Meanwhile, shipping oil via pipeline instead of via train costs $3 less per barrel

Assuming the pipeline already exists.

If railroads can reasonably handle the demand, it kind of dampens the argument to build just any old Keystone pipeline today – RIGHT NOW!… doesn’t it? Building railcars creates US jobs, doesn’t it? (I remember a day long ago when Canada built railcars… sigh)

..or is it this just a case of sour-grapes that Obama’s pet tycoon might make out better than your pet tycoon(s)?

Any attempt to play Obama’s Keystone decision as a deliberate favour to Buffett is tinfoil-hat-worthy.  Or are you as much afraid of the coming GOP debacle, and the effect on Canada, as I am hopeful?

…and if the pipeline is there Buffet gets 0% of the pie. Considering it’s a staggering amount of money that’s involved and BHO’s buddy lands in the drivers seat….Hmmm? Somehow this puppy walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and probably is a duck.

You absolutely don’t know this for fact. Buffett is very diversified, including oil and pipeline holdings, and has apparently managed to do quite nicely for himself without needing a President in thrall.

Sometimes, there just isn’t a duck, and no amount of fantasizing or hyperbole will cause one to appear.

“Buffett and his secretary have become willing talking points for the Obama administration …”
Thus appealing to the green-eyed monster in all of us. But is it factually true that Buffett’s secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does? And do most people who hear that differentiate between tax and tax rate?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/sep/21/does-secretary-pay-higher-taxes-millionaire/ “… As we said at the outset, we don’t get into questions of opinions such as whether secretaries should pay a higher tax rate than billionaire bosses. But that situation is possible under the current tax code, if an employee is sufficiently well paid and if the boss’s income comes from stock market investments or managing a hedge fund.
Is it the norm? No. Millionaires who count on a salary pay higher taxes than those who draw most of their earnings from investment income. And most secretaries earn too little to pay such high rates.”http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/warren-buffetts-tax-story-is-bogus/ “… Let’s look at some numbers. The first chart shows IRS data for income tax rates by income group for 2009. These are average effective tax rates, calculated as income taxes paid divided by adjusted gross income (AGI). The chart shows that taxpayers with incomes above $500,000 had tax rates averaging about 25 percent. Middle-income taxpayers had tax rates of half of that or less. A few years ago, Buffett claimed that his secretary earned $60,000 and paid a 30 percent tax rate. But looking just at income taxes, that seems way off. (Note that this data doesn’t include the “refundable” portion of tax credits, which wipes out taxes for many people at the bottom end). …”http://www.theblaze.com/stories/warren-buffett-his-secretary-fuzzy-math-do-the-numbers-really-add-up/ “CPA Cynthia L Lebreton has been in the accounting business for more than 30 years in New Orleans… she set up three tax test returns for The Blaze: …“I would characterize Buffet’s remark about his secretary as a misrepresentation because she (the secretary) is in a bracket – a 25 percent bracket, but her effective rate because of the way brackets work is only 14.08 percent. …”

I’m going to try posting again, hoping to bypass the crazy format not allowing for paragraphs …

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/sep/21/does-secretary-pay-higher-taxes-millionaire/ Our conclusion
As we said at the outset, we don’t get into questions of opinions such as whether secretaries should pay a higher tax rate than billionaire bosses. But that situation is possible under the current tax code, if an employee is sufficiently well paid and if the boss’s income comes from stock market investments or managing a hedge fund.
Is it the norm? No. Millionaires who count on a salary pay higher taxes than those who draw most of their earnings from investment income. And most secretaries earn too little to pay such high rates.http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/warren-buffetts-tax-story-is-bogus/ Let’s look at some numbers. The first chart shows IRS data for income tax rates by income group for 2009. These are average effective tax rates, calculated as income taxes paid divided by adjusted gross income (AGI). The chart shows that taxpayers with incomes above $500,000 had tax rates averaging about 25 percent. Middle-income taxpayers had tax rates of half of that or less. A few years ago, Buffett claimed that his secretary earned $60,000 and paid a 30 percent tax rate. But looking just at income taxes, that seems way off. (Note that this data doesn’t include the “refundable” portion of tax credits, which wipes out taxes for many people at the bottom end).http://www.theblaze.com/stories/warren-buffett-his-secretary-fuzzy-math-do-the-numbers-really-add-up/ “… Career CPA Cynthia L Lebreton has been in the accounting business for more than 30 years in New Orleans… she set up three tax test returns for The Blaze: …Ms. Lebreton  also says:“I would characterize Buffet’s remark about his secretary as a misrepresentation because she (the secretary) is in a bracket – a 25 percent bracket, but her effective rate because of the way brackets work is only 14.08 percent. 

Foiled again!!!

You’re missing the point, which is that someone who does NOTHING but collect $X (or many times $X)  interest on their holdings gets a lower tax rate than someone getting $X in salary (presumably by WORKING for that salary).

That doesn’t strike you as unfair?

No.

Quack, quack, quack-a-doodle, everything is just ducky………

so you must be ok with the North American middle class being gutted, and deteriorating infrastructure,  as the financial sector continues to reap record profits and the rich pay the lowest US tax rates in a generation.

So, oh wise one, who’s causing the current economic malaise, then… the poor?

Atta girl. Have a cookie.

As usual, you assume much on very little evidence.

As usual, you assume much on very little evidence.

Let me suggest a rephrase of your question, who’s causing the poor?

No assumption; you plainly stated you think it’s ok that investment income is taxed at a lower rate than salary income, regardless of how wealthy the person is.

tell us, please.

Using your numbers: Buffett’s secretary was taxed net 14% on $60k/annum. Ok. Mitt Romney stated last week that he paid “about 15%” on his annual income of around $40 million.

Does THAT seem fair? Really?

And do most people who hear [Buffett's claim] differentiate between tax and tax rate?

Anyone who doesn’t is not smart enough to follow the rest of the argument anyway. What’s your point here?

I don’t know what’s happening with this site … I posted a reply for another of Kenn2′s condescensing assumptions around 9:00 pm and now that reply has disappeared …

Anyhow, even if I copied it into my own files, no point in repeating it.

Listen, Kenn, I can’t help it if you don’t — or rather, won’t — understand my comments. “What’s your point?” is a lame retort worthy of a high school debater. You can disagree with me all you like, but quit using those puerile expressions, which are often used by members of the opposition, like “the PM just doesn’t get it.” Oh, please! Grow up.

You were trying to infer (or relaying a comment that was trying to infer) that the difference between ‘tax’ and ‘tax rate’ wasn’t understood by most people, perhaps suggesting that this was some sort of deliberate distortion from Buffett or Obama. That’s kind of lame, sorry.

Yes I’m crabby this week. Sorry. Right-wing confabulation like this Buffett crap does that to me. (If all tycoons and corporations had the ethics of Buffett, the US wouldn’t be in such a mess) But don’t go all Emily Post and hide behind that. If you bring an economic argument, or it’s just a case of you repeating something you heard elsewhere,you should be prepared to defend it.

There’s glaring injustice in a system that taxes wealthy people less than most other people. Have a look at the top US tax rates in Reagan’s time – Even then they were higher on the wealthy. From then til now, the top US tax rates have been steadily reduced, regulations dropped, the financial sector has grown, and the US economy blew to bits starting in 2008. Connect the dots.

First of all, let me “go all” William Safire or Henry Fowler: you inferred quite a lot, I did not imply anything.

Second of all, you don’t know — nor do I, for that matter — what itemized deductions, standard deductions, personal exemptions etc. Buffett’s secretary is eligible for and thus what her actual tax rate is, so the links I provided earlier build a convincing counterargument to the bald statement that Buffett pays “less tax” than his secretary does, as Ian Capstick phrased it on one of this week’s power panels. 

All I have been asking for is for precision rather than rhetorical flourishes appealing to our baser instincts, like the previously mentioned green-eyed monster.

For all we know, some of those wealthy people are paying the 15% rate on investment income IN ADDITION TO a higher percentage on their salary. Yes, some of them may actually be doing both, i.e. receiving investment income & a salary.

As for reductions in tax rates … here’s some info on them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_bracket#Tax_brackets_in_the_United_States
It is an exaggeration to say “the top US tax rates have been steadily reduced, regulations dropped …” — just as much of an exaggeration as saying that Buffett’s secretary pays more tax than the man himself. That is a misrepresentation of facts.

infer imply infer imply. yes I got that wrong. Sorry.

Tax rate reductions, regulations – you only linked to salaries. Has it not occurred to you that the wealthy have been allowed to game the system by receiving compensation as “capital gains” and “profit-sharing”, etc. if that allows them to skirt salary tax in a way that’s not available to joe six-pack… is that not a regulatory failure?

As you say, we do not have both people’s tax returns open in front of us. (Didn’t stop you from leaping to conclusions, apparently).  here’s what we do know – and I’ll use the secretary and Romney, since their round figures are public. The secretary at $60k made it into the 25% tax bracket (for net 15% tax), and Romney declared his tax on $40M was 15%. Watch carefully: if the secretary earns one more dollar, it will be taxed at 25%. if Romney ‘earns’ one more dollar, his wealth and wink-wink arrangement with his company would likely see that taxed at… 15% (if he doesn’t get directly offshore first… 0% tax)

“… the wealthy have been allowed to game the system …”
Maybe some have. For instance, Bono, who apparently moved to the Netherlands in order to take advantage of lower tax rates there than in his native Ireland. http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2011/jun/25/u2-bono-tax-protest-glastonbury Even our own former PM, Paul Martin, whose CSL ships flew “flags of convenience.” http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/martin_paul/flagsofconvenience.html But by the same token, there are welfare cheats. Many years ago, while travelling by bus in Spain, a friend and I were talking animatedly. Another passenger overheard us speaking French and began a conversation with us. My friend and I were on a holiday from our work whereas he was on a holiday courtesy of his welfare cheques, information he unapologetically volunteered.As far as I’m concerned, no social class has a monopoly on vice or virtue.“Didn’t stop you from leaping to conclusions, apparently”
Wrong again. In giving three different links, I provided a counterpoint to the claims by those on the left that Buffett pays “less tax” — note that even intelligent people phrase it that way — than his secretary. The only conclusion I reached is that such a statement or claim is a misrepresentation of the facts.

If anyone is “leaping to conclusions” it is you, dear Kenny, implying Romney has availed himself of some dishonest tax evasion scheme: “… wink-wink arrangement with his company …”
But that has been your objective from the start, hasn’t it? Getting around to Romney in order to juxtapose the two rich guys: Democratic rich guy good, Republican rich guy bad. Left good, right bad.
Fee-fie-fo-fum 
I hear the sound of an oft beaten drum …

Well, you’re engaging with the material. that’s an improvement.

Bono moving… WTF? One guy and his family, moving. This is criticism? Shania Twain moved to Switzerland, mainly for the anonymity. Should we hate on her too?

Paul Martin and foreign-flagging of CSL – groan – just about every shipping company in the world does it. It’s how global shipping works. He’d have been a lousy CEO if he didn’t. Not a valid criticism at all, unless you’re prepared to attack every Canadian company for every  economy they’ve ever pursued. Do you also rip into just about EVERY retailer in Canada for selling foreign goods? (…maybe more people should)

Ignore a couple of trees and please look at the economic forest. Please. This isn’t about class vices. This is about systemic alterations and deregulation, achieved through lobbying and political funding, that has permitted the financial sector and corporations to achieve disproportionate gains through actions that have negatively affected the rest of us. This is an undesirable form of “wealth redistribution” just as much as “entitlements” are.

I provided a counterpoint to the claims by those on the left that
Buffett pays “less tax” — note that even intelligent people phrase it
that way

… bull. I haven’t seen ONE. No-one worth listening to has said that.

implying Romney has availed himself of some dishonest tax evasion scheme: “… wink-wink arrangement with his company …”

That wasn’t my intention, sorry. The point there is that it’s legal, or at least ignored that higher earners in the US are allowed to receive compensation in ways that avoid taxation… forms that are not available to most of Americans. Systemic problem.

Romney is probably the lesser of the GOP evils on offer. I think he’s a respectable guy. I brought him up to show how even a business straight-shooter like him is still benefiting handsomely from the current economic system.

Ignore me, I’m just some irritable progressive crank. But take some time away from the forum echo chamber to find out for yourself why the world economy has jumped the rails, and how that issue is so far above the petty partisan squabbling that Mr Taylor likes to embroil us in.

“Ignore me, I’m just some irritable progressive crank”

You’re right. I’ll follow your advice. Have a good weekend.

“Ignore me, I’m just some irritable progressive crank”

You’re right. I’ll follow your advice. Have a good weekend.

(Two attempst to post this have failed. I’m now on my 3rd try. I just got the message “System error”)

Can’t blame you. Ignorance IS bliss, after all.

“Ignore me, I’m just some irritable progressive crank”

You’re right. I’ll follow your advice. Have a good weekend.

(Three attempts to post this have failed. I’m now on my 4th try. I just got the message “System error” 2x. One more try on the unthreaded comment box)

“Ignore me, I’m just some irritable progressive crank”

You’re right. I’ll follow your advice. Have a good weekend.

(Three attempts to post this have failed. I’m now on my 4th try. I just got the message “System error” 2x. One more try on the unthreaded comment box)

… message received!

You have a good weekend too.