Liberty

You keep shifting around from one thing to the other. It's like whack-a-mole, as soon as I address one thing you shift to another. Buffett didn't tear a new one to Trump for "using the tax code to his advantage", he did so because Trump is a liar and hypocrite about his tax returns, and because Trump compared himself to Buffett saying that "Buffett did the same thing" while Buffett paid taxes every year and Trump probably had a streak of almost two decades of not paying taxes. This doesn't mean that Trump did anything illegal, but he shouldn't have hidden the fact or pretended he was going to release his reports if he wasn't going to. Obviously Buffett thinks that people should follow tax laws and minimize their taxes; this doesn't mean that he can't think that maybe tax laws could be changed. Buffett wrote an op-ed about "stop coddling the super-rich" and wrote about closing exemptions that allow some super rich who earn more than $1m and $10m per year to be taxed at very low rates so that they are taxed at rates closer to others. He didn't set up a tent at Occupy Wall Street and adopt every single "inequality" belief that you seem to be projecting on him. Obviously Buffett believes that earning a lot of money should be possible. He's spent his life being a teacher on business and investing and admiring successful businesspeople and capital allocators. He didn't have to be a teacher, btw, most people who earn a lot of money never share their techniques and ways of operating. This is another way that he's been generous. He just thinks that the super rich shouldn't be further advantaged with favorable tax breaks. Why is that so complicated?

Buffett's proposal is about fairness, not about making people equal. If you make a lot of income but pay 15% because you happen to be making your money from certain favored sources while others who make a lot less pay double that, that's unfair. He never said anything about making Bezos and Zuck poorer and ending inequality with his proposal. And yes, if you don't sell a business, why should you be taxed on holding it? The government's fine with letting it compound and taking its share later because it'll be a bigger amount. And if the business fails, you won't be taxed, it cuts both ways. The business pays corporate taxes in the meantime, and if you receive dividends that's taxed too. And if you want to donate to charity, legislators have decided that this is something worth encouraging, so there are advantages to that too. I'm not the biggest fan of taxes or anything, I just think that whatever system we do have should at least attempt to be as even-handed as possible. No need to give further advantages to the group in society that is already doing the best. You really like to throw around the word hypocrisy, don't you?

Maybe a hair off topic, but I don't for a second blame Trump for not releasing his return right now. And Buffett, being a guy who is clearly smart enough to read between the lines and definitely capable of sizing up the current situation, shouldn't fault Trump either. But again, pushing his pro Clinton agenda, advocates it anyway. Can you honestly say it s a wise business, or more importantly personal choice for Trump to release his taxes in this environment? Good Ole Grampa Buffett gets praised for releasing a tax return because he's on the same side as all the major news outlets. It shouldn't take a genius to understand that should Trump release his returns, everyone, ranging from some small time j/o with the slightest understanding of tax law, all the way up to the most heralded forensic accounting firms (probably put on task with dollars coming from the Super PACs/Mark Cubans of the world) would immediately start dissecting his release with the full intention of trying to "find" some sort of evidence that would harm him, or at the very least, insinuate he's doing something awful and un-American. So that then begs the question, if you were Trump, why would you release your return? There is literally NO benefit to doing so. Oh, I understand that it's better for Trump to not be transparent. But is it a good thing? He's running for president. Buffett isn't. All presidential candidates release their tax records. Trump said many times in print and on camera that he would release his tax records. He's attacked others in the past for not releasing their tax records. So if he's not releasing them, it makes all the sense in the world that he's going to look like a liar and a hypocrite and people will think that he has something to hide (and apparently he did, based on the 1995 leaked document -- but I wonder what else is in the rest?). Should people just say: "Oh, it's better for him not to release them, because there could be embarrassing stuff in there. Fair enough, we don't want to know and won't hold it against him, he can play by different rules." You think republicans aren't scrutinizing the tax records of democrats and that Fox News and talk radio and a thousands websites wouldn't be all over things if there was something scandalous in these documents? Scrutiny comes with running for office, and the highest scrutiny goes for the highest, most high-profile office in the world. Trump just likes to have his cake and eat it too. I'm going to run for president, but I don't want to be held to the same standards as other presidential candidates. Well, it blew up in his face; maybe he shouldn't have been sexually assaulting women all these years and then telling his campaign not to do opposition research... What are the odds that there isn't some security camera footage of him grabbing a woman against her will somewhere..?

Are you saying unrealized capital gains should be taxed? That would be going much farther than Buffett. He's never suggested that as far as I know. As for the rest, I'm sure you're describing many people, but not the guy who buys hail-damaged cars only after his daughter pesters him to upgrade his car because it's getting too old... I'd bet he's a lot more scrupulous than most about not having Berkshire pay for personal expenses; if you're going to keep your salary and staff this low and have almost no perks, why then try to screw around and cheat? It'd be a lot more simpler just to increase his salary or perks and NOBODY would hold it against him because he's a model of restraint for a CEO. In fact, other CEOs don't want Berkshire to be used as a comp by compensation committees because he brings the average down so much.. I think you're mental model of Buffett isn't very close to the person that he seems to be in reality.

I enjoyed it and thought some here might enjoy it too. Good look at the realpolitiks of taking and keeping power in both dictatorships and democracies.

I'll leave out the rest because we're also going over ground that we've already covered, but on this point: I think he's only named his son in a position where he can be a kind of guarantor of the culture of BRK. He's not in any real position of power except as someone who can sound an alarm if he thinks that his father's wishes are not being respected. And maybe as someone who can offer some cultural continuity as some of the older board members depart over time. In other words, I think it would be nepotism if he said: "Howard is the best person to run Berkshire" when he's clearly not, but I think it makes sense to say "Howard knows me and my thinking as well as anyone because he's been around me all his life, and I trust him as much as anyone because he's my son and has proven his integrity on boards". In fact, not giving much of his fortune to his kids to make a point is kind of anti-nepotism. He'd probably have asked Munger if he was younger, or Gates if he was also younger and less busy with the Foundation (though Gates will no doubt play a big role). I've also not seen (but I could have missed it) him deriding people like Trump for using the tax system. But I've seen him point out how un-transparent and hypocritical they've been about it (ie. Trump not releasing his taxes after he said he would and after mocking Romney for taking a long time to release his taxes, trying to hide his big losses by pretending he's always successful, blaming an IRS audit when Buffett is also under audit and can release his taxes and even the IRS itself said it's fine for him to release his taxes, etc).

I can't explain why Buffett thinks the way he does, regardless his reasoning is flawed. If you look it up the rich pay a much higher percentage rate than the middle class or poor. There has been a massive decrease in the rates the poor and middle class pay due to the Reagan and Bush tax cuts. The poor now have negative rates, and lower middle class pays 1/4 of what they did 40 years ago. Just look up effective rates by income. We are massively more progressive. Yes I absolutely disagree with his overall point. Data does not support it. Of course there are some exceptions, but his point is more across the board than a few isolated issues like carried interest. The group that gets hit the hardest is the upper middle class earning $150k to $250k. Their income is almost all earned wages and they are ineligible for most subsidies (e.g. child tax credit). The current debate is all because one party is using it to deceive people. It is so commonly believed that few are willing to stand up against it. He's not talking about people earning 150-250k, he's talking about the mega-rich and his proposal only applies to those earning more than 1m and 10m and the goal is to bring their levels back closer to what other people who aren't getting special breaks pay. So talking about how the poor pay negative taxes or how the middle class pays this or that is a totally different question, which Buffett wasn't talking about in his piece about coddling the super-rich. But this is going in circles, so let's leave it at that.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-24/canada-s-swelling-debt-pile-raises-questions-over-future-growth

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...

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...

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... ::)

Where did Buffett ever say that those already paying high rates should pay more? In fact, I think he'd probably want to make the US more competitive with other countries on that front. I think he's been targeting people making tens and hundreds of millions paying 15% because they were favored by some exception. If we forget about his secretary for a minute and look at his overall points:

That's kind of a long list.

Trump travels in time to debate George Bush and Ronald Reagan : https://mobile.twitter.com/Khanoisseur/status/790233621806190592/video/1

Elon Musk AMA about SpaceX:

Don't know about you, but if I heard something like this about the CEO of one of my companies, I would sell. I also wonder if Trump helps everyone who comes to him for financial help... Bet he doesn't. Clearly thinks he's special and above everyone else, so I'm sure he doesn't think a comparison can be made.

Q&A with Malone (2012, some things still very timely based on what has been taking place lately): http://www.multichannel.com/news/content/unleashing-liberty-malone-muses-global-cable-content-us-economy/359967#.WA0PDD8TpZ0.twitter

Richard Branson's lunch with Donald Trump: https://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/meeting-donald-trump

Buffett either intentionally misleads about his taxes versus his Secretary or he is appallingly ignorant of how faulty his analysis was. 1. He used taxable income and not income to lower the denominator substantially which disproportionately impacted the calculations. 2. He included the employer portion of payroll taxes which disproportionately impacted the results. Once coudl further argue that this not only increased taxes for his secretary but it allowed him to act as if BRK (and thius himself as a look through owner) is not paying those taxes. 3. He excluded medical benefits form income which also disproportionately impacted results since the cost impacts the secretary more than him. 4. He includes payroll taxes but excludes future social security benefits, which for most people results in all the taxes plus being returned to them, which once again disproportionately impacted results. This accoutns for the majority of taxes the middle class pays. 5. He used himself as an example of the super-rich, which is problematic since nearly all of his wealth was not earned income but stock appreciation (Trump is also a bad example as his wealth is likely unrealized appreciation as well, except in real estate you borrow against the increase generating tax free cash flow). 6. He ignores corporate taxes entirely. As a business owner one could argue that you are paying whatever portion of the business you own. Of course the income of the business would need to be included as well. BRK has historically been a full tax payer. I'm not defending the particular example that he gave. You'd have to ask him to defend his choices. Maybe he would even say that he made a mistake with that example, but that his secretary isn't the reason why he thinks the way he does on this topic. I'm trying to look pass the tree to the forest. Do you disagree with his overall point that the taxation system in the US favors the wealthy, and that a lot of the backlash against elites and capitalism might go away if there wasn't the perception that there's a system for regular people ("suckers"), and there's a different system if you've got money/connections/power/top-shelf accountants & lawyers?... I feel like things would probably be a lot better if taxation was heavily simplified with lower overall rates but with fewer ways for sophisticated agents or influential industries to go much lower than those rates through clever structures and lobbying politicians for loopholes.

One more : http://variety.com/2016/biz/news/jessica-drake-donald-trump-sexual-misconduct-1201897982/ I believe that's number 11 now, I wonder how many more there are that just don't dare come forward because of all the negative attention.

It's all compromises. The senate is also super anti-democratic in many ways... but it also protects the smaller states from the bigger ones. The U.S. is a messy republic, not a messy direct democracy. I think the idea should be to keep refining the system and fixing the obvious problems (like partisan gerrymandering, or tacking on unrelated laws to big omnibus bills to pass them without scrutiny/debate) and not throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

This is a thread about Trump bringing Buffett into his fight and Buffett responding by being transparent about his taxes, so this was the topic. Saying "If he believed X he would do Y" is a strawman. I don't think Buffett agrees with your reasoning, and I don't either. Buffett has a right to express political opinions, especially on topics that he knows well (incentives, economics, taxation, etc). Buffett isn't saying that he thinks the government can better use his money than the Gates Foundation, he's saying that the current tax system is full of loopholes and exceptions and deductions and weird incentives, and that when you add it all together, it just so happens that the very wealthy are favored compared to say, the middle class, and that he doesn't think this is a good thing for the country because it breeds resentment against capitalism and the wealthy, among other issues.

So you're excusing his lying and hypocrisy, but the perception of it outrages you in Buffett? Pretty sure Buffett pays for all of his private use of the jet (he pays for Netjets time), and the company pays for company use. His salary doesn't pay for his lifestyle, the hundreds of millions that he made in his PA investing on the side pays for that stuff. But do you really want to attack the guy who doesn't even get a million in salary when the CEOs of companies a 100th the size of Berkshire, and that aren't getting nearly as good returns for shareholders, are paying themselves 100x what he's paying himself with huge perks and fancy offices? As for the rest, it doesn't make him a hypocrite, it just means that he made the comparison in a different way than you would've (it's arguable that payroll taxes are paid by employers, not by employees, even if the economic effect is probably the same). Regardless of the specifics, do you disagree that the current tax code could use an overhaul and that it currently allows certain privileged groups to pay much lower % than other groups, which might not be seen as fair? Personally, I get the feeling that he could've given any example to illustrate his point and you still wouldn't have accepted it, so it's not the flaw in his example that is problematic. Nobody's taking a choice away. All that Buffett is saying is that he thinks the current system favors the very rich and people in finance too much. Hedge fund billionaires pretending that what they earn isn't actually income isn't some law of nature, it's a system that was created a one point (back when nobody knew what a hedge fund was) and it can be readjusted. Everyone is still able to optimize their taxes, and they'd still be able to with a different system. And once you've paid your taxes under the law of the land, as Buffett does, then if you want to donate the rest, more power to you. I realize that higher taxation of the wealthy might negatively affect you and you have an emotional stake in this, but Buffett has a right to his opinion and he's stated it clearly. The hypocrites are those who pretend that they want lower taxes for the wealthy/finance people for the greater good while in fact all they care about is themselves.

I'm not a leftist, but I think you might be looking at things out of context, just the way some people want you to. Have you looked at each of those words in the context in which it was written (and by who it was said if not Hillary, and do you know that she automatically agrees with that person)? And wouldn't you agree that on all sides in politics some people and causes are puritanical, pompous, naive, radical, dumb, and there are some freaks who need to get a life? Seems pretty self-evident and uncontroversial to me. Not saying she never said bad things about people, but this sounds a lot like "gotcha" journalism... And wouldn't you like to know what Trump has been saying and writing in private? We've just got one tape and it's bragging about sexual assault...

Does it matter to you that Trump said he would release his taxes and that he blamed Mitt Romney for not releasing his taxes quickly enough and that all presidential candidates tend to release their tax reports to show transparency? Buffett is not being a hypocrite; he's not running for president and he's more transparent than Trump. Buffett never said that people shouldn't legally minimize his taxes, he's said he wished the tax system was different for everyone (it's not something that can work on a voluntary, one-by-one basis). And Trump is the one that brought Buffett into this by implicitly comparing himself to him (a laughable concept). At least when Buffett minimizes taxes it means more money for the Gates Foundation down the line; When Trump does it, it mostly means more golden thrones and giant portraits of him.