Buffett Trump Rebuttal

[Gregmal]

Trump should've asked Warren why he doesn't even pay himself enough to hit the medicare/social security max.  His salary of 100K/yr is intentionally low to avoid paying income taxes, and has been that way his entire tenure at the helm of Berkshire.  How he gets away with paying himself less than any subsidiary manager is beyond me, he's even paid less than the other 2 capital allocators in the office.  He's a 73 year veteran of tax dodging to the max, now that he's at the end of his tax paying timeline he wants taxes raised.  Convenient timing to be pro taxes.

 

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...

[gfp]

Buffett pays tax on the total value of his compensation from Berkshire, which is over $400k annually.  This includes the value of personal and home security services provided for Warren and paid by Berkshire.  Unlike most other companies, Berkshire doesn't pay for any of Warren's personal aircraft use - a common taxable perk for other CEOs which is often "grossed-up" by the company - meaning the company pays the CEO's tax bill associated with personal private jet use.

 

Trump should've asked Warren why he doesn't even pay himself enough to hit the medicare/social security max.  His salary of 100K/yr is intentionally low to avoid paying income taxes, and has been that way his entire tenure at the helm of Berkshire.  How he gets away with paying himself less than any subsidiary manager is beyond me, he's even paid less than the other 2 capital allocators in the office.  He's a 73 year veteran of tax dodging to the max, now that he's at the end of his tax paying timeline he wants taxes raised.  Convenient timing to be pro taxes.

 

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...  ::)

[Liberty]

Trump should've asked Warren why he doesn't even pay himself enough to hit the medicare/social security max.  His salary of 100K/yr is intentionally low to avoid paying income taxes, and has been that way his entire tenure at the helm of Berkshire.  How he gets away with paying himself less than any subsidiary manager is beyond me, he's even paid less than the other 2 capital allocators in the office.  He's a 73 year veteran of tax dodging to the max, now that he's at the end of his tax paying timeline he wants taxes raised.  Convenient timing to be pro taxes.

 

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...

[Gregmal]

Trump should've asked Warren why he doesn't even pay himself enough to hit the medicare/social security max.  His salary of 100K/yr is intentionally low to avoid paying income taxes, and has been that way his entire tenure at the helm of Berkshire.  How he gets away with paying himself less than any subsidiary manager is beyond me, he's even paid less than the other 2 capital allocators in the office.  He's a 73 year veteran of tax dodging to the max, now that he's at the end of his tax paying timeline he wants taxes raised.  Convenient timing to be pro taxes.

 

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.

[Guest longinvestor]

Trump should've asked Warren why he doesn't even pay himself enough to hit the medicare/social security max.  His salary of 100K/yr is intentionally low to avoid paying income taxes, and has been that way his entire tenure at the helm of Berkshire.  How he gets away with paying himself less than any subsidiary manager is beyond me, he's even paid less than the other 2 capital allocators in the office.  He's a 73 year veteran of tax dodging to the max, now that he's at the end of his tax paying timeline he wants taxes raised.  Convenient timing to be pro taxes.

 

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.

 

+1.

 

Buffett has accomplished something very few have - how to handle wealth far beyond needs. No, his life is not a sham, he is a hero of our times. The Chinese, Germans etc who come to Omaha recognize this is a diamond in the rough.

[Liberty]

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.

 

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...

[Tim Eriksen]

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.

 

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.

[Gregmal]

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.

 

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.

[Liberty]

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.

 

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.

[Liberty]

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.

 

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).

[Mephistopheles]

Trump should've asked Warren why he doesn't even pay himself enough to hit the medicare/social security max.  His salary of 100K/yr is intentionally low to avoid paying income taxes, and has been that way his entire tenure at the helm of Berkshire.  How he gets away with paying himself less than any subsidiary manager is beyond me, he's even paid less than the other 2 capital allocators in the office.  He's a 73 year veteran of tax dodging to the max, now that he's at the end of his tax paying timeline he wants taxes raised.  Convenient timing to be pro taxes.

 

I'm in the "Buffett is a hypocrite" camp for taxes but this argument is ridiculous. Are you being sarcastic?

[Cardboard]

"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."

 

Liberty, the mega-rich do not earn between 1 and 10 million a year. They make billions each year.

 

Tax carried interest at regular rate if you want and you would catch guys like Tepper which I think is the right thing to do. However, you are still not touching the Gates, Buffett, Zuckerberg, Bezos of the world and that is where the big money is. The real mega-rich. The ones who see billions in appreciation of their wealth each year but, don't pay taxes and will never pay a cent on it.

 

Regarding Buffett paying for all his private jet usage, I think that it is being naïve a bit. How many meetings a year does he have to go to for business, then ends up spending the week-end somewhere to try out a new golf course?

 

Also, when you are as famous as he is, you don't have to pay for restaurants, clothing and other things. The merchants are more than happy to give it away for publicity. So unless you are a big gambler, like expensive jewelry, cars, multiple homes, it gets pretty hard to spend money when you are in shoes like his.

 

Cardboard

[Gregmal]

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).

 

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.

[Liberty]

"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."

 

Liberty, the mega-rich do not earn between 1 and 10 million a year. They make billions each year.

 

Tax carried interest at regular rate if you want and you would catch guys like Tepper which I think is the right thing to do. However, you are still not touching the Gates, Buffett, Zuckerberg, Bezos of the world and that is where the big money is. The real mega-rich. The ones who see billions in appreciation of their wealth each year but, don't pay taxes and will never pay a cent on it.

 

Regarding Buffett paying for all his private jet usage, I think that it is being naïve a bit. How many meetings a year does he have to go to for business, then ends up spending the week-end somewhere to try out a new golf course?

 

Also, when you are as famous as he is, you don't have to pay for restaurants, clothing and other things. The merchants are more than happy to give it away for publicity. So unless you are a big gambler, like expensive jewelry, cars, multiple homes, it gets pretty hard to spend money when you are in shoes like his.

 

Cardboard

 

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.

[Liberty]

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).

 

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..?

[Cardboard]

"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."

 

I guess that you have to if you want to really address the inequality that he seems to be talking about and tax the mega-rich. Otherwise it is hypocrisy plain and simple.

 

Said differently, you are ok to tax someone at 40-50% or so who sell businesses regularly but, you are taxing at 0% someone who keeps increasing the value of that business internally without ever selling. I know that there are corporate taxes to somewhat address that but, when Bezos never generates a profit at Amazon or Buffett never sells his Coca-Cola shares or swap P&G shares for Duracell tax free how does that look to you? 

 

Cardboard

 

[Gregmal]

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).

 

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..?

 

Trump is a horrible hypocrite. Possibly the worst of anyone. A direct contrast to the message he's trying to promote. Frankly, this entire election sucks. Either way we're going to have a sexual predator in the Oval Office again. Fortunately, as Buffett himself has said, regardless of who wins, America will go on and the quality of life will continue to get better for everyone.

 

So I suppose with Buffett, the disappointment here more so related to him being the gold standard of wisdom for decades, and now being just like everyone else; a puppet for propaganda and hypocritical rhetoric.

[Liberty]

"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."

 

I guess that you have to if you want to really address the inequality that he seems to be talking about and tax the mega-rich. Otherwise it is hypocrisy plain and simple.

 

Said differently, you are ok to tax someone at 40-50% or so who sell businesses regularly but, you are taxing at 0% someone who keeps increasing the value of that business internally without ever selling. I know that there are corporate taxes to somewhat address that but, when Bezos never generates a profit at Amazon or Buffett never sells his Coca-Cola shares or swap P&G shares for Duracell tax free how does that look to you? 

 

Cardboard

 

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?

[Cardboard]

"You really like to throw around the word hypocrisy, don't you?"

 

I really do in this case because Buffett is an expert at using the tax code to his advantage. There is no wrongdoing here. It is just that he advocates to tax everyone else but, himself and that is where I have a problem.

 

Regarding the average Joe, do you really believe that they have something against income inequality or it is more around wealth inequality?

 

Cardboard

[Mephistopheles]

I have no problem with Buffett arguing for higher taxes while avoiding taxes himself by not realizing his gains AND by donating everything to philanthropy. If you don't cash in on your net worth, you shouldn't have to pay taxes on it, that's my belief.

 

My peeve with Buffett is the whole bullshit secretary example, where he includes the payroll tax but not the benefit, includes the employers portion of the payroll tax, and ignores the double taxation of dividends and cap gains. Not only is this a crap argument but it also leaves him personally unaffected were they to change the rules he says. I'd respect him more if he argued to raise corporate income tax or lower corporate deductions, even if I may not agree with him.

[Liberty]

"You really like to throw around the word hypocrisy, don't you?"

 

I really do in this case because Buffett is an expert at using the tax code to his advantage. There is no wrongdoing here. It is just that he advocates to tax everyone else but, himself and that is where I have a problem.

 

Regarding the average Joe, do you really believe that they have something against income inequality or it is more around wealth inequality?

 

Cardboard

 

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?

[RichardGibbons]

Either way we're going to have a sexual predator in the Oval Office again.

 

Hillary Clinton is a sexual predator?  Just out of curiosity, what are you referencing here?

[Gregmal]

Either way we're going to have a sexual predator in the Oval Office again.

 

Hillary Clinton is a sexual predator?  Just out of curiosity, what are you referencing here?

 

Her husband. The Underwoods, eh, I mean Clintons have always been a two for one kind of deal. Putting WJC back in the White House isn't exactly going to make one feel better about themselves if voting against Trump is solely based off of contempt for his outrageous lack of control around the ladies. They are both world class poon hounds.

[Tim Eriksen]

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.

 

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.

I never said he was talking about people earning 150-250k.  It is hard to have a meaningful exchange if you don't carefully read what I or what Buffett wrote.  Buffett is talking about the mega rich in COMPARISON TO the middle class, so what the middle class pays is relevant.  After all that was his point that he pays more than his secretary, which is pure fiction.   

[rb]

Either way we're going to have a sexual predator in the Oval Office again.

 

Hillary Clinton is a sexual predator?  Just out of curiosity, what are you referencing here?

 

Her husband. The Underwoods, eh, I mean Clintons have always been a two for one kind of deal. Putting WJC back in the White House isn't exactly going to make one feel better about themselves if voting against Trump is solely based off of contempt for his outrageous lack of control around the ladies. They are both world class poon hounds.

Yea well the President's spouse doesn't generally hang out in the Oval office. Maybe Bill would take up gardening. I hear there's a plot that needs tending at the WH.

 

And the Underwoods? Really? If you say so. But Bill Underwood had an approval rating that went through the roof. Even republicans liked him. Don't think that there's that many people over all that would mind him revisiting the old stomping grounds.