Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich • Hacker News Board

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#51

Post by andrewflnr » Mon, Aug 15, 2011, 4:53 AM UTC

dwolfson20 wrote: post #42

andrewflnr wrote: post #37

Warren buffet pays about 17%, and the people in his office pay an average of 36%. So the solution, the way to restore fairness, is to raise taxes on him? I don't really think so. Maybe I'm a bit of a wingnut, but I find tax rates of about 30% disgusting simply on moral grounds, and I don't see why the discussion should go much further. Surely one of a government's prime constraints should be not screwing its citizens…

Without government to pay for the roads citizens drive to their businesses, and the infrastructure that gives them water and temperature moderation, and 1,000 other things that are essential to provide for functioning commerce, citizens wouldn't be making so much money as they do. And I'd wager that effect is worth a lot more than 30%.

The question is, does it require more than 30%?

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#52

Post by dwolfson20 » Mon, Aug 15, 2011, 4:53 AM UTC

ck2 wrote: post #46

breck wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The great bulk of the legal voters of the South were men who owned no slaves; their homes were generally in the hills and poor country; their facilities for educating their children, even up to the point of reading and writing, were very limited; their interest in the contest was very meagre—what there was, if they had been capable of seeing it, was with the North; they too needed emancipation. -Ulysses S. Grant Peo…

I've come to the conclusion that the logic becomes "well if I can't have it, no-one will". People basically trying to take away assistance/help to others by trying to vote it away from everyone, since they somehow perceive themselves as better than others suffering on the lower rungs on society. This also explains why people try to vote away unions and benefits for teachers/schools, the very foundation of society, wh…

People can't vote away multi-million dollar CEO bonuses, though.

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#53

Post by wpietri » Mon, Aug 15, 2011, 4:53 AM UTC

dwolfson20 wrote: post #47

aj700 wrote: post #39

Taxing the money that moves - as it is earned - will only produce so much revenue. The rich need to be taxed, not beccause it will allow lots of lovely spending, because the gov will inevitably do a bad job of spending it. Though you could put it towards debt reduction first. You have to tax the money that doesn't move. The millions of unneeded unspent $ that the rich are sitting on, with a wealth tax. You may not ev…

It's a nice intention, but how do you devise that mechanism? If I keep $10,000 in my savings account for 30 years, are you going to tax it every year?

Yes, that's how it works: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_tax

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#54

Post by rdtsc » Mon, Aug 15, 2011, 4:57 AM UTC

dantheman wrote: post #40

BrainScraps wrote: post #16

Reading this just makes me think of all of the lobbying dollars and campaign contributions that must have been paid by the super-rich to get these tax breaks. Am I the only one that feels some populist rage welling up when he hears how much money is wasted on campaigning for office and influencing people in office? Aren't there more worthy uses of wealth and scarce resources? And it just pains me that so many people…

They only do that because it pays off. If the government was more decentralized and controlled significantly less dollars the incentives wouldn't be there and it wouldn't happen. It's a structural problem that happens in any system. Where power is concentrated it becomes beneficial to influence it - the more concentrated the more that can be spent.

I bet it wouldn't phase them a bit. They would create a watchdog professional organization (see US Chamber of Commerce) that makes sure local elections and appointments are influenced just as effectively as federal ones.

This already happens in judge elections in many states. Certain "business-friendly" candidates are showered in campaign money, with the expectations that when certain cases are appealed those judges will end up making "the right choice".

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#55

Post by geebee » Mon, Aug 15, 2011, 4:57 AM UTC

drblast wrote: post #14

Voluntary gifts of money can be sent to the U.S. Treasury at this address: http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html One has to ask, if any super rich person really considered the U.S. Government a worthwhile investment, why are they donating to various charities instead of to the Treasury?

The problem is that gifts to charity aren't coercive. I know, it's strange to say that it's a problem if it isn't coercive, and I'd agree that many of the inefficiencies of government stem from the coercive nature of taxes (no need to convince people to give you money if you can just take it by force). But I'm really a moderate in all of this - I personally don't think a modern state can survive on donations, or a "pay only if you think the government will do a good job with the money" tax code. We're gonna have to collect some taxes, rich people (in my opinion) should pay more than poor people, and there's no way people, rich or poor, are just going to pony up out of a deep affection and fondness for the federal government.

If tax rates are going to be paid and progressive (they actually aren't), then they'll have to be coercive. I think what Mr. Buffet is arguing here is that the rich need to be coerced into paying more in taxes than they currently do. I'm inclined to agree with him, even if I have to hold my nose as I do.

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#56

Post by wpietri » Mon, Aug 15, 2011, 4:57 AM UTC

Jach wrote: post #13

ecounysis wrote: post #8

I wish Buffett would run for president. He could probably get a few things done.

Alternatively buy the President + Congress.

Definitely. He might not be able to buy the whole thing, but as long as he substantially drives up the cost of a Congressman, that's a step forward. A couple hundred grand (and 10 million in lobbying money) gets you billions of benefits, which is way too cheap.

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#57

Post by rooshdi » Mon, Aug 15, 2011, 4:57 AM UTC

dwolfson20 wrote: post #31

andrewflnr wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good, he practices what he preaches. The point remains, paying higher taxes is not an efficient way to help your fellow man. You'll get much better bang for your buck donating to a worthy charity. Thought of this way, it's a simple question of utility.

This is an extremely abstract argument. It's a matter of degree. If everyone gave all their money to charity, we'd have no government at all.

Exactly, as much as some individuals would like to focus solely on the ills of government, there are socially beneficial programs supported by the government which need continual funding:

http://know.about.com/Government_Programs

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#58

Post by andrewflnr » Mon, Aug 15, 2011, 4:57 AM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #50

andrewflnr wrote: post #37

Warren buffet pays about 17%, and the people in his office pay an average of 36%. So the solution, the way to restore fairness, is to raise taxes on him? I don't really think so. Maybe I'm a bit of a wingnut, but I find tax rates of about 30% disgusting simply on moral grounds, and I don't see why the discussion should go much further. Surely one of a government's prime constraints should be not screwing its citizens…

I don't feel like I'm getting screwed. As a small business owner, I think I get fantastic value for the taxes I pay every year. It could be better, sure, but having lived on 4 continents, it's here that I've chosen to live and start my latest business.

I'm pretty sure that's because America does a better job of this than most other countries. Out of curiosity, what kind of rate are you paying?

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#59

Post by Umofomia » Mon, Aug 15, 2011, 4:58 AM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #20

If we want shared sacrifice, maybe we should ask people at the bottom to share as well. Anecdotes of Warren Buffet's office aside, in general the richest people pay the largest proportion of taxes. We already lean quite heavily on the top 1% - the top 1% actually pays more in taxes than the bottom 90%. http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/22652.html A graph of the data in that article: http://i.imgur.com/wa8uu.png…

It's interesting that all of these links talk about federal income taxes, but you talk about them as if they're talking about all taxes that people pay. Once you take into account payroll, sales, and sundry other taxes that people pay (many of which are pretty regressive), the system becomes much less progressive (it's still slightly progressive as a whole, but much less so than conservatives like to cast it).

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#60

Post by bandushrew » Mon, Aug 15, 2011, 4:59 AM UTC

dantheman wrote: post #40

BrainScraps wrote: post #16

Reading this just makes me think of all of the lobbying dollars and campaign contributions that must have been paid by the super-rich to get these tax breaks. Am I the only one that feels some populist rage welling up when he hears how much money is wasted on campaigning for office and influencing people in office? Aren't there more worthy uses of wealth and scarce resources? And it just pains me that so many people…

They only do that because it pays off. If the government was more decentralized and controlled significantly less dollars the incentives wouldn't be there and it wouldn't happen. It's a structural problem that happens in any system. Where power is concentrated it becomes beneficial to influence it - the more concentrated the more that can be spent.

Because that is true, it becomes worthwhile for lobbyists to invest money in encouraging the government to centralise control.

If lobbyist money can affect government policy - and it can - then it is always a worthwhile investment for those who have money to invest.

Basically, decentralizing government is, surprisingly enough, not a magic bullet.