You're right, "... I guess ..." is half-assed. So let me amend that to state that I do owe you an apology and hope you accept it.

This ain't no Magna Carta, but it is sometimes a struggle to read your material. I'm not aware of a spell checker, etc. on this site. But after hitting the submit button, you're given a reasonable amount of time (I think it's 5 mins) to review and edit. Just hit the edit button and read through it again to make your changes. Then resubmit.

I hear you on Warren Buffet. I still don't understand how his secretary could possibly pay more in taxes than he does. The stories that came out don't provide enough information. Perhaps she filed a joint return with her husband and those numbers pushed it up?

It's possible she just didn't know how to minimize her tax bill (perhaps she had deductions she never took?). I've know people who had mortgages, charitable contributions, etc. but just filed on the EZ form and took the standard deduction. But again, who knows?

I'm assuming most of Warren's income was taxed before he received it (municipal bonds, dividends, etc.). So he may not have personally paid much in taxes, but his underlying activities through his holdings most certainly would have. That's why I'm surprised at him. Plus, the amount of tax revenue generated by increasing the top rate is miniscule (and that assumes no one takes any legal action to protect themselves) and likely to be counter productive.

Anyway, just because he pays less, in my view, doesn't make it wrong. I disagree with Mr. Buffet's views on taxes, as do a great many people. What I think 100% of Americans CAN agree on is that we need to completely revamp the tax code. Perhaps if we spent our energies on that instead of a health bill that one of it's chief sponsors once said "We have to pass it to find out what's in it". But that's a can of worms in and of itself.

On to OMAG (finally, right?): Can you clarify your question as to the splits? I did not join this family until well after those splits and I'm not familiar with that history. My general view is that splits should not matter ... they only serve to make a stock more "affordable" if it's trading at high prices (like Mr. Buffet's companies), or more "palatable" (sp?) if trading in the basement. As you know, the splits don't change the market value nor economic value of the company. So not sure what the split question is ...?

Regards,