Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So basically, when you asked if people thought he was doing the right thing or not - you weren't really asking.
Buffet has been outspoken for years about taxing the WEALTHY. Not just higher "income" people - but people like himself who make most of their money on capital gains. He is for it. However, the government is currently not for it.
He is also for the estate tax - as he believes - as has been pointed out - that future generations will be better off making it on their own, instead of merely inheriting everything from their parents.
He has given something like 99% of his wealth to the Gates Foundation, because of the speed and ingenuity with which the Gates foundation (who is not beholden to political ideas of good and bad) can put resources to a problem. Even so, with just 1% of his fortune remaining, his family will pay a hefty estate-tax bill. Have no fear about that.
Are you angry that he is super rich? Angry that he wants WEALTHY people to pay more taxes (himself included)? Or just angry that you're not as rich as him? 'Cause that's how it kinda sounds....
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,761,129 times
Reputation: 3587
When it comes to Warren Buffet, my only question is this: why do we prononuce his name like it is spelled "BUFF IT" but yet when we go out to eat we pronounce it "BUFF AAA"?
He implies this in saying that rich people don't pay enough taxes.
No, when he says "Rich people don't pay enough taxes," he is referring to a broken government system. It has nothing to do with his personal choices within the system, or his interpretation on how well the government spends money.
In fact, his statement has absolutely nothing to do with government spending. Anything spending-related is speculation and inference on your part.
Quote:
But... if he feels that the rich should pay more in taxes, and he uses his own situation to illustrate this point, I have to call out the fact that he does have the power, over himself, to contribute a higher tax rate than is required by the federal government. The US Treasury will accept donations.
Yes, he has that power over himself. But Buffett isn't saying that the U.S. needs to tax just him higher. Buffett is saying that all rich people need to pay more taxes. He is commenting on a broken system for him and his peers.
Quote:
Any money he would have donated to the US Treasury would not have gone to private charity. So I have to question why he feels private charity is better than donating it to the government. I know the answer, but I'd like to see him put his money where his mouth is.
Probably because, like most people, he feels the government spends money inefficiently. But even if that were the case, it would be beside the point. He isn't necessarily advocating a net increase in taxation. From what I can tell, it looks more like he's talking about a redistribution of taxation to increase the burden on the upper/upper class.
When it comes to Warren Buffet, my only question is this: why do we prononuce his name like it is spelled "BUFF IT" but yet when we go out to eat we pronounce it "BUFF AAA"?
Because his name is Buffett, and you eat at a Buffet.
I remember asking my dad that same question (about Jimmy Buffett) when I was 11 or so.
Last edited by anonymous; 02-14-2008 at 06:09 AM..
No, when he says "Rich people don't pay enough taxes," he is referring to a broken government system. It has nothing to do with his personal choices within the system, or his interpretation on how well the government spends money.
In fact, his statement has absolutely nothing to do with government spending. Anything spending-related is speculation and inference on your part.
I disagree. If he feels rich people don't pay enough taxes, he feels that the government deserves that tax revenue and that it's not put to better use by the government rather than as charity by the individual.
Quote:
Yes, he has that power over himself. But Buffett isn't saying that the U.S. needs to tax just him higher. Buffett is saying that all rich people need to pay more taxes. He is commenting on a broken system for him and his peers.
I already acknolwedged this... and said, he has the power to set the example... but he won't. Why? Because he knows the government is grossly inefficient.
Quote:
Probably because, like most people, he feels the government spends money inefficiently. But even if that were the case, it would be beside the point. He isn't necessarily advocating a net increase in taxation. From what I can tell, it looks more like he's talking about a redistribution of taxation to increase the burden on the upper/upper class.
I know he feels the government spends money inefficiently, that's why he gave his money to the Gates Foundation. But that's my point exactly! He could be an advocate for lowering taxes of the middle class instead of raising taxes for the rich, he could be advocating reducing the corruption within poltiics that favors the rich with loopholes. He could become evangelical about charity, talking about how much better his money is used by the Gates Foundation than the US government. But he doesn't... and that's why I feel he's a hypocrite.
I know he feels the government spends money inefficiently, that's why he gave his money to the Gates Foundation. But that's my point exactly! He could be an advocate for lowering taxes of the middle class instead of raising taxes for the rich, he could be advocating reducing the corruption within poltiics that favors the rich with loopholes.
OK, that's a point I agree with. He gave money to the Gates Foundation rather than the Treasury, probably because he thinks charities are more efficient at spending money for social change.
However, my point is that he may very well be an advocate for lowering middle class taxes, he may very well be an advocate of reducing the corruption within politics that favors the rich with loopholes.
You're drawing an awful lot of conclusions based on one simple statement.
Quote:
He could become evangelical about charity, talking about how much better his money is used by the Gates Foundation than the US government. But he doesn't... and that's why I feel he's a hypocrite.
How do you know he doesn't? He just gave billions to charity, how is that not evangelical about charity?
I often wonder what this country would be like if Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger had been running it for the past 50 or so years instead of investing all their time in Berkshire and Wesco.
I'm about as big a Buffetthead as you'll ever meet.
This is probably going to be a long post, so please forgive.
I've read every single thing he's ever written (He's never written a book as he is fiercely secretive of the minutiae of his methods, but he has written articles, blurbs and the biggest of them all, the Berkshire shareholder letters) and seen every interview he's ever given.
WB isn't an enigma, really... It isn't that he is a hard man to understand. The overall structure of his investing methodology is pretty well known (a general hybrid of straight Grahamian and Fischer theory with more than a hefty dash of his own.). It's more like his philosophy of life is a bit out of the mainstream, thus the rabble doesn't always understand what he does. This is a guy who remained married to a woman who didn't even live with him for decades.
First, understand that while WB is one of histories greatest capitalists, he isn't a totally "heartless" one. He believes to his very core that the things he does can be done by anyone and if you feel jealous that he's so successful, well, it's your own fault for not taking a similar path. The thing you will notice about WB after studying him is that he is an absolute analytical machine. He isn't an emotive sort of guy. Everything is addressed in terms of ratios and firm metrics rather than "feelings" and "opinion".
He specifically made sure that his children wouldn't inherit his obscene wealth as he believed it would "spoil" them. This strikes people as being kinda odd.. After all, your kids are your kids and who wouldn't want the absolute best for them? We all only get one life. Why not make sure your children's is as "enriched" as possible?
After reading the Charlie Munger book (Poor Charlie's Almanack) and understanding the thinking that people like Munger and Buffett operate with, it became clear.
While these guys are all about the dollar (which is what any good investor should be), they realize the path to get lies in cultivation of ones self. A betterment of ones personality. The more things you understand on a fundamental level, the better decisions you will make and as such, will profit thusly. Everything from philosophy to manufacturing to management theory to how cornflakes are made... All of this goes into their intellectual hopper and is contrasted against various problems in order to exit on the other end with the best decision possible.
They believe this applies to everyone. You, me, their own children. That which you earn is profoundly better than that which you're given.
WB is at a stage where the "game" for him is pretty much over.
It's a game he completely crushed and by a pretty damn wide margin. No pure investor in history has come even close to what he has done. Here he sits, an old man with billions of dollars who still lives in the same relatively modest home he bought for $35,000 in the 1950's, surveying an immense amount of personal wealth, trying to figure out what to do with it.
The analyst in WB understands that simply continuing to compound it at 15% a year and adding to his own personal bottom line won't achieve a whole lot more than what he's already done, given that he'll probably be dead in a decade, give or take. He now wants to use that wealth to implement some of the ideas that he strongly believes in. He understands that there are many essential issues and ideas that need funding but can't get it. He's in a position to make it happen, so that's what he's doing by giving his money away.
This isn't a "tax shelter" although if that was his intent, you can be rest assured that he wouldn't have a seconds pause in telling the world that's why he was doing it. He's starkly honest like that. He's doing this because he believes the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation has ideas that are essential for a better life and he wants to see them happen.
I remember that too... he says they should be taxed more but then he does this... AVOIDING paying his taxes... isn't that hypocritical?? Tax the rich except for him, I'll escape through this little loophole... I am sure some of that money is going to go towards charitable reasons but I have a hard time believing that, especially when he is stiffing us 50 billion dollars worth of taxes... That is our money that he is "donating" and I am sure he is getting a LOT of recognition and titles, fame, etc. etc. for what he is doing... What does everyone else think? Is it a grey zone??
As far as I know, Mr. Buffett is still alive. Therefore, as long as he's not promoting/facilitating death and laziness, he can do what he wants with the money that he's earned. It is still his money.
I watched a TV interview with him a few years back. Buffett has no intention of leaving his billions to his kids because he thinks each person should find his/her own way and he fears his kids would be spoiled and not do anything with themselves. Basically, he doesn't want his kids to end up like parasites, living off of daddy's money.
He implies this in saying that rich people don't pay enough taxes. While the superrich like himself often don't pay much in taxes at all because they have little income, but pull in money through investments rather than traditional income. They also have enough to pay laywers to work on loopholes and influence politicians to create those loopholes.
But... if he feels that the rich should pay more in taxes, and he uses his own situation to illustrate this point, I have to call out the fact that he does have the power, over himself, to contribute a higher tax rate than is required by the federal government. The US Treasury will accept donations.
Any money he would have donated to the US Treasury would not have gone to private charity. So I have to question why he feels private charity is better than donating it to the government. I know the answer, but I'd like to see him put his money where his mouth is.
If I had his kind of money, I would not give it to the clowns running this country. He pays his taxes. He does not make tax laws: the Congress does. Clearly, if Congress raised his taxes, he would pay them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
