Gregmal

You do know that he decided at a relatively young age to give away his fortune? Munger confirmed it. I believe it's Andrew Carnegie's influence. If this was some vanity gesture to secure a legacy and be popular, you think he'd be giving it to someone else's foundation without putting his name on it and wouldn't do a bunch of high profile stuff in his name while he's alive to bask in the glory rather than compound as long as he can to give as much as possible? The situation has gotten a lot more extreme over the past 10-15 years when it comes the issue that Buffett is highlighting, which can explain why he's been more vocal about it. The rise of the financial sector and hedge funds and high paid executives has a lot to do with it. Before the 80s this world used to be very different -- read up on the shocking excesses of the time and they seem super quaint. But if you read his letters and interviews, Buffett has pretty much spent his whole life criticizing the financial sector and overpaid executives and bankers who add little value yet have carved themselves preferential treatment. This is just in line with his long-term views. But anyway, you didn't say it was unfair or fair. But if you do believe it is unfair for some of the mega-rich to pay 15% on their income while much, much poorer people pay much higher rates, then maybe you disagree with Buffett's way of trying to fix the situation. That's all right. But I think maybe you can understand that there's substance behind his position, and that he's genuinely trying to correct a situation that he sees as unfair and damaging to the United States, and he isn't just playing games for whatever end. Anyway, if Buffett is such scum to some of the posters here, I'd love to be able to shine some light on their lives to see how they fare in comparison... Quite contrarily it would seem, I actually have great admiration for the guy. He's a legend and as far as what he's done, all the praise is warranted. Should Tepper, Loeb, etc, be taxed at 15%. IDK. Do they need the extra money? Absolutely not. Its a sticky situation and my only issue is that Buffett had generally been one to call it as he saw it. Over the past decade he seems to consistently support a more liberal agenda(not even trying to get into politics here). Thus, IMO what I respect about an individual is their ability to give their 2 cents(2 cents that is consistent with who they are) without a bias or clear, predictable agenda. Ask Lizzie Warren what she thinks about ANY ceo and I'm sure its got a negative slant to it. That's the predicatable bias I'm referring to and regarding his stance on taxes, Buffett comes off as someone who's just trying to be pro-Clinton in a not so roundabout way. So not to rehash already made arguments, being against nepotism and then naming your son, the next in line, or deriding a candidate for using the same tax system you've used, to his advantage, simply because you would like to see the other candidate elected, is massively hypocritical. Maybe I'm mistaking his overly philanthropic and generally (of late) liberal leanings as his desire to polish his legacy. Its possible.

Yeah, how dare he pay himself such a low salary when most other CEOs of his stature pay themselves tens and tens of millions plus large stock awards and low-price options with easy vesting targets, not to mention non-monetary perks like fancy offices, large staffs, private planes, etc... ::) Many of those listed things Buffett has already enjoyed in spades in one way or another during his lengthy existence. Now however, much like Soros, given his age, things like his "humble salary" are far more significant because they allow him to craft a narrative that deceitfully wraps up his legacy as "kind, gentle, philanthropic, humanitarian" vs the opportunistic and shrewd, ruthless capitalist he truly is. Although I am sure Warren is thrilled there are people who interpret his 100k salary exactly as you have... Keep making stuff up if it makes you feel better and helps you support your ideological position. Buffett isn't saying this stuff to save a few millions or to be popular (this is actually the main thing that I see him criticized for, especially by his peers in the financial world who are worried about themselves). He thinks it's better for the country and for the system if the mega-rich who get favored treatment (15% carried interest, etc) were made to pay rates similar to other people. Maybe that seems unfair to you and you think they should keep their lower rates than everyone else despite being richer than everyone else, but don't pretend like Buffett's whole life has been a sham just so he could in his old age take positions like this. Taxes have been much higher than they are now during Buffett's life and it never stopped him from doing business. I'm sure you also view the fact that Buffett is giving all his money to charity and has convinced tons of other billionaires to do the same as some kind of nefarious scheme... Not quite sure what is "made up". Its well documented, even in this thread the many ways in which Buffett has become a major hypocrite over the past decade or so. I have no interest one way or the other in the carried interest debate as it does not effect me. I have never said it is unfair but it is quite cute of you to put words in my mouth to prop up your argument. If you don't think Buffett is far more aware of his "popularity" and legacy now than he was 20-30 years ago, then thats fine. But you are wrong. In fact, your last point about Buffett giving away his fortune pretty much solidifies my stance.

Yeah, how dare he pay himself such a low salary when most other CEOs of his stature pay themselves tens and tens of millions plus large stock awards and low-price options with easy vesting targets, not to mention non-monetary perks like fancy offices, large staffs, private planes, etc... ::) Many of those listed things Buffett has already enjoyed in spades in one way or another during his lengthy existence. Now however, much like Soros, given his age, things like his "humble salary" are far more significant because they allow him to craft a narrative that deceitfully wraps up his legacy as "kind, gentle, philanthropic, humanitarian" vs the opportunistic and shrewd, ruthless capitalist he truly is. Although I am sure Warren is thrilled there are people who interpret his 100k salary exactly as you have...

Spot on TXvestor. More or less the middle class is being eaten alive. My definition of middle class is probably a little more liberal than most for simplifications sake, but unless you are uber wealthy(8 figure NW and up) or super reliant on "the system"(under 40-50k/year AI), you are pretty much at the mercy of the system. The 8 figure NW people simply dictate the rules, while the lower end of the spectrum simply doesnt care and continues to vote as instructed provided they continue to get thrown their proverbial bone.

The entire system is skewed to benefit the ruling class. The few that are in live by an entirely different set of rules as the rest of the country. How long do you think a congressman waits in line at the DMV? How long do you think Buffett waits on hold if he has an issue with the IRS. How does wealthy rapper caught with a dozen assault rifles and drugs get 1-2 years and 22 year old no name minority caught with a gram gets jail plus probation for 5 years? There's people in jail for minor mishandling of classified information. Meanwhile Hilary gets off because she was simply careless but not deliberate? I probably couldn't even get out of a traffic ticket using an excuse like that.. yet this woman is running for president! Trump is 100% right in pointing out that its because of career politicians like HRC that the system is the way it is. And Buffett, being one of the few who benefit greatly, obviously is a proponent of it continuing. The most ironic aspects of the election to me where millennial favorite Bernie Sanders revealing that lowly ole champion of little guy made over 200k last year and paid less taxes "than his secretary".(that's the saying right?) Then you have career politicians, WJC and HRC, with 100,000,000 net worths. How exactly does one accumulate so much wealth on a civil servants wage? Harry Reid? Nancy Pelosi? Ted Cruz? Paul Ryan? Please explain this to me? And yet still, these same folks want to vilify the Romneys and the Trumps of the world who have built(and in some cases destroyed) their wealth largely taking risks, in the public eye. The level of hypocrisy is so stunning.