31–40 of 72 posts
Err, no it isn't. It's the science and art of placing money where it will grow the most. That is neither equivalent nor synonymous with "does the most good".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You picked the least interesting point of Markham's to disagree with. These two were more interesting: > Ok, I'm calling bullshit. What does "sensible investment" mean? Does it mean the amount invested, the risk, and the amount expected in return? Because last I checked, you'd take the amount you're getting in return and decrease it by your tax rate. He then goes on to note tax-deferred and tax-advantaged investments…
Anyone who has the imprudence to argue with Warren Buffett, the savviest investor of all-time, is most likely a victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect. If you can't understand why, then you also may be a victim of the same effect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anyone who has the imprudence to argue with Warren Buffett, the savviest investor of all-time, is most likely a victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect. If you can't understand why, then you also may be a victim of the same effect.
How about this? http://www.gabrielweinberg.com/blog/2008/05/the-dumbest-thin...
Force is unethical. The government's fundamental tool--which distinguishes it from most other organizations--is that it forces people to do stuff under the threat of violence (and it often actually employs violence to demonstrate that it is serious). The government is therefore unethical. Taxes shouldn't exist at all, because it just a protection racket from a scaled up version of the mafia. The answer is not to scal…
This is not initiation of force. It is enforcement of contract, in this case an explicit social contract. Many libertarians make a big deal of "men with guns" enforcing laws, yet try to overlook the fact that "men with guns" are the basis of enforcement of any complete social system. Even if libertarians reduced all law to "don't commit fraud or initiate force", they would still enforce with guns.
It's explicit? Great! Can you tell me exactly what this explicit contract says, who signed it, and how it is that whoever signed it managed to get my power of attorney?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anyone who has the imprudence to argue with Warren Buffett, the savviest investor of all-time, is most likely a victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect. If you can't understand why, then you also may be a victim of the same effect.
> Anyone who has the imprudence to argue with Warren Buffett, the savviest investor of all-time, is most likely a victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect. So you can't argue with him about... -Parenting? -Philosophy? -Regulation? -Physical fitness? > If you can't understand why, then you also may be a victim of the same effect. Markham pointed out that capital is going to be invested differently if tax laws change. I mea…
'changing tax laws is going to change capital investment' is not an argument against changing tax laws. Capital investment is affected daily by economic growth, interest rates, investor confidence, and a large number of other factors. Buffett points out in his OpEd that when capital gains tax were much higher in the past than they are currently, economic growth was higher than it is now. This implies that higher capital gains results in more effective investment. Until you can counter that, you do not have a point to make (and please, no more comparisons to Mongolia).
Also, only someone affiliated with the Nazi party would try to come up with an addendum to Godwin's Law. Sorry, I had to.
For people saying "It won't make a difference on capital investment" I point you to the Windfall Profits Tax in Mongolia. It was a 68% tax on any mining deposits found. Well, so what? If you're profitable, who cares if some is taken off the top? But if you thought that, you'd be mistaken. Simplified example: You're thinking of building a mine. It's going to cost you $100M. There's a 50% chance the mine contains $220M…
If I have (say) a 5 year period to carry forward capital losses and that over that time I can open several mines (as you suggest), then the tax is essentially applied to the average profit as opposed to the peak profit. I suspect this tax-efficiency of scale is a significant reason for why you end up with huge corporations in such industries (oil and gas, minerals). Opening a single "mine", the failure of which results in bankruptcy and no future profits from which to deduct losses, is essentially taxed out of viability in an expected-value sense, whereas a large portfolio in an enduring profitable company is profitable in an expected sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not initiation of force. It is enforcement of contract, in this case an explicit social contract. Many libertarians make a big deal of "men with guns" enforcing laws, yet try to overlook the fact that "men with guns" are the basis of enforcement of any complete social system. Even if libertarians reduced all law to "don't commit fraud or initiate force", they would still enforce with guns.
> in this case an explicit social contract It's explicit ? Great! Can you tell me exactly what this explicit contract says, who signed it, and how it is that whoever signed it managed to get my power of attorney?
There are several explicit means by which people make the social contract with government. The commonest is when your parents choose your residency and/or citizenship after your birth. In that case, your parents or guardians are contracting for you, exercising their power of custody. No further explicit action is required on your part to continue the agreement, and you may end it at any time by departing and renouncing your citizenship.
Immigrants, residents, and visitors contract through the oath of citizenship (swearing to uphold the laws and constitution), residency permits, and visas. Citizens reaffirm it in whole or part when they take political office, join the armed forces, etc. This contract has a fairly common form: once entered into, it is implicitly continued until explicitly revoked. Many other contracts have this form: some leases, most utility services (such as phone and electricity), etc.
I think the author is making a small fallacy regarding investments. He assumes that as the capital gains tax rises, investment will fall because the investor will make less money. This seems true for small investors, who might decide to "not invest" their money, and instead find starting their own business will have a higher return than buying GOOG stock. But if I have $1 billion to invest, then I don't have the opti…
No it doesn't. I could buy an extensive auto collection. Or a yacht or some paintings. Something that is pretty much guaranteed to depreciate, but at least I'll get some use value out of it in the meantime. (This is why when Britain had top tax rates close to 100%, people bought Bentleys and Rolls-Royces.) When investment is taxed at punitive rates, consumption becomes more attractive.
Either Buffett is making a point so fine I have missed it,
or he's just blowing smoke up my ass. He doesn't know people
who don't invest when you decrease their return by a
significant percentage? What? If he's not fighting for
each percentage point here and there, just what the
heck kind of investing is he doing? Can I get in on
some of this action?
I didn't refuse, nor did others. I have worked with
investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone
-- not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent
in 1976-77 -- shy away from a sensible investment
because of the tax rate on the potential gain.
People invest to make money, and potential taxes have
never scared them off...
Here's where the author gets lost: Either Buffett is making a point so fine I have missed it, or he's just blowing smoke up my ass. He doesn't know people who don't invest when you decrease their return by a significant percentage? What? If he's not fighting for each percentage point here and there, just what the heck kind of investing is he doing? Can I get in on some of this action? This is in response to this stat…
This certainly might be a true statement, or not, depending on the specific tax policy. Can you tell me exactly what policy Buffett was advocating? Because I couldn't find it.
There are 3 possible arguments here.
Argument 1: I, being rich, should pay more money. I don't think Buffett is saying that, because if he felt that way he would just pay more.
Argument 2: The government needs money. We have it. They should come and take it. I couldn't find any mention of government need. He's not saying that the super rich should pay more because it's needed. He's saying they should pay because it's the right thing to do.
Argument 3: The rules should change so that things are "fairer". If this is his argument, which I think it is, then what, exactly does he want to change? Without knowing that, you can't make heads or tails of whether or not tax policy would effect everybody the same or not. Note that if he's arguing for specific policy, it might be that he personally ends up paying no more, or even less. If this is his thesis, then how much he or his buddies actually end up paying has nothing to do with it. He should describe what exactly would be "fair".
There's no argument here, really. It's just Buffett saying he should pay more of his fair share and some friendly poking at the Republicans. His piece seeks to convey feeling, not make a case and support it (Note the folksy telling of how much experience he has and how rates don't matter.) That't great -- it could still be an awesome article. But it doesn't hold together well to try to take the ideas and go somewhere with them.