant", not "secretary".
But Obama and Buffett see fit to demean her position in order to meet their ends.
Where is NOW? (rhetorical question, inasmuch as that organization is strictly abortionists rights)
NOW is laying low so that it doesn't have to . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 11:39am.
. . . reveal how much its executives are compensated.
⇒ No doubt it's a bunch
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 11:47am.
I wonder how much $/lb. they make off of baby meat.
How is "secretary" demeaning?
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 12:04pm.
How is "secretary" demeaning? Isn't "executive assistant" the same as calling stewardesses "flight attendants"?
Oh NO!
Submitted by Agnostic on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 12:09pm.
PC is not being used to push a liberal agenda - must bash it now.
⇒ Ain't it funny?
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 12:15pm.
Liberals pushed this big "empowerment" movement back in the 70s to eliminate sexist terms, and now balboa says sexism is OK.
For his next trick, balboa will argue that "Secretary of Defense" is the same use of the term.
Secretariat
Submitted by Agnostic on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 12:20pm.
and Secretariat was just a horse.
I didn't know "secretary" was
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 12:49pm.
I didn't know "secretary" was part of the PC agenda.
Cover up balboa, your
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 12:53pm.
Cover up balboa, your dumbassity is showing.
⇒ Of course not, bal
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 12:55pm.
Because you are selectively ignorant.
You'll note I did not intimate you were ignorant as a result of not having been exposed to the information. That would make you a member of the pitied underclass of liberalism.
Well, gee, I'm sorry I'm not
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 2:36pm.
Well, gee, I'm sorry I'm not more hip to the PC ways.
⇒ balboa
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 3:57pm.
I don't even know if "Politically Correct" was a widely used term when the alleged "Women's Movement" declared "secretary" a sexually demeaning term. I think it was referred to as the "Feminist Movement"
But there you are, admitting you were aware of the "stewardess" vs "flight attendant" transition.
Can't you be more careful not to betray your selective ignorance? If you weren't so busy openly admitting it, we could just chalk it up to your being naive (which is "evian" spelled backwards)
Sorry, I guess I missed the
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 4:14pm.
Sorry, I guess I missed the "secretary is demeaning" memo. Just because I'm aware of "flight attendant" vs. "stewardess" doesn't mean I'm lying about that.
yes bal,
Submitted by Agnostic on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 4:18pm.
But if you were a prominent person 20 years ago and the media wanted something to print about you - calling a woman a secretary would gotten you labeled as a chauvinist at least.
⇒ Right, balboa
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 12:11pm.
Because you were a stewardess?
You must have the calendar
Submitted by cocodrie on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 12:14pm.
You must have the calendar - "A stupid question for every day"
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Post of the day!
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 12:31pm.
Tis true!
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Good morning Blonde
Submitted by cocodrie on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 12:35pm.
Thanks for all the beautiful photos on your blog.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Coco
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 12:36pm.
Glad you enjoyed them.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
So you have no answer?
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 2:39pm.
So you have no answer?
balboa's answer
Submitted by Agnostic on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 4:07pm.
you seek an answer? Yes, starting about 25-30 years ago when the job of 'Secretary' started to become striated according to who you assisted and the level of responsibility you held having it assumed you were 'just a Secretary' became a demeaning assumption so much so that eventually the title Secretary itself became insulting to some.
Is of any real interest to anyone - probably not. However it was a PC issues probably before PC was a recognized term and used by the left to attempt to make others look unworldly, arrogant or misogynist.
Or perhaps most people really don't put that much thought into something so inconsequential.
⇒ And don't even say "housewife"
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 4:33pm.
Agnostic, I think we both know Balboa, so closely connected to academia, is fully aware of the abrupt connotative transformation certain words experienced in the late 70's - early 80's.
I absolutely refuse to believe he, with his connections, is that naturally ignorant. Balboa's daddy was a college professor. Can we really believe bal was blissfully ignorant of the feminist movement?
Good grief. Yes, I was aware
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 5:46pm.
Good grief. Yes, I was aware of the feminist movement. I just didn't know that secretary was a derogatory term. OK?
WOW.
⇒ Happy birthday, bal
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 5:53pm.
Hope you and the little woman have a great day.
Hey bal
Submitted by mandrake on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 1:05pm.
Congratulations on 6 years of clever snark here at NB and an astonishingly thick skin. :)
⇒ Yes, mandrake
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 1:18pm.
Balboa version of the old axiom, "brevity is the soul of witlessness" is something he adheres to faithfully.
An unassuming secretary who makes between $200-500K.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 11:39am.
"Oh, Miss Crabapple, I need you to take some dictation and run off some mimeographs."
She's already been outed. This little SOTU sideshow is going to bite O right in the keester when the facts come out.
And BTW, executive admin is the correct term these days. And those who work for CEOs make big money, not $35K like they tried to imply in this pathetic skit.
⇒ This lowly "secretary"
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 11:49am.
I'm not sure she was all that enthused at being used as Barry's prop.
Totally agree, Cool.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 12:06pm.
Kinda tough to say no to both your boss and POTUS.
bonus
Submitted by Agnostic on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 12:12pm.
maybe she is getting a 'bonus' for her political contribution to the effort to keep the energy being transported by rail and therefore money into her bosses company - maybe they can tax it at 15% and make it 'fair'.
⇒ Expanding on this theme
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 12:00pm.
Expanding on his theme of belittling the role of women, Obama will now refer to Michelle as "The Old Lady" in an upcoming speech on Social Security.
⇒ He's already done it
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 12:06pm.
He's already referred to Michelle as a crazed, ravenous, tamale chomper.
If her own husband won't show respect for Michelle's crusade for better nutrition, why the heck should any American?
Well, la-dee-da, Buffet is the world's biggest piker.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 12:59pm.
Only pays Bosanek a measly $60K; which has to be the lowest salary for a CEO's exec admin in the world.
Remember, the Dear Ruler and his lying ABC propagandists...
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 11:56am.
...are counting on this tactic to work among those with an 8th grade reading level, like goonion members (and that includes teachers) who are completely ignorant of how our tax system works.
Sad to say, it is probably going to work for them among many of the dumbMasses, too.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
ABC
Submitted by dubuqueman on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 12:05pm.
It's outrageous that ABC would compare her supposed rate with Romney's without verifying it. They should ask to see her return before passing along this propaganda. And the story would be much different if we learned she makes a boatload of money.
Why start reporting now?
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 12:32pm.
As mb would say, the facts are immaterial, liberals know the Truth.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Banana Golddigger-another ABC vacant talking head.
Submitted by drsamherman on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 12:10pm.
Most of the income tax preparation software includes a function that tells the filer what their specific incremental tax rate is. It does not mean they really pay that full percent, because of the standard deduction, dependents and other factors. When I talk to my accountant, he uses the same type of tax preparation software as other accountants and tax preparers, and he made it clear that this is primarily for financial planning purposes.
If she really is paying that much, her boss needs to allow her to use his accounts and lawyers to lower HER tax bill too.
I wish
Submitted by Chaitealover on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 12:13pm.
that conservative commentators would convert this story to dollars and cents every time it comes up. How much actual money does a super-wealthy person hand over to the feds to waste, compared to the average taxpayer? Even after tax breaks and off-shore accounts, it's significant.
As Dennis Prager said regarding Buffet yesterday: being good in business doesn't mean you have wisdom.
Chai
I wish as well
Submitted by Agnostic on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 12:17pm.
someone would point out the lavish lifestyle of some of our politicians with expense accounts, insider information (free from investigation), travel expenditures, junkets, retreats, private dinning facilities, work out rooms, on sight medical care, etc....
point this out and ask why anyone in America should be paying more to support this luxury.
Exactly
Submitted by ajkrik on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 12:24pm.
The Socialist members of the establishment including the MSM have framed the discussion around "tax rates" rather than the actually dollar contribution.
The rich may benefit more from government product (defined very loosely) but they don't get 100 times more benefit. The point of this narrative is to brainwash the average person into a knee-jerk expectation that the rich (the conservative ones) are bad, and they somehow owe society more than the middle-class.
This "class" defamation is what the Nazis used on Jews, what the Young Turks used to kill and confiscate the property of Armenians . . . virtually every nation has at some point demonized a selected "class" and tried to suck them dry! Well, it's happening HERE. . . again.
The big-lie!
In the grand scale of things...
Submitted by utahprez on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 12:20pm.
...Romney's tax rate on $41M on income would mean that the paid $5,699,000 in taxes while the wealthiest secretary in America paid $272,044, assuming that she made the $758,500 ($379,250 a year) to trigger that rate. That means that Romney paid 21 times the actual tax dollars she paid.
Doesn't making over $250,000 in the Age of Obama make you rich? I thought we were supposed to soak the rich?
If Buffet isn't helping her reduce her tax liability, he is a selfish bastard and if she is paying that much, she has bad tax advice and a poor investment strategy - strange since she works for the "Wizard of Omaha".
35.8%?
Submitted by almostacowboy on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 12:32pm.
I just checked the IRS.Gov website. The maximum tax rate is 35%, so how did she pay 35.8%? She must have missed some quarterly payments and gotten penalized, which is not a tax. It's a penalty.
OBTW- 35% starts at $379,150, so isn't she the one Sheik Barack Hussein al-Baloney wants to raise taxes on?
If it's true, she's either a dummy,
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 1:12pm.
or she files jointly (if she's married; I have no clue) and her husband makes big bucks.
Marginal rate vs effective rate
Submitted by jpwcpa on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 4:49pm.
Although the highest marginal rate is 35%, no one actually pays tax at a rate of 35 percent of every dollar of taxable income, due to the fact that there are other, lower rates that get applied to one's income prior to reaching the 35% tax bracket.
Warren Buffett (and Warren Buffet's secretary, and his next door neighbor, and his paperboy, etc) all pay a rate of 10% on the first $8,500 of taxable income (and if you're married, the 10% rate applies to the first $17,000 of taxable income). After that, the 15% rate kicks in, but it only applies to the amount of income that exceeds the 10% bracket. So a married couple with $17,100 of taxable income would have the first $17,000 taxed at 10%, and the remaining $100 taxed at 15%, which works out to $1,715. The couple can legitimately claim to be in the 15% tax bracket, despite the fact that $1,715 is only 10.03% of $17,100.
By the time you get to the start of the 35% bracket at $379,150, you have paid a total of $110,016 in tax, which is slightly above 29% of $379,150. You have a marginal rate of 35%, and an effective rate of 29%.
Hay, liberals...
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 1:31pm.
Hay, liberals, if you REALLY want to make things "fair" then why don't you REDUCE her "effective" tax rates until they match his? Has that even occurred to you? WHY is it always that "he's not paying enough" as opposed to "she's paying too much?"
Oh, that's right, you're liberals and, therefor, there's no such thing as "paying too much" in taxes, unless, of course, it's YOUR taxes that's under discussion. Then, of course, you must, at all costs, extend those "tax holidays" for as long as is humanly possible, don't you? After all, you're all a part of the 99 Percent (has that been trademarked yet?) and you deserve that tax reduction, correct?
What makes you more deserving of a tax reduction than a "super rich" person like Romney, or Warren Buffet's "secretary" for that matter? Is it because, as a part of the "middle class," you're in the majority and they, the Super Rich, not? That's it, isn't it! Well, aren't you all a bunch of hypocrites! For a group who claims that you're trying to reduce the inequities between the rich and the poor, the young and the old, the black and the white, you sure do spend a lot of time doing everything in your power to ensure that the tax rates themselves are as inequitable as possible!
This may come as a surprise to all you liberal idiots, but having one person receive an "earned income tax credit" while another pays a "capital gains tax" is about as inequitable as you can possibly get! You want to be equatable? Fine, then I suggest you get rid of them both, along with the graduated tax table as that table itself is inherently inequitable!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Warren can fix this in an instant.
Submitted by c5then on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 1:13pm.
He can pay her a salary of, say, $40,000 and make up the rest in Berkshire-Hathaway stock options like he gets.
That way she will owe zero federal income tax on her salary (and maybe get some back) and can then make up the difference in dividends and capital gains to pay the same 15% rate as her boss. Then the "final" rate will be up to her based on her charitable contributions, lowering the taxes owed, and thus the final rate.
But no...the socialists don't want a "fair" tax system, they want one that takes the most $$ possible from the rich to pay for their gigantic government. They are not looking to reduce spending to better match the $2.5 trillion that are collected every year in taxes, they are looking for a way to increase the taxes collected to the $3.7 trillion that they want to spend. Nevermind that the math doesn't add up. Even if the entire net worth of all the folks that make over $1 million per year was confiscated (including Warren's $50 billion and Bill Gate's +$50 billon) it would only come to just over $1 trillion. And that is a one shot deal. The next year, since those folks would no longer have any of their investments earniong any money (confiscated by the government) the tax revenues would drop by 30% so instead of pulling in $2.5 trillion the government would get only about $1.75 trillion.
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
Two articles that offer insight on Buffet and...
Submitted by Conservator on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 1:36pm.
...his secretary, Debbie Bosanek. First according to Forbes, her salary is between $200,000 and $500,000 per year. Thus, she's one of those fat cats not paying their fair share. In addition and also according to Forbes, Buffet paid an effective tax rate of 11% in 2010 (see below).
Warren Buffett's Secretary Likely Makes Between $200,000 And $500,000/Year
And...
Warren Buffett's Effective Federal Income Tax Rate Was Just 11% - 10/12/2011
"Warren Buffett has now released a few more details about his 2010 tax bill which show he paid just 11.06% of his adjusted gross income in federal income taxes last year—considerably less than the rate for the 400 highest income taxpayers, or for folks earning $100,000 to $200,000 a year..."
Will the MSM lefty elites cover the foolhardiness of the so-called Buffet Rule?
Buffett's Executive Assistant
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 1:55pm.
I'm guessing that since this lady is a long time assistant to Warren Buffett, she has tons of Berkshire Hathaway Stock, and a bunch of it at a very low basis, (or cost). This is actually going to put her in the same camp as Romney or others who end up getting the bulk of their net worth from capital gains!
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
so pay her in stock options....
Submitted by notinstl on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 2:18pm.
problem solved
Dear Warren Buttlick, I Have a Challenge For You
Submitted by Motormouth KOS on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 2:27pm.
"Omaha Oracle"
Laughable.
How about "Obama Oral Job"??
You are an utter and complete charlatan. Your fiscally-disingenuous comparison between capital gains and ordinary income tax is comical and infantile. This scam should have been de-bunked in 1 news cycle except that the MSM wants to suck up to Comrade Downgrade.
You wanna make this dead dog hunt, Judy?
Why don't you release your tax returns and those of your idiot secretary. I will bet my ENTIRE 401K that she isn't paying 35.8% net-net, and why don't you let the world see how you are paying yourself only 100,000 a year as regular income. Why?
So YOU can AVOID paying the same tax rate you are alleging should be changed.
You're not only a fraud, but you're a doddering old fool.
The Obamination... A crisis leading to a catastrophe..(please donate to MRC)
Debbie the useful tool.
Submitted by JPTSO3 on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 11:29pm.
Buffett said "nothing gets done" when she's gone. Well then, she must be paid handsomely and one would assume "Debbie the secretary" working for Buffett owns Berkshire stocks - If Buffett ( who apparently is incapable blowing his nose without her) hasn't awarded her indispensable work with stock, he's one crappy boss. Once she unloads those share(s), she won't be taxed at 35.8 on those shares. Further, ABC didn't ask Buffett about his convenient tax-dodge which allows for stock buyback that adds up to a dividend without it being called -- a dividend.
Thus, if as I suspect, she has investments, and deductions - she's not paying 35.8, and she's a liar and a useful tool.
Quite sad, actually..
Submitted by liberalsarefunny on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 3:27pm.
How stupid does someone have to be to believe this Buffett nonsense?
Well, liberalsarefunny
Submitted by Model850 on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 4:27pm.
How stupid does someone have to be to believe this Buffett nonsense?
Only as stupid as they have to be, to be a liberal.
<edit to change subject line>
Buffett's assistant vs Joe the plumber
Submitted by CM on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 7:10pm.
Just compare how the media is treating Buffett's assistant against how they treated Joe the plumber. Th
This whole secretary
Submitted by nolefan2 on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 7:20pm.
thing has brought to mind the old Carol Burnett episodes when she played Mrs. Wiggins and her boss played byTim Conway was constantly calling her to his office for dictation. "Oh, Mrs. a-Wiggins, Mrs. a-Wiggins!" I, too, remember when the term "secretary" was deemed to be sexist. After all, secretaries do much more than just get coffee and take dictation. (or so we were told). They were given the title of Administrative Assistant or in some cases (with a really high-up boss) they were called Executive Assistants. This was in part pushed by the feminists and also because the "secretary" had reached the top salary level and in order to get a raise, had to have a title change. I hope Mr. Buffett's employee has enjoyed her 15 minutes of fame in the president's quest to further divide the country with class warfare.