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

321–330 of 354 posts

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#321

Post by seabee »

epscylonb wrote: post #295
seabee wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'Progressive' as used in the same context as your original post is basically a placeholder for 'benefiting the groups I care about'. It's not a meaningful word to use, and you even know that. Contrast with 'progressive tax', which is well-defined. I don't understand the line of thinking which effectively says "people don't want to earn £2 if they have to pay £1 in tax". Erm, you're still richer than you were if you d…

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. > The problem with the libertarian perspective is that it irrationally assumes the best of people when there is no incentive for them to do so. I assume no such thing about people regardless of whether they are rich or poor. I think crux of our disagreement is about the involvement of government in peoples lives. I heard a quote recently, "The more the government tries…

> I think crux of our disagreement is about the involvement of government in peoples lives.

The involvement of government in particular does not concern me.

My concern is the involvement of any powerful group.

If all you seek is a reduction of the state, you leave a void waiting to be filled by corporatocracy.

The argument of left vs. right, authoritarian vs. libertarianism is a red herring, what really matters is the distribution of power. Given that money is approximately power and that the government is more accountable to me than an individual, I have no qualms about the higher tax rate.

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#322

Post by lotharbot »

antidaily wrote: post #258
yyyyyyy5 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is getting absurd. Poor people in America aren't as poor as you think. I absolutely hate it when people like you generalize how poor people live. Reading a blog post does not make you an expert on the poor or the bottom 1%. Try living it, like my family has. None of us are starving (a lot of us are fat in fact), and we all have smart phones and game consoles.

Obesity is directly related to being poor in the US. Its cheaper to buy off the Dollar menu than fresh produce, etc. etc.

It's cheaper to buy off the Dollar menu than to buy out-of-season, expensive fresh produce (like raspberries, red peppers, etc.)

It's much, much cheaper to buy rice, beans, corn, potatoes, and pasta and supplement with cheap proteins (eggs, chicken) and cheap fresh fruits and veggies (melons, bananas, apples, cabbage, carrots; see the list starting on page 34 of http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/EIB71/EIB71.pdf ) Page 36 of the same report shows how an adult on a 2000 calorie diet can meet their recommended fruit and veggie intake for about $2 per day, with a pretty good variety (including some expensive options like strawberries.) This is more or less how I eat, and I'm just above the poverty line.

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#323

Post by danenania »

Locke1689 wrote: post #163
danenania wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sometimes emotion can be a logical response to events. If you feel disgust at the actions of a murderer or thief, there is nothing logically 'cloudy' about that--it's a justified reaction. You allege that simply stating a numerical figure that represents the sum of the Fed's loans over a 3 year period is 'designed to provoke populist rage'. My point is that if just printing this number leads to strong emotional responses, it's worth considering if those responses are justified. So you see, I'm not actually bringing my own emotions into the discussion, just countering your assertion that reporting the sum amount of the Fed's activities is somehow 'designed' to create anger. So it seems you're the one getting emotional here and taking your ball and going home. I'm just stating my thoughts. But anyway, c'est la vie... thanks for the discussion.

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#324

Post by tsotha »

Andrew_Quentin wrote: post #249
tsotha wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My memory is a little cloudy as well. Maybe you can tell me who continued all those things, and even extended them. But I thought we were talking about economics.

That's not really a counter argument. You stated republicans stand for small government, not democrats. You were given concrete examples which disprove what you stated. Arguing that the democrats are just the same is simply stating that republicans do not stand for small government.

No, I didn't say Republicans stand for small government. Some of them do. Not enough.

But certainly people interested in a small, limited government aren't going to vote for redistributive policies.

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#325

Post by jterce »

cromulent wrote: post #254
gaius wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does Mr Buffett employ an accountant to do his taxes? Does said accountant employ any tax avoidance strategies?

I don't know, but I would assume so. I think most people try to pay the minimum tax they are required to, and I guess that includes Mr Buffet. However, that's not the point. He's not saying "I want to personally pay more tax", he's saying "Why are people like me not being required to pay the same percentage tax as middle-income earners"?

Do you realize that the "same percentage tax as middle-income earners" would be LOWER than what they currently pay?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States...

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#326

Post by jfb_1973 »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #305
ender7 wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please supply a source for your claim in your first sentence.

I would appeal to simple reasoning: everybody has known that the U.S. is on an unsustainable spending curve due to entitlements for the last decade or more. The only thing that changes is how politicians choose to spin it from year to year. If you create a system where politicians get elected promising to spend money that doesn't exist, then such a system will outgrow any amount of revenue you can throw at it. If you…

'everybody has known that the U.S. is on an unsustainable spending curve due to entitlements'

I wouldn't agree with that. I would say that the problem is fighting two un-funded wars coupled with a decrease in revenues caused by the Bush Tax Cuts. Long term we have issues with popular entitlements such as SS and Medicare. But our immediate problems are generally due to the drop in revenues from the Bush era and an massive increase in military spending.

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#327

Post by webXL »

Andrew_Quentin wrote: post #244
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…

I think there is a point about fairness as well. Taxes are progressive for a reason. Those with the broadest shoulders should bear the greater burden. Warrent Buffet is perhaps giving away a lot of what he maybe would have given in taxes but plenty of billionaires or super rich just spend it on their spoiled sons and daughters, some who end up in rehab, spent a tremendous amount of resources to create a parallel soci…

1) the rich (top 10%) pay almost 70% of taxes. I wouldn't call that "so little"

2) you can't just take property from people based on a such wildly misused and subjective term as "fairness". Running a government is necessary for society to function. Everybody benefits, especially free-riders, crony corporations, politicians, and bureaucrats. The rich have the resources to fund a big chunk of the government, and they get a lot out of it too, sometimes to our detriment.

3) what does our deficit have to do with protest and riots in other countries?

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#328

Post by bmahmood »

Majority of the comments seem to be discussing the merits / morality of taxation, rather than Buffet's central points.

Entertaining the discussion on the merits of taxation, I've found John Rawls' Justice as Fairness to be especially enlightening. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_as_Fairness) Essentially, a just society is one in which decisions are made to benefit the worst-off in society. Given a majority of the factors that contribute to individual success are outside our control (what family you were born into, what neighborhood you lived in, what school you went to, etc), a just society would in turn be one which compensates for such naturally-occurring inequalities. He provides a well-thought out argument for how progressive taxation is a necessary (but certainly not sufficient) lever to do so.

Now in practice, it is true that our government has been terribly inefficient in managing tax revenue and creating public goods. But that shouldn't discount the role government can play. Realizing the potential reach and role of government, the goal shouldn't be to neuter it, but to make it more efficient.

On Buffet's central points, I find them hard to argue with. 1) Lower taxes on the rich in the last 10 years have been neither necessary nor sufficient for economic growth or job creation, especially in light of the 20 years before that. 2) The front-end drivers for entrepreneurs, VCs, and angels have more to do with product creation, addressing a market need, and simply playing the game. Money is of course a big part in too, but tax cuts only play a back-end behavioral incentive- they affect the NPV of behavior that was already in play. 3) Just because the actual tax revenue on the rich may not put a huge dent on the deficit (as some comments seem to imply), the point is that the billions in tax revenue it would raise could still stave of cuts to programs that the poor and middle class depend on.

(And larger food for thought on the role of tax cuts, and how they've contributed to the deficit http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/05/the-char...)

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#329

Post by AppSec »

tomjen3 wrote: post #200
keithnoizu wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That is a stupid way to measure how much one should pay in tax, honestly. You rent, electricity, food and clothing doesn't go up because you double your income (unless you move, but then you presumably get better housing too). Why should your tax?

Most people do move to better housing, buy more expensive food/clothes and use more electricity when they double their income. And as that doubled income doubles, the amount they are willing to pay for/use those items also goes up. Just as the amount they are willing to haggle for these items goes down (note: I'm talking about majority, I know there are exceptions).

So yes, your tax should go up with it as well.

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#330

Post by scottjad »

DenisM wrote: post #320
scottjad wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, thank you for your informative response. Without a corporate income tax owners can withdraw the incomes minus dividend taxes. With corporate income tax they can withdraw income minus corporate income tax minus dividend taxes. How can you say they're not the ones paying the tax when the money could go directly in their pockets if not for the tax?

Corporate money belongs to the corporation, not to the shareholders. Corporation is a separate legal entity, it has its own property rights and its own will power. It also has an obligation to heed the interest of all stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, managers, customers, the public etc. Shareholders exert certain level of control over corporation, similar to how the board, the management, the employee…

My understanding is that most tax incidence economists believe the corporate income tax is primarily born by shareholders. Sure it's a very complicated issue, but if you pin it on one party then shareholders is the least inaccurate.
Post reply on HN