金融人物的历史疑问.

hoollly

是思考,只有思考才能带来智慧.

*还有一点很重要的是,美国不只有federal tax,还有state and local tax.比如现在,虽然名义上最高tax rate是35%,美国人平均tax rate是25%,但是实际上美国人交给federal,state and local的所有tax加起来是超过40%的.

1950: (20 years old)
.... in his first year out of college, net worth of Buffett's investment
had soared 144% when he was dealing with abt $10,000..
1954: (24 years old)
Benjamin Graham offered Buffett a job at his partnership with a starting salary of $12,000 a year. Here, he worked closely with Walter Schloss.
Susan had her first child, Howard Graham Buffett.
1956: (25 years old)
Benjamin Graham retired and folded up his partnership.
Buffett's personal savings are now over $140,000.
Buffett returned home to Omaha and created Buffett Associates, Ltd., an investment partnership.

如果一个人真的是有思考的习惯,他应该仔细算一算要多少before tax income和年复利才能达到这种财富累积.数字是一定要找到.

在算税过程中,必须紧记:
1)美国不只有federal tax,还有state and local tax,所以不要算exemption和deduction进里面,因为这样一定会降低掉实际需要交税的数字.
2)$12000年工资必须交38%联邦税收.
3)在把工资和股票投资储蓄拿出来买房子之钱,必须卖掉股票,要交税的.
4)对于一个靠买卖股票作为职业的人来说,他的收入是用income tax rate计算的,而且那个时候并没有什么样优惠的capital gain tax rate.
5)在他卖掉股票,买入berkshire的时候,这笔钱要先交一交税.

hoollly

坦白说,我怀疑当前的社会里面,人们没有办法进入深一步的思考(懒惰用脑),主要原因有两个:
1)小学时候接受填鸭式教育,本身从来没有什么思考的习惯,也不认为思考有意义.

2)看电视太多.电视剧的特征就是没有逻辑,结果造成人的思考也没有逻辑,比如看到1个人能够推动100公斤的东西,就以为只要结合100万人,就能推动1亿公斤的东西.毕竟.物理力学角度乘起来,的确是几合理一下的.

hoollly

如果估计不出需要多少before tax income和年回报,就不用回了.这贴让它沉.

patience88

不吃不喝

(   10000(1+r)^6  + 7440(1+r)^2   +   7440(1+r)^1  ) 10% = 140000

r = 投资回报的%

conclusion =老豆支持 majority of USD 140000

wwloon32

原帖由 hoollly 于 10-4-2008 12:40 PM 发表
坦白说,我怀疑当前的社会里面,人们没有办法进入深一步的思考(懒惰用脑),主要原因有两个:
1)小学时候接受填鸭式教育,本身从来没有什么思考的习惯,也不认为思考有意义.

2)看电视太多.电视剧的特征就是没有逻辑,结果 ...

太懒惰去注意，大忙人了。
每天工作完毕，还要去了解这些，
不觉得很累吗？

jack500

buffett交的税率比他的秘书少, 因为buffett从来没有用私人形式买股票??

这只是我的想法, 没根没据的.

例如如果你想购买奢侈品, 可以报公帐(公司的capital gain中拿出),  只要你个人没有盈余,就不用交税了.

但他是个节俭的人,我只是举个例子

corporate tax 多少?

那时有元月效应吗?

These numbers really are quite silly and (without more) don't show much of anything. The relevant question to focus on if you belive corporations are paying too little is how capital is taxed (overall) versus how labor is taxed (overall).

When corporations earn income, it is really their shareholders who are earning that income. Thus, you have to look at the combination of corporate income tax and capital gains tax to assess whether corporations are paying what you consider to be their "fare share." Significantly increasing the income tax rates paid directly by corporations is probably not the wisest policy because it would tend to make U.S. companies/companies with U.S. operations less profitable relative to companies/operations overseas.

Where our attention should be focused is on the capital gains tax structure, which provides a variety of loopholes/work-arounds that enable wealthy individuals to pay far less tax (on a percentage basis) on the money they "earn" in the market than the taxes that American workers pay on the money they "earn" in the workplace. Our country's tax code gives very favorable treatement to income earned from capital versus income earned from labor. That's the main reason why Warren Buffet pays less income tax on a percentage basis than his secretary.

Aaahhhh... But surely you jest, right?

Are libertarians too stupid to know the difference between profits, dividends, and corporate revenue?

Hint; revenue....

http://crooksandliars.com/2008/08/16/gao-study-most-us-corporations-avoid-income-tax