Buffett on CNBC

[txlaw]

The media blitz continues.

 

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=3000131277&play=1

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=3000132012&play=1

 

Love the timing of this.  Let's hope this is helping with the fiscal cliff compromise that needs to get done.

[Guest rimm_never_sleeps]

I don't think I've seen him quite as prickly as he was here. This really is an important issue for him. He thinks it's grossly unfair for the super wealthy to only pay 15% on their income.

[jeffmori7]

As I don't have a lot of time now, of all the recent interview Buffett has been doing, probably telling more or less the same story everywhere, which one do you recommend?

[fareastwarriors]

As I don't have a lot of time now, of all the recent interview Buffett has been doing, probably telling more or less the same story everywhere, which one do you recommend?

 

The Charlie Rose interview. it touched on many topics, feel free to skip around.

[Cardboard]

Well, I enjoyed Joe challenging him this morning about how he accummulated $50 billion of wealth without ever really paying 35% income tax. Sure, he would pay it going forward on his $100,000 salary and on his personal portfolio whenever he sells or receives income/dividend, but it amounts to nothing really when you compare to how much his wealth goes up overtime tax free. Joe acknowledged his great gift to charity, hence that these organizations are likely a better avenue for his wealth than to the IRS. There was also some talk about the payroll tax like some members have discussed on this board.

 

Anyway, it did touch on many points that many of us discussed here. So after listening to this conversation, I am kind of divided. You have the rich who never pay much tax and then give to charity tax free and you have the rich who receive more income over time via capital gains who can either spend a lot, which should go back to society in some ways, or that can also give to charity. So why should we tax more one vs the other? Is accruing wealth without selling a more moral avenue than selling securities once in a while? Wouldn't be better to have a very large consumption tax on pricey items and a large death tax over certain amounts?

 

Cardboard

[Green King]

As with many problems context is key.

 

If you are giving the money to charity and have it to be spend over a short period 10 to 15 year for Buffett. Which will be allocated by his kids and Gates do good to the world. Than it is a better allocation as compared to the current government allocation of funds.

 

But if the money is left to selfish decedents who dose not understand wealth in a capitalist society. who just wants all for the self and not care about the survival of society or the species. And just want more and more without paying its fair share. Than taxation by government is fair. Those who want to be selfish and don't want to pay society's fair share should be required by law. Since society provide them with all they have and without a functioning society non of us will be better off.

 

point about execution it is very hard to force people to do things they don't want. If they understand the reasons behind it most people will supported. (Being Canadian I have no right to decide just making commentary.) 

 

 

Side note

 

I think it was Marx who was a supporter of a 100% death tax. So that those with wealth will try their best  to make society and environment better for all since they can't practice favorites.  But what does those communist know.  (execution is key

for that to happen all the people should understand what is being done and the reasons for it and support it. or in our case a majority. So abuses of power and regulation will not occur. )

 

abuses are very easy if one knows what they are doing.