RUSH: Speaking of Florida, here's Dillon, who is calling from Lakeland. Great to have you, sir. Hello.
CALLER: How you doing, Rush?
RUSH: Good. Thank you.
CALLER: Yeah. I got a theory on why maybe the Republicans aren't saying much. I think that a lot of the arguments, especially from my age-group and for low-information voters -- I'm 25, by the way -- is that, for example, the tax. We say lower taxes, and I agree with that. But whenever I say that to any of my friends, "Oh, yeah, well, lower taxes for the rich." They just don't understand that lower taxes would mean that people have more to spend, people would have more to invest, more jobs. I think that argument seems to work out for the Democrats just because of the low-information voters.
RUSH: I don't think there's any question about that.
CALLER: It's very upsetting.
RUSH: I think, if I understand you right, you're basically saying these low-information people are ignorant, and the low-tax argument, they think, because they've bought everything the media says, that whenever there's talk of tax cuts, it only means for the rich, right?
RUSH: That's what your buddies think.
RUSH: It doesn't help that they don't have jobs themselves.
CALLER: Or very low paying jobs. Most of these people my age --
RUSH: Take a look at this Burger King, Warren Buffett thing. Warren Buffett is investing in Burger King and they're merging with a fast food joint in Canada and they're gonna have their federal tax rate cut in half. It's amazing, Warren Buffett promoted Obama. Warren Buffett made the case for tax increases on the rich to help Obama. Now Warren Buffett, when it's him involved, does everything he can to pay as little in tax as possible.
Now, look what's happened. Burger King has made a smart business decision. And how many low-information voters do you think have bought the notion that Burger King is unpatriotic and not willing to pay their fair share? They're rich and they're trying to escape taxes, proving this guy's point. I know it's a very, very frustrating thing. There's a way around it, though, but that's what I mean. You gotta have people that can explain this.
RUSH: This last call that we had from Dillon in Lakeland, Florida. What he said to me proves the need for a clear and convincing presentation of our position on taxes for people. He made the claim that his friends, 25 years old, low-information people, they hear tax cuts and they just assume, when they hear the Republicans talk about tax cuts, they don't think it's for them. They think the Republicans only care about the 1%, the rich. And they are low-information. They have to be excused. That's all they hear.
If the Republicans aren't gonna go out and correct that, and explain it, if they're gonna leave it to people like me and bloggers and others, I don't think that's the smartest way to go. I'm glad to do it, but I'm not them. It's a fact that Republicans have been impugned for years, decades, on a whole bunch of issues, like taxes. But the real hypocrisy is to be found on the Democrat side.
What have I always told you about Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, the two richest men in America. The left and the low-information crowd love both of them. Whenever there is any animus in any discussion about the evil rich, be it tax cuts or whatever, nobody is ever mad at Warren Buffett, and nobody's ever mad at Bill Gates. And do you know why? Because those two guys have figured out that the way to keep the barbarians from their fortunes is to sound just like them.
So Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, at every turn, tell everybody the rich aren't paying enough in taxes. They don't live their lives that way, but publicly, for public consumption by low-information voters and others, why, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, listen to these guys, they think that their fortunes, when they die, should be given to the government or to charity. They're not gonna give it to their rich, worthless kids. Low-information people approve of that. They hear Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, specifically Buffett, he's on the Obama campaign trail, speaking for tax increases.
The Kennedys did the same thing. One of the wealthiest families in the country at the time, and what were they for? Raising taxes on every damn person they could find. And what did that accomplish? It kept the people, the barbarians with the pitchforks, away from their houses. In fact, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are loved because these low-information people think they're looking out for 'em.
But let's look at Buffett. And I like Warren Buffett. He's a funny guy. You know, it's a shame that Warren Buffett will not use the examples of his life as a teaching mechanism and actually educate people so they could learn from him. The same thing with Gates. These guys made this calculated decision to sign on with the Democrats, publicly anyway, because of buzz and PR and keeps people from demanding a share of their money and all that.
But when you get behind closed doors and you look at how these guys actually manage their money, there is no way they're paying any more in taxes than they have to. And there is no way that they are trying to figure out how to. They're doing everything they can to pay as little in taxes as they can. But the low-information crowd doesn't know that. And if the low-information crowd ever found out, why, then, the deal would be off.
Now, there's a post at RedState.com by Seton Motley, and it is: "Warren Buffett Knows Less Government Means More Economic Activity," and we know he knows this by virtue of how he manages his businesses. We don't know that from listening to him speak. Do you remember the Buffett Rule? Do you know what the Buffett Rule is?
"The Buffett Rule is part of a tax plan proposed by President Barack Obama in 2011. The tax plan would apply a minimum tax rate of 30 percent on individuals making more than a million dollars a year."
That's the Buffett Rule. Buffett came out in favor of it using his secretary as an example. His secretary paid a higher tax rate than he did, that was outrageous, that was unfair. So rather than give his secretary a raise, Warren Buffett signed up with Obama, appearing to support tax increases on everybody else.
"The Buffett Rule is named after American investor Warren Buffett, who publicly stated in early 2011 that he believed it was wrong that rich people, like himself, could pay less in federal taxes, as a portion of income, than the middle class, and voiced support for increased income taxes on the wealthy."
And the low-information crowd, "See? See? He cares about us. See? He's willing to give us some of his money with higher taxes." That's how convoluted their thinking is. Low-information, welfare state people think higher taxes equals more welfare for them. Thank you, Democrat Party.
Okay. Now, knowing that, "Suppose," writes Mr. Motley, "Suppose that an investor you admire and trust comes to you with an investment idea. 'This is a good one,' he says enthusiastically. 'I’m in it, and I think you should be, too.' Would your reply possibly be this? 'Well, it all depends on what my tax rate will be on the gain you’re saying we’re going to make. If the taxes are too high, I would rather leave the money in my savings account, earning a quarter of 1 percent.'"
This is Buffett in a New York Times editorial in 2012. And let me tell you what this is about. Warren Buffett was trying to say, "Okay, suppose" -- he was trying to say that people, investors, do not calculate tax rates before they invest their money. That's BS! He was trying to tell the low-information, well, anybody that reads the New York Times, just the exact opposite. That's why he wrote, "Suppose that an investor you admire and trust comes to you with an investment idea. 'This is a good one,' he says enthusiastically. 'I’m in it, and I think you should be, too.' Would your reply possibly be this? 'Well, it all depends on what my tax rate will be on the gain --'" But he's trying to say that people do not react to investment opportunities that way. They don't think about the tax rate on the gain.
But they do, all the time. It's called the capital gains tax rate, for one. But there are all sorts of different taxes associated with investments, and everybody precisely does just that. "Untaxed US Corporate Profits Held Overseas Top $2.1 Trillion." A lot of that is Apple. Apple has almost $130 billion overseas that they will not repatriate. They will not bring it home. They will not spend it here. They will not invest it here, because of the 35% tax rate. And there are a lot of corporations doing the same thing. That's why US corporate profits, untaxed overseas, are over $2.1 trillion.
Okay, let's flash forward to Warren Buffett, 2014. "Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway is expected to help finance Burger King’s pending acquisition of Canadian doughnut-chain Tim Hortons. The deal will allow Miami-based Burger King to claim Canada as its new legal home for tax purposes."
So Warren Buffett, who wants everybody to think that nobody invests with tax consequences in mind, and who wants everybody to think that he doesn't care about tax cuts, that he thinks people like him should be paying even more, is now helping lead the brokering of a deal which will result in fewer and smaller US taxes for Burger King.
Now, what's that, if it's not blatant hypocrisy? But throw the hypocrisy out. What it is, is smart. What it is, is good business. Nobody should pay more in taxes than they have to. Do you spend more than you have to at a store, just to be a good public citizen? Why should corporations pay more? Why should individuals pay more than the law says? Okay, so Burger King is gonna acquire Tim Hortons, and they're gonna become headquartered in Canada, much lower corporate tax rate. (gasping) Oh, no.
And of course here comes the media and the barbarians and everybody dumping on Burger King saying that they are not being good citizens, they're fleeing the United States and not paying their fair share, so much so that Burger King says we're not doing this for taxes. The Buffett lesson. We're not doing this for taxes. We're not leaving the US. No, no, no, no. We're doing this because we want to become the biggest and we want to be the best fast food chain in the world, and this is how we have to do it.
And why shouldn't they? Why should Buffett and Gates be the only guys that get away with hypocrisy on taxes? You know, it's a crazy thing. Why is Canada more favorable to locate in than the US, or anywhere? Because their corporate tax rates are so low. So here you have, to sum up, Warren Buffett, publicly saying (imitating Buffett), "People aren't paying enough taxes. It's outrageous, my secretary pays a higher percentage of taxes than I do. That's just not right. I agree with President Obama. I think the rich are not paying their fair share. I think the rich and the super rich and the 1% like me need to be paying more taxes."
By the way, this is called an inversion. This is what Walgreen did, which they then buckled and canceled the deal because of pressure. But Warren Buffett is also saying (imitating Buffett), "This deal's not about taxes. The combined company will be based in Canada because Tim Hortons strong roots are north of the border." And then in May Warren Buffett said, "I will not pay a dime more of individual taxes than I owe, and I won't pay a dime more of corporate taxes than we owe, and that's very simple."
Well, a lot of people think that Warren Buffett thinks he's not paying enough. A lot of people think that Warren Buffett and Bill Gates think they're not paying enough and they think everybody's not paying enough and everybody should be paying more. And Warren Buffett does everything he can to pay as little as he can, and then leads investment deals for people so they can escape high taxes. So ergo, we get this guy calling from Lakeland telling us about his friends, who, when they hear Republicans talk about tax cuts, they think it's only for the rich.
Thank you, Warren Buffett. Thank you, Bill Gates. Thank you, Obama. Thank you, Democrats, Thank you for this total, purposeful hypocrisy and lying, confusion about this. This is why I think there needs to be an artful, correct, passionate explanation, which makes me think of something else, too.
RUSH: You know what else I was thinking here, folks? This whole business of being a good citizen, a patriotic citizen, a good corporate citizen, you know, all of these people, they don't really state it, but the implication's clear that if you pay more than you owe in taxes, you're good citizen, you're being very patriotic. Or in the case of Buffett and Gates, all they have to do is come out and publicly say they are for raising taxes on the rich, and people, "They're good citizen. They're great, great people." And in real life they do just the exact opposite.
It got me to thinking about something. You ever wondered, it was about this religious business, I think it was in Colorado, that refused to bake a cake for a gay couple getting married. Remember all the hell that descended on 'em, and they decided that if they weren't gonna be allowed to run the business, they'll shut down. You ever stop to think that apparently it is that a business must service anybody who walks in the door. But do you patronize every business? You and me, we are allowed to decide where we want to go. Like what restaurant, we're allowed to determine, we can decide, "I don't want to go to that restaurant. I don't like the food, or I don't like the people there. You know, that restaurant's owned by an ex-con, I don't want to go there."
So consumers have the total right to be biased and prejudiced and discriminating against anybody. But let somebody walk into a business, and the business say, "Sorry, I am not comfortable doing business with you."
"Oh, yeah? Oh, yeah? Well, wait 'til I tweet this, you creep." And the guy's out of business. What a one-way street it is. My point, look at all of the, I don't know, pressures or assumptions, look at all the baggage that we hamper business with. Look at all the hoops they've gotta go through, the regulations, all the stuff just to get started, not to mention the costs. They have no leeway whatsoever and if they offend one person, all that person has to do is go tweet and it could be the end of their business.
But the tweeter, the person doing the tweeting can decide every day of the week what business to avoid, what business to patronize, and nobody says a word. Nobody ever says that a customer is a racist, sexist, bigot, whatever, by decisions he makes or she.