Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 354 posts

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#121

Post by Locke1689 »

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…

The entire US financial system is based on credit and liquidity. Clearly something had to be done. Do I agree that the bailout was the best way to do that? No. But a timely bad plan was better than an untimely good one.

By the way, the argument that nothing needed to be done is opposed to practically every economics departments' opinion in the country. Maybe you know more about economics than we all guessed, but I think it's time you show a PhD instead of arm-chairing here.

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#122

Post by hugh4life »

pmorici wrote: post #94
hugh4life wrote: post #68

"But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate. " If you really want to see something get passed, you're better off putting the cuto…

Buffet is talking about "Taxable Income" meaning a small business or family farm would have to be making 1 Million in profits for it's owners before they would actually be effected by such an increase in rates. Consumption tax would likely put an undue burden on the poor because where as the rich invest and save a large portion of their income the poor spend close to 100% of what they make on things like food and hou…

"Buffet is talking about "Taxable Income" meaning a small business or family farm would have to be making 1 Million in profits for it's owners before they would actually be effected by such an increase in rates."

I understand perfectly... go ahead, put the cutoff at 1Mil and you're going to lose politically.

"Consumption tax would likely put an undue burden on the poor"

I don't care... I'm mocking the idea of "shared sacrifice"... the poor pay almost no taxes.

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#123

Post by MikeCapone »

Locke1689 wrote: post #108
TheSkeptic wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sinc…

btw, When Berkshire acquired Gen Re (a massive reissurer), they closed down its derivatives book. It cost Berkshire hundreds of millions and took years, but they closed that book because they couldn't understand these derivatives.

The ones that Buffet has invested in are way more straightforward, don't pose any systemic risk, and have very different collateral requirements than the toxic stuff.

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#124

Post by _cbsz »

reader2000 wrote: post #113
chailatte wrote: post #106

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 co…

Stop fabricating numbers. The US National debt is about $14.5 trillion, not anywhere close to 54 trillion. Btw, the Bush tax cuts — costing $1.8 trillion from 2002 to 2009 — are a big reason we got into this deep hole. Buffet: I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.

Had you checked the first google result for United States debt, you would have found where the confusion is coming from: the national debt is 14.5 trillion, and the total debt is 54 trillion (Source: http://www.usdebtclock.org/). I'm guessing "total debt" according to the debt clock includes things like state governments and private citizens, although Wikipedia claims that the 14.5 trillion figure is total debt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt).

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#125

Post by hugh4life »

shangaslammi wrote: post #100
hugh4life wrote: post #68

"But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate. " If you really want to see something get passed, you're better off putting the cuto…

How on earth does consumption tax have anything to do with "shared sacrifice"? Consumption tax wrecks the purchasing power of the poor (who spend pretty much 100% of their income on taxed goods) and doesn't have any effect on the purchasing power of the super rich (who typically only spend a minor portion of their income on consumer goods).

"How on earth does consumption tax have anything to do with "shared sacrifice"? "

I'm mocking the idea of "shared sacrifice"... the poor pay little taxes, if they're not giving anything up then they're not sacrificing anything.

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#126

Post by [deleted] »

MikeCapone wrote: post #102
danenania wrote: post #64

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." 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.

[deleted]

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#127

Post by tomjen3 »

geebee wrote: post #55
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 "p…

Even at the current tax rates, Buffet properly pays more than you do. And he certainly pay more than those who are on the various forms of government relief.

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#128

Post by jeffreymcmanus »

splat wrote: post #99
jeffreymcmanus wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not necessary (or even wise) to decentralize government in order to remove the influence of money on politics. One relatively easy change that would almost completely remove the quid pro quo bribery effect of campaign contributions is to anonymize contributions so that candidates never know who their contributions are coming from. That way there would be no payback possible, and influence peddling through campai…

I suspect that forcing donations to be anonymous would come into conflict with the first amendment.

If you really believe that campaign contributions are constitutionally-protected speech, then outright political bribery should be legalized.

Anonymizing campaign contributions wouldn't have an effect on political speech and it wouldn't have an effect on who you gave money to. (You'd still be free to say who you contributed to. You'd also be free to lie about who you donated to.) It would only change the way the money was handled, with the ultimate effect of removing the quid pro quo from donations.

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#129

Post by MikeCapone »

steins wrote: post #69
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,…

Prehaps they all benefited, but it seems as if the bailouts benefited the most irresponsible people far more than the rest of society. The banks should have been allowed to fail. The only reason capitalism works is by providing a huge incentive to do things right. Bailouts like these will convince companies they can get away with the same thing in the future.

People talk as if shareholders in companies like AIG and Citi escape scot free. Citi is down 93% and AIG is down 98%.

The point was that you didn't have a domino effect that took down the whole world economy (no industry that is bigger than a corner store can function without a banking system). Throwing out the baby with the bathwater just so you can punish some people is counterproductive.

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#130

Post by MikeCapone »

danenania wrote: post #116
MikeCapone wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Without a banking system? The idea is to have a banking system that works and follows the law and doesn't require trillions in handouts to stay solvent, not no banking system.

I totally agree. But that wasn't the choice that people were faced with in 2008.
Post reply on HN