Op Ed From Warren Buffett

[LongLiveYorke 38]

So the government has a vested interest in enacting rules/laws etc to 'keep society healthy'?

Yes, of course.

What if they outlaw pornography arguing that it is 'unhealthy for society'?

The benefits toward keeping society healthy must be weighted against the freedom such a law would cost. For the case of pornography, the benefits are very small (if any) compared to the freedom lost by outlawing it.This is how laws/government works, obviously.

[El Guapo 8]

1.) Primary residence should never be included. My father is a millionaire if you include primary residence. If you take it out, he's not even close. If you asked him to pay, even 25% of his net worth, he would lose everything. - So yes, that is highly offesnive, when you don't have an understanding of how net worth is different than liquidity.2.) The only true asset you list as liquid is cash. I can see an argument made for stocks, because they are easily sold. Bonds are not a liquid assets. And house and cars are no where close to a liquid asset. Your understanding of assets makes this i whole discussion moot.3. What the hell do you mean that selling the assets and who would buy them is irrelevant? It's the only thing that is relevant. How do you just do some simple book keeping to create 15 trillion dollars, where it doesn't collapse all financial markets? Currently there is about 9.5 Trillion in total cash in this country. Not all of that is from the top 1%. 2.4 Trillion of it is institutional and in retirement plans, so that does not count. So there is really about 7 Trillion in total cash in this country. If all of that is liquidated from the wealthy (which it won't be) where does the other 8 Trillion come from?

Were you going to address this, or just gloss over it, because, it doesn't matter what facts you show we won't understand it anyway?

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Actually revolutions happened because of the failure of politicians and or political leaders. Not because Jews had more money.Jews and the like were the scapegoat by the new political power trying to get the people to rise up...but the circumstances were almost always a long line of political failures and poor management, not actual monetary inequality. Look at Mexico, probably the greatest distance between the haves and the have nots. It is the corruption and failure of the government making it this way, not the rich ( directly )

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...ields/2172.htmlIncome inequality is measured by the Gini index, the higher the number the greater the inequality.According the the CIA..Mexico 1998 53.1 2008 48.2United States 1997 40.8 2007 45So Mexico's income is becoming more equal while the US is becoming more unequal and are probably pretty close to the same today.

[Balloon guy 158]

Yes, of course.

The benefits toward keeping society healthy must be weighted against the freedom such a law would cost. For the case of pornography, the benefits are very small (if any) compared to the freedom lost by outlawing it.This is how laws/government works, obviously.

1. How do you quantify the value of 'freedom to look at naked women'2. How do equally quantify the health of society in a manner that allows a reasonable comparison?3. In fact aren't you just using platitudes and sound bite style debating techniques because you have backed yourself into a corner and are trying to get yourself out with a nebulous argument that you hope you won't be called on.. 3A. do you want to guess how many times I've been guilty of #3?

[Balloon guy 158]

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...ields/2172.htmlIncome inequality is measured by the Gini index, the higher the number the greater the inequality.According the the CIA..Mexico 1998 53.1 2008 48.2United States 1997 40.8 2007 45So Mexico's income is becoming more equal while the US is becoming more unequal and are probably pretty close to the same today.

Anyone who thinks that Mexico's equality of wealth is a model the US should emulate is selling you a bridge. A bridge to SS Land.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Anyone who thinks that Mexico's equality of wealth is a model the US should emulate is selling you a bridge. A bridge to SS Land.

umm, the US is moving in that direction and might have possibly already passed Mexico

[Roll the Bones 74]

Were you going to address this, or just gloss over it, because, it doesn't matter what facts you show we won't understand it anyway?

he was suggesting a hypothetical to show how much money the wealthiest actually have. He also posted a link to the the wealthiest projected income. Also, all the tax discussion is not on people with 1 million in assets, but net income, as I'm sure you know.

[El Guapo 8]

he was suggesting a hypothetical to show how much money the wealthiest actually have. He also posted a link to the the wealthiest projected income. Also, all the tax discussion is not on people with 1 million in assets, but net income, as I'm sure you know.

Um, no, he said assets (net worth actually). I am addressing what he said.

[Balloon guy 158]

umm, the US is moving in that direction and might have possibly already passed Mexico

Then Bob, you have never been to Mexico.I bet any Mexican from the bottom 90% of wealth would change places in a second with anyone in America in the 20%-30% levels.

[SilentSnow 1]

Were you going to address this, or just gloss over it, because, it doesn't matter what facts you show we won't understand it anyway?

There's nothing there to address. All you are doing is arguing over semantics and refusing to discuss the real issue- exactly what I predicted in advance you would do.

[SilentSnow 1]

Anyone who thinks that Mexico's equality of wealth is a model the US should emulate is selling you a bridge. A bridge to SS Land.

Um what???Just to remind you, we're the ones arguing AGAINST the Mexican model. You are the one arguing FOR it.

[El Guapo 8]

There's nothing there to address. All you are doing is arguing over semantics and refusing to discuss the real issue- exactly what I predicted in advance you would do.

Even though I think you are nuts on most of your thoughts, I gave you credit for backing them up. But when you make statements like houses are semi-liquid assets, and I call you on it, you argue semantics? It's chicken shit and you know it. Your hypothetical argument has so many flaws in it, you can't even begin to defend it and from you lack of response, I see that you now acknowledge that.

[Balloon guy 158]

Um what???Just to remind you, we're the ones arguing AGAINST the Mexican model. You are the one arguing FOR it.

No, please keep up, you are arguing we are like them, I am pointing out we are not.It's because I am in Reality Land, and you refuse to visit.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

No, please keep up, you are arguing we are like them, I am pointing out we are not.It's because I am in Reality Land, and you refuse to visit.

In terms of income inequality the US and Mexico are now pretty close. They're closer on that front than the US and Canada for example.Don't confuse income inequality with poverty they are two different things.

[Balloon guy 158]

In terms of income inequality the US and Mexico are now pretty close. They're closer on that front than the US and Canada for example.Don't confuse income inequality with poverty they are two different things.

Pretty much guarantee the implication you guys are making demands that we 'confuse income inequality with poverty'If the poor in our country have had their net worth rise consistently, while the rich have risen faster, does that mean the same thing as having the vast majority of the people in abject poverty while a few people are millionaires?Pretending that the US's wealth is unequal requires you to first make the case that equality of wealth is constitutional, and that there is a way to make wealth more equal that doesn't violate the constitution.Otherwise you are merely using propaganda to incite class warfare with no remedy except punitive legislation for the sake of punishing. ( Shame on you Canadians and your heavy handed use of government to punish a class of people you dislike, hope it's not the Jews or Eskimos next )

[Balloon guy 158]

Even though I think you are nuts on most of your thoughts, I gave you credit for backing them up. But when you make statements like houses are semi-liquid assets, and I call you on it, you argue semantics? It's chicken shit and you know it. Your hypothetical argument has so many flaws in it, you can't even begin to defend it and from you lack of response, I see that you now acknowledge that.

FYIBill Gates pays over $1,000,000.00 a year in property tax on his house.If his house is taken from him, the government will no longer collect that annuity.

[SilentSnow 1]

1.Pretty much guarantee the implication you guys are making demands that we 'confuse income inequality with poverty'If the poor in our country have had their net worth rise consistently, while the rich have risen faster, does that mean the same thing as having the vast majority of the people in abject poverty while a few people are millionaires?2.Pretending that the US's wealth is unequal requires you to first make the case that equality of wealth is constitutional, and that there is a way to make wealth more equal that doesn't violate the constitution.3.Otherwise you are merely using propaganda to incite class warfare with no remedy except punitive legislation for the sake of punishing. ( Shame on you Canadians and your heavy handed use of government to punish a class of people you dislike, hope it's not the Jews or Eskimos next )

1.A nice thought, but irrelevant. A rising tide has not lifted all boats. The poor in this country have been getting poorer for decades and now the middle class are starting to join them. 2.Taxes are not unconstitutional. You really need to drop that crazy objection of yours. 3.There has been all out class warfare by the rich for 30 years now. The only change is that more people are finally starting to catch on. As of now there has been no concerted effort to fight back.

[Balloon guy 158]

1.A nice thought, but irrelevant. A rising tide has not lifted all boats. The poor in this country have been getting poorer for decades and now the middle class are starting to join them. 2.Taxes are not unconstitutional. You really need to drop that crazy objection of yours. 3.There has been all out class warfare by the rich for 30 years now. The only change is that more people are finally starting to catch on. As of now there has been no concerted effort to fight back.

1. really? I guess the poor are worse than they were 20 years ago?2. Confiscation of post tax dollars is what you were talking about.3. Class warfare is the single platform the democrat party has run on for 50 years. they have no other real objective other than to make sheep buy into this class warfare lie in order to keep you from looking at their man behind the curtain who has been fooling you guys for decades.

[hblask 1]

http://www.slate.com/id/2266025/entry/2266026/Why income inequality matters This is still the best article looking at causes for it that I've come across.

The lesson seems to be that this is a self-correcting problem, and central planner schemes to fix it have the opposite effect.

[hblask 1]

There's nothing there to address. All you are doing is arguing over semantics and refusing to discuss the real issue- exactly what I predicted in advance you would do.

Isn't it amazing how whenever someone calls you on your BS it's "semantics", even though it is in response to testable, verifiable facts you've stated?Think about it.

[ShakeZuma 585]

Isn't it amazing how whenever someone calls you on your BS it's "semantics", even though it is in response to testable, verifiable facts you've stated?Think about it.

this is all irrelevant

[vbnautilus 48]

There's nothing there to address. All you are doing is arguing over semantics and refusing to discuss the real issue- exactly what I predicted in advance you would do.

Isn't it amazing how whenever someone calls you on your BS it's "semantics", even though it is in response to testable, verifiable facts you've stated?Think about it.

Allow me!

This is becoming a big peeve of mine. Sorry to have to take it out on you Dratj, it's not personal, butI CANT STAND IT WHEN PEOPLE SAY "ITS JUST SEMANTICS"Of course there are semantics involved in any argument, semantics is just meaning, and we are always trying to get across what we mean. If you think there is actually an issue with the words meaning different things, then clarify it, don't just label it "semantics" as if that somehow ends things or puts them in the Zone of Non-discussability. Saying there is an issue with semantics does not mean that someone isn't right or that no one will ever change their minds.

To take the phrase as you used it: "just arguing about semantics" -- as if arguing about semantics was somehow trivial or futile. On the contrary, I think it is usually the depth of any argument to get to the meaning of the words we are using and why they mean what they mean to us. But the reason it annoys me so much is that whenever this move comes up in an argument you can almost always substitute "I'd rather not argue about this any further". The person wielding this weapon usually thinks they are laying down some insurmountable intellectual end to the discussion, when in fact they are just dumping an empty Bucket of Smug™ on the situation.

[SilentSnow 1]

Allow me!

Nice to see you chiming in with your usual pseudo-intellectual BS. Unfortunately Guapo actually did provide a classic red herring argument about semantics that completely avoided the actual discussion. His three points-1.He objected to my definition of millionaire- almost completely irrelevant to the discussion. 2.He objected to my commonly accepted definition of liquid assets- absolutely irrelevant. He was then dumb enough to include a quote that essentially agreed with me- "Liquid assets include most stocks, money market instruments and government bonds. "3.He objected to his own false claim that I was trying to sell all of the taxed assets in one day- deliberately false and also irrelevant.

[BaseJester 1]

1.A nice thought, but irrelevant. A rising tide has not lifted all boats. The poor in this country have been getting poorer for decades and now the middle class are starting to join them.

Can you support that? You're talking about an absolute economic quality of life here, right?

[vbnautilus 48]

Nice to see you chiming in with your usual pseudo-intellectual BS. Unfortunately Guapo actually did provide a classic red herring argument about semantics that completely avoided the actual discussion. His three points-1.He objected to my definition of millionaire- almost completely irrelevant to the discussion. 2.He objected to my commonly accepted definition of liquid assets- absolutely irrelevant. He was then dumb enough to include a quote that essentially agreed with me- "Liquid assets include most stocks, money market instruments and government bonds. "3.He objected to his own false claim that I was trying to sell all of the taxed assets in one day- deliberately false and also irrelevant.

There is simply no way that the definitions of the key words you are using are irrelevant to the discussion.