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

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#161

Post by tomjen3 » Mon, Aug 15, 2011, 6:34 AM UTC

keithnoizu wrote: post #144

tomjen3 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

More is a relative term, for instance he's not being taxed out of a holiday, eating out one or two times a month, having enough food to support his family, etc. The utility on that 7million is much lower for him than say 20k a year would be for someone making less than 100,000 a year.

More is not a relative term.

And no I am not talking utility, but cold hard cash numbers.

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#162

Post by hypersoar » Mon, Aug 15, 2011, 6:36 AM UTC

scottjad wrote: post #132

Warren is omitting very crucial information and knowingly deceiving most people. He's pretending he doesn't pay very many taxes, but he does, he just pays different taxes. In this article he mentions capital gains, income, and payroll taxes but does not mention corporate income taxes. Corporate income taxes are taxes on the owners of corporations. I don't know exactly how much he paid, but some quick math I'd guess h…

It's hardly fair to Berkshire Hathaway's income as part of Buffet's personal income. Unlike his own, its money is not his to spend however he likes.

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#163

Post by Locke1689 » Mon, Aug 15, 2011, 6:38 AM UTC

danenania wrote: post #148

Locke1689 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. This thread is a font of misinformation. The Federal Reserve lent $16 trillion in total transactions at the primary credit interest rate to banks over years worth of time. This number is clearly cited to provoke populist rage but is completely ridiculous when analyzed intellectually. Look, consider this analogous situation. You're having trouble meeting your short term debts but had a solid line of income so you…

What on earth are you talking about? Where did I or the article claim anything about amounts lent at any given time? A total of ~$16 trillion was secretly lent to failing financial institutions at extremely low rates over 3 years. That's just a fact and it's an enormous sum that dwarfs programs like TARP regardless of how the transactions were divided. If it provokes populist rage, maybe that's because it should.

If it provokes populist rage, maybe that's because it should.

I will no longer argue this with you as it is clear you are not interested in logic. I am not interested in clouding a debate with emotion so I'm done.

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#164

Post by lsc » Mon, Aug 15, 2011, 6:40 AM UTC

netmau5 wrote: post #26

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?

Most decent charities deliver far more per unit donated than the US government could ever wish to achieve. If you're interested in pure charity, you're not going to get much bang for your buck at the federal level.

really? I thought that there was something of a problem with some charities spending the bulk of their budget on marketing and CEO salaries.

as greenspun says: "The federal government funds roads and airports that we all enjoy using. The feds pay for health care for the poor and the old. Our tax dollars pay for intrepid military personnel who go out and kill angry foreigners (in most cases) before they can arrive on U.S. soil and kill Americans here at home. For a non-profit organization of its size, the federal government is surprisingly efficient. Most federal employees work in big box-like office buildings, not in $300 million monuments to an architect's ego. George W. Bush gets paid only $400,000 per year, less than half of what a lot of university presidents earn."[1]

I personally have a somewhat less charitable view of effects of military action, at least the military action during my lifetime, but I do think that most of the personnel involved do believe that they are doing the right thing, and those other things, roads and healthcare and stuff; those are pretty great to have.

Now, I'm too lazy to dig up non-greenspun references, but it seems that many non-profits serve up rather nice salaries, for rather inefficient work[2]

[1]http://web.archive.org/web/20090217002255/http://philip.gree...

[2]http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2010/07/27/where-your-cha...

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#165

Post by lotharbot » Mon, Aug 15, 2011, 6:40 AM UTC

dreww wrote: post #138

webXL wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This assumes low to middle income people are single issue voters and that issue happens to be the effective tax rate of billionaires. What's dumbfounding is that there are people who believe that wealth is zero-sum, and that by taking from the rich and giving to the poor, "justice" would be done, never taking into account what produces wealth or the fact that living standards have improved despite the rich getting ri…

living standards have improved despite the rich getting richer. Citation needed. Please explain how the living standard in the US can have improved if real wages have fallen. Oh wait, the answer is an incredible increase in consumer debt. That seems to be working out. Keep calm and carry on.

> "Citation needed"

I'm a big fan of the American Housing Survey (from the Census Bureau): http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/nationaldata.html

Data from 1970 - 2009, detailing living conditions for Americans as a whole. In recent years, many data tables have a column for Americans below the poverty line. Compare the data for living standards for the poor in 2009 to the overall population in 1973. By any reasonable measure of "living standards" I've been able to come up with, the data shows the poor in 2009 are doing well in comparison to the overall population in 1973.

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#166

Post by yummyfajitas » Mon, Aug 15, 2011, 6:41 AM UTC

kenjackson wrote: post #71

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…

I love the lies with statistics. "We already lean quite heavily on the top 1% - the top 1% actually pays more in taxes than the bottom 90%." The chart of course only shows federal income tax. What about federal payroll? What about excise taxes? And at the state and local levels, what about sales taxes? Here's a much better link: http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-17350-9_things_the_ric... From this article you'll…

If you have data showing that including payroll or state taxes change this picture, feel free to post it.

I gave the best data I have access to.

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#167

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Aug 15, 2011, 6:41 AM UTC

keithnoizu wrote: post #144

tomjen3 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

More is a relative term, for instance he's not being taxed out of a holiday, eating out one or two times a month, having enough food to support his family, etc. The utility on that 7million is much lower for him than say 20k a year would be for someone making less than 100,000 a year.

[deleted]

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#168

Post by InclinedPlane » Mon, Aug 15, 2011, 6:44 AM UTC

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…

I'm not overly put-out by the amount of money "wasted" on campaigns and elections. I understand that there are many different ideas on the nature and function of government and I believe debates on such subjects (and campaigns and elections, which are effectively the same thing) to be extremely important. Personally I think we should do much better and have higher quality campaigns and higher quality candidates, but I think it is fully justified that such enormously important processes require significant amounts of resources. Though also I could imagine, and might prefer, a scenario where the process was not nearly so expensive.

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#169

Post by keithnoizu » Mon, Aug 15, 2011, 6:45 AM UTC

tomjen3 wrote: post #161

keithnoizu wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More is a relative term, for instance he's not being taxed out of a holiday, eating out one or two times a month, having enough food to support his family, etc. The utility on that 7million is much lower for him than say 20k a year would be for someone making less than 100,000 a year.

More is not a relative term. And no I am not talking utility, but cold hard cash numbers.

And i'm talking percentage of income and percentage of income after deducting cost of living.

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#170

Post by DenisM » Mon, Aug 15, 2011, 6:49 AM UTC

scottjad wrote: post #132

Warren is omitting very crucial information and knowingly deceiving most people. He's pretending he doesn't pay very many taxes, but he does, he just pays different taxes. In this article he mentions capital gains, income, and payroll taxes but does not mention corporate income taxes. Corporate income taxes are taxes on the owners of corporations. I don't know exactly how much he paid, but some quick math I'd guess h…

Corporate income taxes are taxes on the owners of corporations.

Well, no.