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

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#101

Post by danenania » Mon, Aug 15, 2011, 5:30 AM UTC

j_baker wrote: post #67

TheSkeptic wrote: post #34

Funny. Buffett certainly didn't mind a little coddling in 2008. He was arguably one of the largest individual beneficiaries of bailouts which shifted ungodly amounts of toxic debt from failed private institutions to taxpayers. See http://blogs.reuters.com/rolfe-winkler/2009/08/04/buffetts-b... . While it's now mighty generous of Buffett to invite the government to increase his taxes, he could spare us another ( http:…

Our deficit is $14.6 trillion. TARP, which cost ~$80 billion (with still more to be paid back), is a rounding error in that deficit. Changing tax rates would have a much bigger impact on the deficit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program#P...

TARP is a rounding error all right--compared to the $16 trillion the Federal Reserve has provided to private banks behind the scenes. TARP was just political theater.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/07/21/audit-fed-gave-16-tril...

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#102

Post by MikeCapone » Mon, Aug 15, 2011, 5:30 AM UTC

danenania wrote: post #64

MikeCapone wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole financial system and everybody that depends on it was a beneficiary of the bailouts. If everything collapsed, everybody would have suffered. Buffett just happens to own a bigger slice of the market than almost anyone, so of course he benefited significantly. But singling him out, especially since he's stayed away from wall street's games and made extraordinary efforts to keep things above board for decades,…

"The whole financial system and everybody that depends on it was a beneficiary of the bailouts. If everything collapsed, everybody would have suffered." A narrative convenient for powerful banks that was created by powerful banks and allied politicians. People have suffered and continue to suffer because of the crimes these institutions have committed. Propping up their corpses only helps the criminals who created th…

That all sounds very good, but I'm sorry to say that without a banking system, everything in our society stops working, and the small guy would get hurt a lot more than billionaires.

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#103

Post by turar » Mon, Aug 15, 2011, 5:30 AM UTC

TheSkeptic wrote: post #34

Funny. Buffett certainly didn't mind a little coddling in 2008. He was arguably one of the largest individual beneficiaries of bailouts which shifted ungodly amounts of toxic debt from failed private institutions to taxpayers. See http://blogs.reuters.com/rolfe-winkler/2009/08/04/buffetts-b... . While it's now mighty generous of Buffett to invite the government to increase his taxes, he could spare us another ( http:…

Buffett is working for his shareholders to increase the value of their investment in Berkshire Hathaway in the best possible way.

Personally though, he already gave away most of his wealth to philanthropy via Gates Foundation.

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#104

Post by nessus42 » Mon, Aug 15, 2011, 5:30 AM UTC

rhizome wrote: post #82

MikeCapone wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole financial system and everybody that depends on it was a beneficiary of the bailouts. If everything collapsed, everybody would have suffered. Buffett just happens to own a bigger slice of the market than almost anyone, so of course he benefited significantly. But singling him out, especially since he's stayed away from wall street's games and made extraordinary efforts to keep things above board for decades,…

If everything collapsed, everybody would have suffered. Citation needed. There would still be demand that needed supplying, no? Some non-criminal companies would have happily stepped up to fill that void.

Citation needed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression#Demand-driven

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#105

Post by MikeCapone » Mon, Aug 15, 2011, 5:31 AM UTC

rhizome wrote: post #82

MikeCapone wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole financial system and everybody that depends on it was a beneficiary of the bailouts. If everything collapsed, everybody would have suffered. Buffett just happens to own a bigger slice of the market than almost anyone, so of course he benefited significantly. But singling him out, especially since he's stayed away from wall street's games and made extraordinary efforts to keep things above board for decades,…

If everything collapsed, everybody would have suffered. Citation needed. There would still be demand that needed supplying, no? Some non-criminal companies would have happily stepped up to fill that void.

I don't think you understand how everything is plugged into the credit markets and banking systems. I suggest you read Sorkin's book a as starting point.

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#106

Post by chailatte » Mon, Aug 15, 2011, 5:31 AM UTC

The combined wealth of American's billionaires is only $1.5 trillion. [1] If we taxed them 100%, it would only pay off our budget deficit for one year. We still have around 54 trillion total debt to pay down. Not to mention 115 trillion unfunded liabilities.

And which entrepreneurs would be stupid enough to work 14 hours a day and hire workers, knowing that the government will tax them 90%? They would all flee the country.

We have too much debt, period. From military, medicare, and social security spending. Problem is, if we reduce any one of these, either our soldiers returns home broke and angry, or the seniors die of starvation/disease. (35% of Americans already over the age of 65 rely almost entirely on Social Security payments alone. Median retirement savings of households over the age of 65 is less than $45,000).

Tough choice. But it looks like the current politicians aren't going to make a decision, but let Bernanke print dollars until hyperinflation arrives.

http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/03/10/140943.html

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#107

Post by MikeCapone » Mon, Aug 15, 2011, 5:32 AM UTC

turar wrote: post #103

TheSkeptic wrote: post #34

Funny. Buffett certainly didn't mind a little coddling in 2008. He was arguably one of the largest individual beneficiaries of bailouts which shifted ungodly amounts of toxic debt from failed private institutions to taxpayers. See http://blogs.reuters.com/rolfe-winkler/2009/08/04/buffetts-b... . While it's now mighty generous of Buffett to invite the government to increase his taxes, he could spare us another ( http:…

Buffett is working for his shareholders to increase the value of their investment in Berkshire Hathaway in the best possible way. Personally though, he already gave away most of his wealth to philanthropy via Gates Foundation.

99%+ of his wealth is in Berkshire, though, so the better Berkshire does, the more billions will go to Gates and a few other foundations (mostly run by his kids).

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#108

Post by Locke1689 » Mon, Aug 15, 2011, 5:32 AM UTC

TheSkeptic wrote: post #78

MikeCapone wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole financial system and everybody that depends on it was a beneficiary of the bailouts. If everything collapsed, everybody would have suffered. Buffett just happens to own a bigger slice of the market than almost anyone, so of course he benefited significantly. But singling him out, especially since he's stayed away from wall street's games and made extraordinary efforts to keep things above board for decades,…

You should do your research before making statements like "especially since he's stayed away from wall street's games and made extraordinary efforts to keep things above board for decades." Buffett didn't sit idly by while his holdings were threatened. He lobbied for, and supported, bailouts. Not content with bailouts of companies he owned large stakes in, he made sweetheart deals to invest in Goldman Sachs and GE kn…

None of the positions you linked are inherently contradictory. Especially in the derivatives trading I have the feeling you have no idea what you're talking about. Going back and requiring existing derivatives contracts could cost a huge amount of money and time that wasn't taken into account when they were first bought. Applying the regulation to future contracts is a perfectly reasonable suggestion (especially since the vast majority of derivatives contracts are short term).

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#109

Post by dantheman » Mon, Aug 15, 2011, 5:34 AM UTC

rdtsc wrote: post #54

dantheman wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's easier for people to control their government at the local level, than at the national level. For instance, the city of Cambridge a year or so ago removed all the DHS cameras that were put up after 9/11. That wouldn't happen if they were controlled at the national level. Look at gay marriage or marijuana, only a problem at the national level - let the states do what they want; it's less of a chance of one group going in and ruining it for everyone. Sure, it's probably not optimal there will be some laggards, and perhaps even backward progress. But overall, the system will be more stable and allow the most amount of freedom for those who want it - being able to vote with your feet is much better than voting in an election.

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#110

Post by webXL » Mon, Aug 15, 2011, 5:34 AM UTC

karmafeeder wrote: post #23

As a freshly minted middle-class American, I disagree with Mr. Buffet's argument here. Though his eagerness to share the tax-burden is laudable, I hope that tax rates stay low for him. I would pay higher taxes to keep it that way. Simply put, I don't trust the government with that money.

It's as if wealth is zero-sum, and Mr. Buffet believes he and his ilk have taken some of it from the rest of the population. But he's not going to go without his generous slice of the pie if his friends aren't forced to go without theirs. But he and some of his friends are voluntarily giving their pie to worthwhile causes... as we speak! no force necessary!

I would pay higher taxes to keep it that way.

The sad reality is that the government is going to have to raise revenue somehow, and if that's the case, I'd prefer to raise it on those with a lot of passive income, who are less likely to move their assets out of the country. How you achieve that objective is beyond me.