Op Ed From Warren Buffett

[hblask 1]

Another thing we could do to solve the debt crisis by tomorrow is negotiating with our alien overlords. That is just a hypothetical, but it would seriously work.

Hey, leave Paul Krugmann out of this.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

OK, fair enough, and most of the time I agree with you on SS, but this latest thing.... seriously? Just confiscate that much wealth with no economic consequences, with everything retaining its value? That's not real, right? It can't be. Nobody can really believe that.

Yes some people believe that is possible. Just like there are people who think that there should be zero government regulations and that civil courts and lawsuits should be enough of a threat to keep businesses from doing things like polluting and providing tainted food and untested harmful drugs.

[hblask 1]

Yes some people believe that is possible. Just like there are people who think that there should be zero government regulations and that civil courts and lawsuits should be enough of a threat to keep businesses from doing things like polluting and providing tainted food and untested harmful drugs.

But anyone who thinks for a second can see that selling that many assets in that short amount of a time means a loss of value. We see it every day with the foreclosure market. The plan proposed would make the housing market look safe.I haven't actually met anyone who thinks there should be zero regulations, have you?The other things you mention appear to be strawmen, too, although quite common ones and I can see how people could believe that others believe those things.

[Balloon guy 158]

Step one: Confiscate the post-tax earnings of selected people in america.Step two: Pay off the debt with this moneyStep three: Go back into debt dealing with the legal fees for violating the constitutional rights of Americans to unlawful search and SEIZURE along with all tax codes enforced to date.Step four: shake head about how short sighted that plan was, but never admit that and in fact claim that the only reason it didn't work was :A. BushB. RushC. PalinD. Religious RightE. We didn't spend enough money on enforcementIt's like liberals have never read the constitution.

[mrdannyg 274]

The problem with higher incomes paying a lower percentage than lower incomes is about simplifying the tax code, something that nobody objects to, as far as I can tell. I don't think that should be discussed in the same terms as "tax the rich", which implies raising tax rates.

Everyone would like to 'simplify the tax code' as a general principle, but if you started discussing any specifics of that, I bet you would incur the wrath of Repubs, since the effect would be tax increases on the rich.

OK, fair enough, and most of the time I agree with you on SS, but this latest thing.... seriously? Just confiscate that much wealth with no economic consequences, with everything retaining its value? That's not real, right? It can't be. Nobody can really believe that.

Well, we were talking about the consequences of a 100% tax earlier. The situations are approximately equally reasonable.

Step one: Confiscate the post-tax earnings of selected people in america.Step two: Pay off the debt with this moneyStep three: Go back into debt dealing with the legal fees for violating the constitutional rights of Americans to unlawful search and SEIZURE along with all tax codes enforced to date.Step four: shake head about how short sighted that plan was, but never admit that and in fact claim that the only reason it didn't work was :A. BushB. RushC. PalinD. Religious RightE. We didn't spend enough money on enforcementIt's like liberals have never read the constitution.

Firstly, none of these people would have any money left to sue the government, so the government would not incur any costs for defending themselves!Secondly, just because someone says something wrong or disagreeable does not make them liberal. Sometimes they're just wrong or crazy. If you accept this, you might eventually become sane.

[Balloon guy 158]

Firstly, none of these people would have any money left to sue the government, so the government would not incur any costs for defending themselves!

I hadn't thought of that...it's foolproof, take EVERYTHING away from people so they CAN'T fight for their civil rights...oops, the ACLU already made it a law that any civil rights lawsuits brought against the government must be paid for by the government...(You didn't think they brought those lawsuits because they care did you?)

Secondly, just because someone says something wrong or disagreeable does not make them liberal. Sometimes they're just wrong or crazy. If you accept this, you might eventually become sane.

Jokes on you, I have a piece of paper stating I am in fact sane from a psychiatrist...do you?

[mrdannyg 274]

I hadn't thought of that...it's foolproof, take EVERYTHING away from people so they CAN'T fight for their civil rights...oops, the ACLU already made it a law that any civil rights lawsuits brought against the government must be paid for by the government...(You didn't think they brought those lawsuits because they care did you?)Jokes on you, I have a piece of paper stating I am in fact sane from a psychiatrist...do you?

August 16, 2011 Scoreboard:Balloonguy - 2mrdannyg - 0

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

In before brvheart!Just wanted to point out you are completely wrong about this. Unquestionably, not even close. You make three points here. I'd like to say that each one is more wrong than the next, but I can't. Like the colour black, each one is so completely devoid of rightness that they cannot be differentiated.

How much more Black could it be?The answer is "None". None more Black.

[aucu 3]

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/08/1...tooge-of-omaha/The Stooge of OmahaWarren Buffett’s own figures show plutocrats are paying billions moreBillionaire investor Warren Buffett has, in little more than a decade, gone from being reluctant to indulge “corporate social responsibility” with his shareholders’ money to promoting both arm-twisting “Philanthrocapitalism” and higher taxes on “the rich.”He has morphed from being the investment Sage of Omaha to the policy Stooge of Obama (although he does disagree with the President’s obsession about taxing corporate jets).Mr. Buffett was at it again this week with an op-ed piece in The New York Times. He suggested that the mega-rich were being treated as if they were an endangered species, like “spotted owls” (as opposed to, say, the common scapegoat).“It’s nice to have friends in high places,” he wrote. Well, he should know. Government bailouts certainly saved him billions. He even wrote an open “Dear Uncle Sam” letter of thanks to the government last year.Mr. Buffett proceeded into his well-worn shtick about how the percentage of income tax that he paid, 17.4%, was less than half that paid by his office staff. He bemoaned the loss of higher taxes on the rich in the 1980s and 1990s, and noted how many jobs were created in those decades. Fewer jobs have been created since 2000, ergo, he implied, lower taxes mean less employment. Mr. Buffett badly needs to have a word with tax expert Jack Mintz, whose observations on Mr. Buffett’s recommendations appear here.Mr. Buffett peddled statistics that seem to prove the opposite of what he was suggesting. “Since 1992,” he wrote, “the IRS has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of US$16.9-billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2% on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to US$90.9-billion — a staggering US$227.4-million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5%.”Hang on, where’s my calculator. The plutocratic 400 paid US$5-billion in federal taxes in 1992, but almost US$20-billion in 2008. So doesn’t that suggest that lower taxes lead to higher tax revenue?The Wall Street Journal’s Stephen More has pointed out that Mr. Buffett misrepresents the U.S. tax system, which is still sharply progressive, even if monstrously convoluted. The median-income household in 2008 paid just 4% federal tax on its US$35,000. Those with more than US$2-million paid 32% in 2005, the last year for which data is available.Mr. Buffett notes how “very decent” the mega-rich of his acquaintance tend to be “by and large.” He admits that many have agreed conspicuously to donate most of their wealth under the “Giving Pledge” dreamed up by Mr. Buffett and his bridge buddy, Bill Gates. In fact, far from burnishing the reputation of billionaires, the Giving Pledge implies that they need to be prodded into benevolence. However, according to Mr. Buffett, the mega-rich “wouldn’t mind being told to pay more in taxes as well, particularly when so many of their fellow citizens are truly suffering.” In fact, they don’t have to be “told.” There is a fund at the U.S. Treasury Department for those who want to make gifts to reduce public debt. It isn’t much used.Mr. Buffet then moved into bait and switch mode. Having castigated those louche billionaires, some of whom, he notes, don’t even “work,” and having noted the incompetence of Congress, he proceeded to promote higher taxes for all households earning more than US$1-million, with further surcharges on those guilty of earning US$10-million-plus.A measly million? What happened to those billionaires? Moreover, it’s worth noting that raising income taxes wouldn’t affect Mr. Buffett’s income much because most of it is sheltered as a long-term capital gains, on which he’s probably not going to pay much or any tax anyway, since it’s all going to the Gates Foundation.This, as noted, is all a long way from the Warren Buffett who agonized about making charitable donations on behalf of his own shareholders at Berkshire Hathaway, and thus introduced a scheme whereby the shareholders got to choose where donations would go. Since Mr. Buffett was the largest shareholder, most wound up going to the Buffett Foundation. That scheme was closed down amid controversy in 2003 because one of Mr. Buffett’s favourite causes — which seems to be a perennial favourite among billionaires — was population control.At the time it was noted that since corporate charity came out of pretax income, Mr. Buffett’s good intentions were being subsidized by taxpayers both rich and poor. Similarly, Mr. Buffett’s commitment to download the majority of his fortune to the Gates Foundation means a huge tax savings. Since Mr. Buffett is so keen for fellow billionaires — and for the merely moderately wealthy — to cough up more, no doubt he will forgo these charitable tax breaks, just to make sure he pays his “fair share.” After all, taxpayers don’t get to specify where their taxes go. If Mr. Buffett thinks more taxes should be going to save America rather than Africa, then he should put his money where his op-ed is.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/08/1...tooge-of-omaha/

It'd be challenging to find an article with so many words and so little content or point.

[akoff 0]

It'd be challenging to find an article with so many words and so little content or point.

Cliff notes of point You made billions in your life – now you are old and feel bad - you used the tax laws to his massive amounts of income and distribute your wealth - get off of your high horse you sanctimonious bastard

[CaneBrain 95]

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/08/1...tooge-of-omaha/Mr. Buffett peddled statistics that seem to prove the opposite of what he was suggesting. “Since 1992,” he wrote, “the IRS has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of US$16.9-billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2% on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to US$90.9-billion — a staggering US$227.4-million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5%.”Hang on, where’s my calculator. The plutocratic 400 paid US$5-billion in federal taxes in 1992, but almost US$20-billion in 2008. So doesn’t that suggest that lower taxes lead to higher tax revenue?

I think this part makes the Democrats case better than they ever could. America is so mean to rich people that the taxable income of the richest 400 Americans increased by 73 BILLION ****ING DOLLARS over the last 16 years. It's hard to so concisely prove that our fiscal policies funnel all our wealth to a tiny few ("job creators") but this author did it, by golly.

[CindyLou 11]

It's hard to so concisely prove that our fiscal policies funnel all our wealth to a tiny few ("job creators") but this author did it, by golly.

What happened to the aggregate income of other people?(I think this is where SilentSnow pops in with some links and graphs and stuff.)

[SilentSnow 1]

But anyone who thinks for a second can see that selling that many assets in that short amount of a time means a loss of value. We see it every day with the foreclosure market. The plan proposed would make the housing market look safe.I haven't actually met anyone who thinks there should be zero regulations, have you?The other things you mention appear to be strawmen, too, although quite common ones and I can see how people could believe that others believe those things.

Speaking of strawmen-

Obviously we wouldn't really sell all the assets in one day.

That you guys refuse to even discuss what I am saying is a decent indicator that no one can seriously defend the current tax rates on the rich. Also, raising taxes in general is definitely constitutional. We already have a wealth tax(property tax). Even if the corrupt corporate supreme court declared a wealth tax unconstitutional, you could always put in a temporary deficit reduction tax on income.

[phlegm 6]

I love it when a guy who could give away a million a day, for the rest of his life, and still die wealthy, tells other [eople who make 250k a year with a family, mortgage, 2 kids in college, and a poodle, isnt paying enuf taxes.I am guessing this is the ramblings of a old man whose life will soon be over, and is concerned about what the landlord of the pearly gates, thinks about him.By the way, Jesus tells us to help the poor out of our own pockets, not our neighbors.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

I love it when a guy who could give away a million a day, for the rest of his life, and still die wealthy, tells other [eople who make 250k a year with a family, mortgage, 2 kids in college, and a poodle, isnt paying enuf taxes.I am guessing this is the ramblings of a old man whose life will soon be over, and is concerned about what the landlord of the pearly gates, thinks about him.By the way, Jesus tells us to help the poor out of our own pockets, not our neighbors.

well he is giving away most of his wealth and you may want to work on your reading comprehension since he's advocating raising taxes on the truly rich not those who have a taxable income of $250K.

I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get. But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate.

[Roll the Bones 74]

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.

[mrdannyg 274]

I love it when a guy who could give away a million a day, for the rest of his life, and still die wealthy, tells other [eople who make 250k a year with a family, mortgage, 2 kids in college, and a poodle, isnt paying enuf taxes.I am guessing this is the ramblings of a old man whose life will soon be over, and is concerned about what the landlord of the pearly gates, thinks about him.By the way, Jesus tells us to help the poor out of our own pockets, not our neighbors.

He has given away billions of dollars. Instead of doing what many of us would do in our old age with gazillions of dollars (use your imagination), he is writing articles that thinks are for the betterment of everyone (right or wrong), and has pledged to give away many more billions.If there's a man upstairs who cares about such things

(there isn't!)

then I think Mr Buffett is pretty safe.

[SilentSnow 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.

I think I posted that one before. It won't matter though. There are no amount of facts that can convince them. Getting some people to honestly discuss inequality is harder than getting a camel to pass through the eye of a needle.

[CindyLou 11]

I think I posted that one before. It won't matter though. There are no amount of facts that can convince them. Getting some people to honestly discuss inequality is harder than getting a camel to pass through the eye of a needle.

I don't think anybody is arguing that the wealth isn't unequal. I think the argument is whether it's unfair.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

I don't think anybody is arguing that the wealth isn't unequal. I think the argument is whether it's unfair.

I think the main argument is whether it makes for a healthy society and what the consequences of the inequality are. Also is the inequality self perpetuating since those at the top have far greater influence and control over lawmakers.

[CindyLou 11]

I think the main argument is whether it makes for a healthy society and what the consequences of the inequality are. Also is the inequality self perpetuating since those at the top have far greater influence and control over lawmakers.

Right. That article didn't address any of it.I did find this article in the related links though.

[Balloon guy 158]

I think the main argument is whether it makes for a healthy society and what the consequences of the inequality are. Also is the inequality self perpetuating since those at the top have far greater influence and control over lawmakers.

So the government has a vested interest in enacting rules/laws etc to 'keep society healthy'?What if they outlaw pornography arguing that it is 'unhealthy for society'?

[FCP Bob 1,312]

So the government has a vested interest in enacting rules/laws etc to 'keep society healthy'?What if they outlaw pornography arguing that it is 'unhealthy for society'?

Yes smart people should worry about whether vast inequality is healthy for a society. It's one of the reasons in the past that things like revolutions have happened.

[Balloon guy 158]

Yes smart people should worry about whether vast inequality is healthy for a society. It's one of the reasons in the past that things like revolutions have happened.

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 )