You are so far from the truth, it's sad that you are the first post.

This fine man has pledged most of his fortune (billions) to the Bill and Malinda Gates foundation. Everyone on Wall Street knows of him even though he is still a resident of Omaha. If he has enemies it's because of envy. I believe that no other man in the U.S. has saved or created more jobs that Warren.

I wish him well and the companies he has invested in.

Hope that you are a fellow Berkshire Hathaway shareholder. If not, please consider it -- the issuance of the "B" shares has made it quite affordable.

Got tinfoil?

I am 68 and I had a very high PSA about the same time as Buffett. But, unlike Buffett, I did very careful research (assisted by my wife who is a PhD gerontologist.) What I found was:

1) The idea that all cancers need to be removed is an idea with no medical foundation whatsoever. Some breast cancers and almost all prostate cancers rake so long to grow that they have no effect on overall mortality numbers. Virtually all men will indeed develop prostate cancer if they live long enougth --- it is a NORMAL part of aging. Around 80% of people Buffett's age have prostate cancer even though they may not know it or have any symptoms.

2) There is no known test, biopsy, or screen that can currently distinguish between the fast- and slow-growing forms prostate cancer. In fact, PSA's and most biopsies can't even detect two forms of prostate cancer --- small cell and squamous. Nineteen out of 20 men with a prostate cancer diagnosis have the slow-growing kind.

3) Biopsies are not risk free. They are the second highest rate of re-hospitalization within 30 days of any outpatient surgery. Infections and sexual and urinary side effects are very common. But most disturbing in needle biopsies of both certain breast cancers and prostate cancer, there seems to be increasing evidence that the biopsy itself can "convert" a slow-growing cancer into a fast-growing one. This is based on pathology examinations of removed prostate and finding that the cancer cells along the needle path are much. much more aggressive than cancer cells elsewhere in the prostate. It is called "needle tracking" or "needle trace tracking."

4) Three major studies have compared men who got PSA screening and aggressive biopsies and treatment (surgery, hormones, radiation, etc) with those who got no treatment until they becamy symptomatic. Two of the studies showed no significant difference in prostate cancer survival rates or overall mortality rates between the groups. The other study showed a very slight reduction in deaths from prostate cancer (with virtually all of the reduction happening in one small hospital) but no effect on overall mortality. "Undesirable permanent side effects" appear in almost all men who have had prostate cancer treatment --- mostly urinary and sexual dysfunction.

4) There is a DNA test on the horizon. (It exists now but costs around $70,000.) It will be able to distinguish between the slow-and fast-growing prostate cancers. Urologists in this country are fighting this DNA test tooth and nail, presumably because it would eliminate 19 out of every 20 prostate cancer treatments.

5) The current recommendation is that healthy men with no family history of prostate cancer and no other symptoms more than an enlarged prostate do not get PSA's done. It is simply a great deal of trauma for no good reason.

6) If you look at the protocols for Stage I prostate cancer, you will find that there really isn't one. This is because Stage 1 cancers are mostly only found by accident when looking for something else. There has never been a best practices protocol for Stage 1 prostate cancer that called for anything except watchful waiting.

7) A diagnosis of prostate cancer will enrich the for-profit medical establishment by around $300,000. "Watchful waiting" causes no increase in medical expenses. So which one do you think a urologist wants?

8) There are literally tens of thousands of men who call themselves "cancer survivors" when they are more closely definable as medical malpractice victims. If the cancer was not going to kill you, you are not a cancer survivor. You just took a huge risk and a huge hit to quality of life to buy a urologist a vacation home.

My reaction to Mr. Buffett's situation was to decline the biopsy and stop my family doc from doing PSA's in the future. (He wasn't doing them correctly anyway.) Yep, I probably have prostate cancer. But that knowledge is in no way helpful to me. Should I develop further symptoms, I will cross that bridge when I get to it. But the realities are 1) noone gets out of this life alive. 2) I am much, much, much (around 40 times) more likely to die of something else than from prostate cancer at my age. With Mr. Buffett, it is around 200-300 times more likely that he will die of something else because of his advanced age.

I find it difficult to understand why an 82-year-old noted for his incisive financial analysis would flub this one so badly. It only shows you the power that fear of the "Big C" can have over people --- even the rich and powerful.

But my bottom line it comes down to a desision as to whether to have my heart attack playing beach volleyball or to have it shopping for Depends. I choose volleyball.

But my bottom line it comes down to a desision as to whether to have my heart attack playing beach volleyball or to have it shopping for Depends. I choose volleyball.

Personally, I would chose "while having sex with a twenty something model" which, if you undergo the prostate cancer treatment probably wouldn't be an option.

@Brian,

Yep, I feel really sorry for the vast majority of prostate cancer "survivors" who have paid very dearly in quality of life, especially sexual and urinary function, in order to abate a non-existent risk 19 out of 20 times. Instead of explaining the options and their pros and cons, my urologist spun gruesome tales of horrific deaths from prostate cancer and kept asking, "Don't you want to have a biopsy just to be sure?" and "It is only common sense to have a cancer removed 'just to be safe.'"

But it really surprises me that someone like Buffett would fall victim to what amounts to a "steady income stream" for urologists. At 82, over 90% of men have prostate cancer. And at that age the risk of it being the fast-growing variety is actually dropping (as long as you do not have a biopsy.) It seems inconsistent that someone known for his long-term investment strategies would not do his homework.

I would point out, however, that my assumption is that Buffet did not have the DNA test that would have told him whether or not it was the fast-growing type of prostate cancer that could be life-threatening. But that assumption is based on the lack of need for a biopsy (which he had) if he had gotten the DNA test.

Any man should read up on peer-reviewed published studies and the recommendations of non-for-profit medical advisory boards of experts before he decides on even getting PSA screening. The test is really crappy with huge numbers of both false positives and false negatives and requires that a man not ejaculate for 72 hours prior to the test unless he has had a vascetomy in which case it is 5-7 days prior. The current public health recommendation is that men with no family history of prostate cancer and no symptoms other than an enlarged prostate NOT get PSA screening.

And before a biopsy, the risk of the biopsy should be considered. Today they are taking as many as 30 needle sticks in one biopsy (versus and average of 10 in years past) and the more sticks the more liklihood of infection or sexual or urinary dysfunction. An alarming percentage of men are admitted to hospital within 30 days after a prostate biopsy for hospital-acquired infections or sexual or urinary dysfunction. And the biopsy is also causing a great deal of concern in that it may be a route by which a non-life-threatening slow-growing prostate cancer is converted into a fast-growing and life-threatening one through a process called "needle trace tracking."

And before destrustive treatment of the cancer, the patient needs to realize that in 19 out of 20 cases of prostate cancer (that is not the small cell or squamous cell variety) that no treatment is warranted or necessary.

A lot of people are running around wearing Depends and claiming that sex and bladder control were a small price to pay for being a "cancer survivor" when, in fact, if they had never been screened for, biopsied, or treated for prostate cancer that they would have sexual and urinary function intact and would have save someone the $300,000 average that gets spend on prostate cancer cases that don't benefit from treatment.

chris,

it is a NORMAL part of aging

Mistake #1. Something being common doesn't imply normalcy. Depression and dementia are both common in the elderly, but still not considered a "normal part" of aging.

They are the second highest rate of re-hospitalization within 30 days of any outpatient surgery

Id like to see evidence for this...from a nonbiased source. My source says the 30 day hospitalization rate is 6.9%--compared with 2.9% for the control group. Not impressive

Infections and sexual and urinary side effects are very common.

Mistake #2. Not "very common" at all. Infection rate is about 1-2%

biopsy itself can "convert" a slow-growing cancer into a fast-growing one. It is called "needle tracking" or "needle trace tracking.

I would LOVE to see evidence of this as it sounds like complete horse manure

Point 4 and 5) of yours may be true.

diagnosis of prostate cancer will enrich the for-profit medical establishment by around $300,000.

So will a diagnosis of a heart attack. What's your point? Are you going to claim medicine is fabricating that diagnosis for pure profit?

He needs to live long enough to pay his back taxes !!

To Commanchepilot: First of all, it's Herbert, not Hebert. Secondly, the income tax on$15,000 income would be $300, not $5,000. Even if you add in Social Security and state taxes (except for New York) it is another $300 and that is before deductions. And, I may be wrong, but the reason capital gains taxes on investments is lower than income tax is because the government wants to encourage investments as they are NOT guaranteed. At best, they are a crap shoot, just like a horse race. And, you have to cut government before you can cut taxes. And thank you for recognizing my genius.

Excuse me--that's $3,000, not $300.

When my old urologist was living, he charged me $7 for a PSA test and I didn't think much about it. The last time it was done (by his successor's successor) they charged me $17.50 for the blood draw and $90.00 for the "interpretation" (and this is after the amount the insurance told them they had to write off). What a ripoff! This is a perfect example of how healthcare costs are OUT OF CONTROL.

Well said!!

What 'tax business' would that be? The fact that Warren pays a lower tax rate than his secretary? Want to know how that happens?

a) Buffet makes a ton of cash in long term capital gains. He made that money, using money that was already taxed - so - if he [or you for that matter 'earthgirl'] made money working, paid INCOME tax on that money - then they tax you again when whatever you bought with that money goes up in value. How is that fair? If they tax stuff that goes up in value why can't we deduct stuff that goes DOWN in value? Would that not also be 'fair?' Taxing Buffet on that money is double taxation.

b) Buffet makes money from corporate dividends. That fat cat. Do you know that corporate dividends are paid to shareholders AFTER the company pays taxes? That money has already been taxed by the government once at corporate rates - which are much higher than individual rates - thus - any money paid out as dividends is once again - doubled taxed.

c) Now we move onto Warrens secretary. How much do YOU think a secretary makes? $50k? That would seem reasonable - that is a decent wage for a secretary. Let me tell you something - a woman or man making $50k owning a home generally ends up paying virtually ZERO income tax - at WORST - the secretary's tax rate is 15%.

I'd bet that Warren's Secreary makes a crapload more than $50 - in fact - I would be she probably makes closer to $200k. Buffet is an important guy - he has a secretary, plus he has several assistants who work 24/7. But his main secretary is a pretty important person to Berkshire Hathaway - so she probably makes $200k.

NOW we are getting somewhere - you know why? Because there is a upper middle class bubble in the tax code that I"m sure someone named 'earthgirl' is totally ignorant of because you just believe whatever fluffy story you hear in the media.

If you make under $125k a year - your maximum tax rate is 31%. Above that - its 39% - BUT - and this is a HUGE But - once you go over $325k about - it goes back DOWN to 31%. So - if you make over $125k as an individual, like his secretary, but less than $32k - you pay MORE than someone making much more than you.

Thats not unfair - what is unfair is the bubble which catches successful entrepreneurs, lawyers, doctors and other small business people and professionals who make good money but not Hollywood or Athlete money.

And Earthgirl - I PROMISE you that your boss, the person who owns the business you might work at, you neighborhood merchant, and their doctors and lawyers - are 'working people,' and they work a helluva lot more hours than you do - and are at risk of losing everything while you pretend that they are not working too with the little coded comment . . .

Comanche, I never get tired of listening to people like you, defending the corruption of the big cats at the expense of the working class. Either you are a millionaire or you are very ignorant.

Suggest that you look at the tax rate tables at the back of the Form 1040 instruction book, and you'll find out you're a little out of date on the individual rates nowadays, but the "bubble" still certainly exists in the corporate rate table, getting the mom & pop businesses that incorporated, but not GE, AT&T, Verizon and the like.

The thing is that Buffett only takes $100K as salary for being chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway. He could pay himself far more or take larger bonuses but this income would be fully taxable at the top marginal rate of 35%. Through his own choice, most of his income results from selling shares of BH that he has owned since he took control in 1965 when the share price was under $20. As he doesn't believe in stock splits as a rule, and the shares are now worth over $100,000 each, whenever he sells even one he incurs a capital gain larger than his entire annual salary, but taxable only at the capital gains rate of 15%, which is certainly the most tax-advantaged way for him to compensate himself, but his being in a low tax bracket is entirely of his own choice, and if he wanted to be in the same tax bracket as his secretary he could easily arrange for it without making material changes to either his lifestyle or the governance of Berkshire.

To Commanche: A secretary making $50,000 a year who owns her own home might very well pay income taxes. It all depends upon how much property taxes she pays. I doubt whether she would much care however, if the same amount of money that would be taxed as income, goes to pay property tax. In either case, she is out the same amount of money. And corporate dividends are paid out after the company has paid taxes true-but how does that impact you? It is NEW income for you and, like interest on stocks, must be paid as earned income. Your argument is, at best, illogical.

Comanchepilot

For the sake of space I hope you don't mind that I don't quote your original comments, but I've identified them the same as you did:

a) No it isn't double-taxation. First, it has to become a realized gain before you are taxed. You are not taxed because the value goes up, but only if you sell it and see a gain (some amount over and above the original purchase price). The original purchase amount (the income that has already been taxed) is not taxed, only the gain. And yes, you do get to deduct purchases that go down, but only when you sell the holding and realize a loss.

b) If it helps put your mind at ease consider that the price you pay for not having to deal with unlimited personal liability and ease of transfer of ownership. TANSTAAFL.

Sure its double taxation, Jake.

You earn $15,000 and pay tax on it, leaving you $10,000. You buy yourself a used F250 for your plumbing business. You sell the used F150 in 6 years for $4000. You have lost $6000. Can you deduct it? Nope.
Lets say you buy a Harley F150 version for $10k. In 5 years you sell it for $12k. You now have to pay taxes n the $2000 - is that fair? Why [ignore for a moment the business use of the asset, depreciation and deducting the cost since then you are simply recapturing what you sold] -Explain the logic there sport?

You earn $15,000 - and have $10,000 left. You invest $10,000 in Apple stock in 2010 at $150 a share. You sell it for $603 a share today, garnering a profit of $30,200 - is that really income? Well, no, its a long term capital gain and taxed at 15%. . . . Whereas as if you worked for the $30,000 you might be taxed at 28% on the money. Yep - your RATE is higher because the money you are using as the gain is already taxed - so they tax it at a lower rate.

And Hebert = you just are the genius there aren't you, pointing out that there has to be an actual gain achieved by selling the stock at increased value.

Everyone is soooo ignorant. Buffet makes $1 a year as salary. He has literally hundreds of thousands of shares of Berkshire Hathaway granted to him decades ago - he paid income tax on the those grants- and full BRK.A shares are now worth $120,000 each - so - to live a high life style he sells 2 shares a year. Its not income - he does not pay social security or medicare taxes - he only pays captial gains tax.

You see - INCOME taxation is simply a NEGATIVE method of collecting revenue for the government. The OLD way of taxing citizens and imports kept the size of government down and forced only those who participated in the economy being taxed.

Personally , we need to repeal the 16th amendment so we do not tax the creation of wealth, which expands the economy and employs people - and tax the consumption of anything other than food and health care. Liquor, cars, airline tickets, hotels, everything including real estates - has a national sales tax. This way, it spurs investment and not consumption. If the poor don't buy cell phones and 55" TVs and cable service - then they will not be taxed. If they do - then they are not poor as I see it.

Comanchepilot

Explain the logic there sport?

Well since we're so close, no problem skippy, let me educate you:

You buy yourself a used F250 for your plumbing business. You sell the used F150 in 6 years for $4000. You have lost $6000. Can you deduct it? Nope.

Yes, you can depending upon a number of factors. So since you wanted such simple answers as yes or no. Yes you are allowed to make a deduction of your loss, assuming you have one after accounting for depreciation of the asset. You can check out IRS publications 463 and 544 for more info.

Lets say you buy a Harley F150 version for $10k. In 5 years you sell it for $12k. You now have to pay taxes n the $2000 - is that fair?

Yes, because it is a capital gain, and especially when if you had sold it at a loss you would have been allowed to deduct it exactly as described before.

See it is expected most things you buy will go down in value, if they go down more than normal appreciation then you actually suffered a loss, but if they go up in value you then have a gain. Generally speaking we allow people to deduct losses while gains are taxed.

is that really income

No, it is a capital gain, as you know, capital gains are not taxed like regular income.

because the money you are using as the gain is already taxed

No, the 30,200 you receive has not been taxed. You have never paid one penny of income tax or capital gain tax on that unrealized gain. Until that stock was sold it was an unrealized gain. Something which might one day exist, but which is something less than real until then. At the point it is realized it is taxed at a lower rate as Congress uses the tax code to attempt to socially engineer people into doing certain things. Such as invest in stocks by promising to tax any gains at a lower rate than if they counted it as income.

Buffet makes $1 a year as salary

Do you check facts before typing, or just pound away at the keys writing things you think read well?You are ignorant of the facts, go educate yourself.

You're only off by a factor of 100,000.

Also, his shares are the results of actual purchases which he made in order to buy control of the company, which he and his partners did when the former managment declined to cede control to him, not the result of grants or options, which he opposes on principle.

prostate cancer at that age takes 20 years to kill you . . . anyone taking bets he makes it to 102?

Yes, the survival rate is very high IF CAUGHT ON TIME, otherwise, whether you are twenty or eighty, you are toast.

Unless Dr. Comanche disagrees. He is a physician and an accountant.

They think that he started Golden Corral and named it for himself.

Warren Buffett a socialist? I guess that makes Bill Gates and John D. Rockefeller Communists. I don't think you're stupid, but what's my opinion against that of thousands of other readers?

You have been officially diagnosed with idiocy, most likely secondary to exposure from excessive Fox News.

It sure is hard for you rabid righties to understand the difference between socialism, capitalism, patriotism and selfishness, isn't it?

Your "leaders" are Straussians who are in love with Ayn Rand's Objectivism. Patriotism and empathy mean nothing to them and they have the money and power to convince, through their propaganda network, Faux News listeners that they are doing what is in YOUR interest.

No, you aren't stupid, just gullible, allowing yourself to be manipulated through fear and disinformation.

I'm sticking by my original diagnosis.

My comments were aimed at ihateliberals-3787409. I should have made that clear. I agree with your diagnosis.

I had the tomotherapy a couple of years ago, for two months. I can tell you, tiring doesn't begin to describe the side effects, and they do not go away immediately after treatment conclusion. I had to take a month off work from it, and it was not curative anyway. Well, it made the one nodule go away, but by that time it had spread throughout my body. I wish him the best, and anyone else with this, as well.

As my grandmother used to say "He'll eat the goat that eats the grass off your grave".

Warren Good Luck on a speedy recovery..... Say what you want about him but to me he is a he~l of a good guy.....