Why conservatives hate Warren Buffett

[alwaysinvert]

For the vast majority of people taxing capital gains means taxing work twice.

[Tim Eriksen]

Tim everyone wants to focus on the spending side. Some want to do nothing on the revenue side. No one says focus on revenues, everyone says either it will take a bit of both with mostly spending, or it will be all spending.

 

Maybe I am wrong, but I disagree.  I've specific proposals for example from Ryan and Coburn to cut spending.  I've heard of general proposals by moderates of both parties (leaving the  specifics of what is to be cut to be determined later).  Maybe I've missed it, but I have not seen any specifics on spending cuts by Democrats.  If everyone was really focused primarily on the spending side the Tea Party (which I am not a part of) would not be getting bashed and seen as extremists.   

[Tim Eriksen]

For those with an interest in moral philosophy, note that Gandhi said "Wealth without work" is one of the 7 DEADLY SOCIAL Sins. I think Buffett advocates taxing income from wealth at the same rate as income from work. In my humble opinion, this is only fair, & consistent with Gandhi's philosophy.

 

For those interested in Christian theology, consider God's revelation of his social wisdom to the OT prophets, i.e.in peaceful & just societies, ALL citizens will flourish. Faith in God's social wisdom, is reaffirmed by the Gospel of Luke, which characterizes Jesus as a "true prophet", who brings Good News to the poor. According to Nicholas Wolterstorff in "Justice", Buffett & Obama seek economic justice, so that ALL may flourish.  This is not "Class Warfare', according to Yale Law Professors, Bruce Ackerman & Anne Alstott, in the Huffington Post.

 

In short, I trust the wisdom of Warren Buffett.

 

Actually "wealth without work" is already taxed more than income from work.  If Buffett were proposing eliminating the corporate tax and having all profits pass through as income, or having the corporate tax rate equal the highest personal marginal income tax rate and eliminating capital gains and taxes on dividends, then you would be correct.  Buffett is doing neither one. 

 

I am not sure you really want to bring Christian theology into this.  Since you did, I will respond.  The historical Judeo-Christian belief (and what the Bible teaches) is that God gave Moses the law - in which God instructed them to set up a taxation system.  It wasn't progressive.  It was a flat rate applied to all.  Two annual tithes and a tithe every three years resulting in a effective rate of 23%.

[AZ_Value]

For the vast majority of people taxing capital gains means taxing work twice.

 

Yeah... alwaysinvert is right here, you can't just define it by wealth vs. work, unless your name is Paris Hilton taxing wealth usually means taxing wealth that someone has spend a lot of time working on and saving for.

 

But in general I agree with ubuy2wron and BSB and to me it's just a question of looking at society at large and deciding what is best for 300M+ people.

I'll repeat what others have said and agree that of course spending cuts that mean real reform and real savings and not kicking variable cans down the road.

However, people never expand on the term "cut spending", but if we're being frank about it means cut social security for retirees, cut all kind of benefits that go to those that are already living month to month and already don't have much room to work with. Now if we agree that some of this needs to be done to bring our financial house back in order, how does that make sense not to ask Buffett to share in some of the pain by paying more than 17% on his millions? It's just good common sense policy for the greater good in my opinion.

 

I am nowhere near where ubuy2wron is lol... I am firmly middle class working my way up hopefully, but if we're going to inflict pain on those at the bottom by cutting their social security checks they depend on for food, then even I should share some of the pain and pay a bit more to help clean up our fiscal house.

 

And for statements like these "instead of hating the rich , the poor and middle class should be thankful for them" I just don't understand them. Data clearly shows that over the last few decades the American pie has grown and the rich have taken home a bigger slice year after year and the middle is now shrinking and joining the bottom which is taking home a smaller slice. So what do they have to be thankful for? The fact that the rich pay more in income taxes hence the poor get food stamps and medicaid and what not? At the end of the day if one group is taking home more of the pie every year that group is winning the race, however way you want to look at it; the problem is that it eventually leads to social unrest when that group represents 1-5% and 95% is losing.

 

 

[Myth465]

In general terms I dont see how you argue the simple fact that one side wants only spending on the table and one wants spending and revenue on the table, with a strong focus on spending. Specifics are tough, you must first agree on things in principle / in general. Ultimately it doesnt matter, the American people will have to decide one way or the other.

 

I dont think the public wants all spending, and who ever lays out specifics will get wacked inmo. They best agree and do it together, but that wont happen. Its easy to talk about cuts, but you will be demonized if you implement them. Democrats are their own worst enemies. Unleash the GOP is my motto, my vote is 80 percent of Americans dont want to live in Paul Ryan's world, regardless of how pure and clean it is economically. We will also eventually have unrest... 

 

All this talk of wealth, work, double, triple, and all that is a waste of time. Bills have to be paid, lets just find an efficient and progressive (thats probably anti American now lol) but not restrictive way to do it. I am done arguing morally when it comes to taxation. Everyone has a reason for stiffing someone else with the bill.

[onyx1]

Data clearly shows that over the last few decades the American pie has grown and the rich have taken home a bigger slice year after year and the middle is now shrinking and joining the bottom which is taking home a smaller slice. So what do they have to be thankful for?

 

Maybe thanks for living in a country with a record of wealth creation unmatched in history?

 

"The poorest Americans today live a better life than all but the richest persons a hundred years ago.  In 2005, the typical household defined as poor by the government had a car and air conditioning. For entertainment, the household had two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR. If there were children, especially boys, in the home, the family had a game system, such as an Xbox or a PlayStation.  In the kitchen, the household had a refrigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave. Other household conveniences included a clothes washer, clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker."

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/07/What-is-Poverty

 

This was 2005.  Today, cell phones, computers, internet access, Ipods, etc. are most certainly on the list.  I'm not trying to incite a flame riot here, but simply offering a perspective that seems to be ignored in these discussions.  Is it possible that class-envy is contributing to the well-intended concerns about fairness?

 

 

[Tim Eriksen]

For the vast majority of people taxing capital gains means taxing work twice.

And for statements like these "instead of hating the rich , the poor and middle class should be thankful for them" I just don't understand them. Data clearly shows that over the last few decades the American pie has grown and the rich have taken home a bigger slice year after year and the middle is now shrinking and joining the bottom which is taking home a smaller slice. So what do they have to be thankful for? The fact that the rich pay more in income taxes hence the poor get food stamps and medicaid and what not? At the end of the day if one group is taking home more of the pie every year that group is winning the race, however way you want to look at it; the problem is that it eventually leads to social unrest when that group represents 1-5% and 95% is losing.

 

Once again the comment did not refer to the economic pie, it referred to taxation and benefits thus the data on income does not relate.  In terms of taxation and benefits the poor and middle class are not being abused.  They are net beneficiaries. 

 

Maybe it comes down to how we view fairness and justice.  Is fairness and justice about opportunity or outcome?  To me it is about opportunity with one proviso.  If the outcome of some is horrible then we have a responsibility to make sure they have their basic needs met until they can do it themselves.     

[Kiltacular]

"Charlie, it's not greed that drives the world, but envy."

 

-Warren Buffett

 

If you show me a society where greed doesn't pay, I'll show you one where envy is extraneous.

 

I want that  economic pie to keep growing.  I want the next Bill Gates or Larry Page to do his thing in my country.  He'll have more than me but I'll have more than I otherwise would.

 

What scares me -- the only thing that scares me -- is reading young, budding capitalists carry on and on about the inequities in the United States.

 

I understand many think the answers to these problems are obvious but many of them are as old as recorded human history.  It is why the ancient myths of the Greeks still resonate today.

 

As long as there are people, there will be inequality.

 

What is "new", what is uncommon, what is easily lost?:  societies that see constant improvements over time in living standards (in rights, in freedoms, etc., etc).  This is a relatively new phenomenon.

 

Hundreds and even thousands of years went by without an improvement in much of anything for the average person.  In many cases, things got worse over long time frames.  Improvement in living standards is not foreordained.  Before decrying things today, you must explain why things started to work in recent centuries.

 

Young people here, don't forget this.  Think it through.  In your zeal to solve these "obvious" and "simple" problems, don't kill the golden goose so that all other geese can avoid dealing with envy. 

 

The golden goose is a rare bird indeed.

 

All that said, the carried interest loophole should be closed -- it should have been closed a long time ago.  Buffett was paying 25% in his partnership days (50+ years ago) when the marginal rate was 70%. Unfortunately, as others have pointed out, closing this loophole won't solve our deficit problem...that's going to involve some pain that neither party's constituents are ready to face.  I guess that scares me a bit too... 

 

Those at the tippy top should recognize the golden goose too.  I believe they will when it is clear to everyone that big sacrifices must be made by all. 

 

 

 

[Myth465]

 

 

This was 2005.  Today, cell phones, computers, internet access, Ipods, etc. are most certainly on the list.  I'm not trying to incite a flame riot here, but simply offering a perspective that seems to be ignored in these discussions.  Is it possible that class-envy is contributing to the well-intended concerns about fairness?

 

All good points.  Perception though is typically reality and with 20% unemployment / underemployment perception doesnt look too hot right now. Its just not the time to be saying you guys have it good and us rich are suffering which is typically what you hear if you watch the news. I believe Buffett is much smarter than given credit, and he is interested in self preservation. Look at Egypt for how this will play off if people perceive they arent getting a fair shake. I have said it before, financial Darwinism will quickly be followed by actual Darwinism.

[Myth465]

 

Maybe it comes down to how we view fairness and justice.  Is fairness and justice about opportunity or outcome?  To me it is about opportunity with one proviso.  If the outcome of some is horrible then we have a responsibility to make sure they have their basic needs met until they can do it themselves.   

 

Tim I wish we all agreed on this. When I was a conservative this was my basic philosophy. Increase opportunities, and provide a net (very basic, doesnt include cable or a cell phone) to those that slip through. Unfortunately the Right inmo has gone to the Dog eat dog and Corporate Corny types of the world. The left has its issues though.....

[ERICOPOLY]

I believe Buffett is much smarter than given credit, and he is interested in self preservation. Look at Egypt for how this will play off if people perceive they arent getting a fair shake. I have said it before, financial Darwinism will quickly be followed by actual Darwinism.

 

How do you like Australia's riots in the streets so far?  Oh, they don't have them because they follow a wise path.

 

The rich have it better over there than the rich here:

1)  No gift taxes

2)  No estate taxes

3)  No property tax on primary residence no matter how extravagant

4)  No taxes on dividends from Australian corporations if already taxed at corporate level

 

I mean, that's pretty much the dream wish that would make any Republican sit up and take notice in Washington DC

 

In return the rich gave up:

$15 minimum wage

lots of social benefits

 

Take care of the little guys and they'll leave your fortune alone.

[Myth465]

Its very interesting here. Much flatter society. The average man makes $20 an hour, or $40k. You can be poor with dignity here. It seems like the only real difference between Working and Middle class is overseas vacations, nicer / closer accommodations / and higher quality beer / wine.

 

They do tax the hell out of alcohol, and everyone I know is huge into Gambling / Betting / Sport. Some of the biggest drinkers and gamblers in the world. Very interesting place thus far.

 

As I said the koolaid has been spread around and people are starting to buy all of the ideological rhetoric in the US. The poor will rise up, when they feel like they have nothing to lose. The Right inmo has no dream, no goal. They simple want it all. I dont see what they are willing to give up. Also you missed no taxes on Gambling - the little guy gets his there as well lol. Unemployment here though is weird, you can basically be on it forever is what I have heard.....

[rkbabang]

both sides have there rent-seeking crowds.  On one side you have politically connected corporations on the other public sector unions.

 

Exactly! Which is why both sides hate the libertarians.

 

 

This is where I think the media can provide a value-added service (identifying rent seeking groups trying to game the system) versus trying to blame liberals or conservatives for the wrongs of the world.

 

Unfortunately the traditional media are made up of large politically connected corporations and they, for the most part, support public unions.  The media represents the worst of each side.  They are a big part of the problem.

 

[enoch01]

both sides have there rent-seeking crowds.  On one side you have politically connected corporations on the other public sector unions.

 

Exactly! Which is why both sides hate the libertarians.

 

 

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."  Benjamin Franklin

[ERICOPOLY]

They do tax the hell out of alcohol, and everyone I know is huge into Gambling / Betting / Sport. Some of the biggest drinkers and gamblers in the world. Very interesting place thus far.

 

Anecdotal Australian media report suggests possible health benefit from having a massive beer belly:

 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/beer-belly-saves-bartenders-life/story-fn3dxity-1225834118808

 

[rmitz]

I believe Buffett is much smarter than given credit, and he is interested in self preservation. Look at Egypt for how this will play off if people perceive they arent getting a fair shake. I have said it before, financial Darwinism will quickly be followed by actual Darwinism.

 

How do you like Australia's riots in the streets so far?  Oh, they don't have them because they follow a wise path.

 

The rich have it better over there than the rich here:

1)  No gift taxes

2)  No estate taxes

3)  No property tax on primary residence no matter how extravagant

4)  No taxes on dividends from Australian corporations if already taxed at corporate level

 

I mean, that's pretty much the dream wish that would make any Republican sit up and take notice in Washington DC

 

In return the rich gave up:

$15 minimum wage

lots of social benefits

 

Take care of the little guys and they'll leave your fortune alone.

 

I was thinking about how they afforded it, then I remembered about the military.

[ERICOPOLY]

I believe Buffett is much smarter than given credit, and he is interested in self preservation. Look at Egypt for how this will play off if people perceive they arent getting a fair shake. I have said it before, financial Darwinism will quickly be followed by actual Darwinism.

 

How do you like Australia's riots in the streets so far?  Oh, they don't have them because they follow a wise path.

 

The rich have it better over there than the rich here:

1)  No gift taxes

2)  No estate taxes

3)  No property tax on primary residence no matter how extravagant

4)  No taxes on dividends from Australian corporations if already taxed at corporate level

 

I mean, that's pretty much the dream wish that would make any Republican sit up and take notice in Washington DC

 

In return the rich gave up:

$15 minimum wage

lots of social benefits

 

Take care of the little guys and they'll leave your fortune alone.

 

I was thinking about how they afforded it, then I remembered about the military.

 

Additionally, you give a lot back to the government every time you buy the type of things that fill closets in the USA.  This is acceptable once you realize that those things aren't all that important anyhow.  The people who want to flaunt their wealth with fancy lifestyle can do so to the benefit of all.  It becomes harder to feel jealous when it becomes obvious that the man in the BMW is driving around in the vehicle that is literally funding another citizens welfare checks for a full year.

 

Investing in Australian companies is rewarded by not taxing those profits a second time at the dividend level.  If the profits are earned overseas you get that second tax on the dividend (and the high income tax is high).  Perhaps if the USA tried that it would make investing in US companies that earn domestic profits more attractive.  I don't know if there would be any backlash from countries claiming it violates free trade agreements -- Australia being a small economy relatively can probably do a lot of things that the USA can't easily do.  For example, when your chief export is commodities I don't now how other countries are going to retaliate against your leveling massive import duties on foreign made goods.

 

 

[sswan11]

A small population (Australia and Canada) probably doesn't hurt (to afford it).  Either.  I'm curious how Australia tax system compares to neighboring New Zealand?

[BSB]

"At the root of America's economic crisis lies a moral crisis: the decline of civic virtue among America's political & economic elite". Distinguished economist Jeffrey Sachs supports the thinking of Warren Buffett in "The Price of Civilization". I choose to stand on the shoulders of these giants, along with Aristotle, Rawls, Sandel, & theologian Nicholas Wolterstorff in "Justice".

 

Tax rates for the wealthy (>$1 million) are at historical lows (along with adjustments & deductions at historical highs), while the NEEDS (not wants) of millions of Americans are not satisfied. What happened to our great country of justice for all?

[ERICOPOLY]

A small population (Australia and Canada) probably doesn't hurt (to afford it).  Either.  I'm curious how Australia tax system compares to neighboring New Zealand?

 

The population grew by 2% in 2009 (I'm too lazy to check the data for other years).

 

The place is also enormous (bigger than the 48 connected USA states), and the population I think is still smaller than California.  They can just let more people into the country if they want GDP to grow.  The whole aging boomers problem can be solved in this manner for them.

 

And they have national debt that seems manageable (well, they have $209 billion).

 

I met some people there this year from Yorkshire at the Flying Fox Cafe (a kids playground) in Mona Vale (along the beach near Sydney).  They had just moved but he said it's getting increasingly difficult given the long line of "economic refugees" trying to flee from Europe to Australia. 

[Myth465]

that was my big fear with my visa. Getting it in before things go south and they go negative on Immigration (or more negative). I dont think Oz will indefinitely be the lucky country but think its a nicer more interesting (something new for me) place to wait out the downturn. They do have their own issues tied to China and commodities which could both be hit pretty hard.

[ERICOPOLY]

I'm waiting for that too -- look at the ASX.  It's all banking and mining. 

 

So when commodities get routed and real estate is in the dumper, their share market (and dollar) is going to be a lot lower.  That's when I will shift a lot of money to AUD assets.

 

[Kiltacular]

Myth,

 

How long does your visa run?

 

Eric,

 

I know you have dual....but is it actually possible for a us citizen to become a citizen of Australia?

 

Thanks guys

[Myth465]

I am on a work and holiday Visa at the moment, just got approved for Sponsorship via Victoria state. Once that visa comes in it will last 5 years, I think then I can apply for PR if I am still down under.

 

Eric I love that I can play the currency game. I like that it went from 1.08 to 99 right before I came. Quite nice. Now if we could just get 75 cents for a bit.

[onyx1]

Tax rates for the wealthy (>$1 million) are at historical lows (along with adjustments & deductions at historical highs), while the NEEDS (not wants) of millions of Americans are not satisfied. What happened to our great country of justice for all?

 

Can you give some examples of the needs that are not being satisfied by millions of Americans?  Thanks