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

61–70 of 354 posts

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#61

Post by BrainScraps »

dantheman wrote: post #40
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…

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'm sure that it pays off for a percentage of organizations, but for many, that game represents a lot of time, money and effort that create no value.

And with campaign contributions? Come on. For the federal elections of 2008, we used $5.3 Billion dollars. What did we get for it? The exact same number of elected officials we would have if we spent $0.

What value was created? Better representatives? Quality entertainment?

What else could that money have been used for? As I said earlier: Ugh.

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#62

Post by dwolfson20 »

andrewflnr wrote: post #51
dwolfson20 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without government to pay for the roads citizens drive to their businesses, and the infrastructure that gives them water and temperature moderation, and 1,000 other things that are essential to provide for functioning commerce, citizens wouldn't be making so much money as they do. And I'd wager that effect is worth a lot more than 30%.

The question is, does it require more than 30%?

Maybe. It depends on what we as a society want our government to spend money on. Considering our current demands in this country (no cuts to entitlements), I think it requires at least that much.

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#63

Post by yaks_hairbrush »

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 U.S. Government could be a worthwhile investment (as a charity), but it's not doing so right now. We could raise taxes to invest in infrastructure, which would increase future GDP. A charity cannot do this owing to eminent domain issues.

That's the real rub about this deficit/debt limit drama: it wouldn't be so bad if the government spent in areas to increase future GDP. However, the government is basically an old-age insurance program with a large army. I don't see these expenditures contributing greatly to future GDP.

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#64

Post by danenania »

MikeCapone wrote: post #41
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:…

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 the situation. Clearing out bad businesses so that new ones can take their place is a central pillar of capitalism. If you really believe a bunch of billionaires who claim the world's going to end if they lose their billions, well, you're gullible at best. Far from forestalling suffering, the continued operation of these entities and their influence on legislation perpetuates it. Their collapse is the best thing we could hope for, even if it causes short term turbulence.

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#65

Post by bandushrew »

andrewflnr wrote: post #51
dwolfson20 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without government to pay for the roads citizens drive to their businesses, and the infrastructure that gives them water and temperature moderation, and 1,000 other things that are essential to provide for functioning commerce, citizens wouldn't be making so much money as they do. And I'd wager that effect is worth a lot more than 30%.

The question is, does it require more than 30%?

surely you should have an answer to that question before you start claiming that 30% is screwing you?

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#66

Post by zacharycohn »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #25
dwolfson20 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe take a look at Buffett's charitable record sometime.

Why does Buffet donate to charity rather than the treasury? Does he believe that the government will use his money less efficiently than the organizations he donates to?

Because even if Buffet donated every penny he had (approx 50 billion), it would barely make a dent in the US debt (approx 14.5 trillion).

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#67

Post by j_baker »

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...

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#68

Post by hugh4life »

"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 cutoffs at $5mil and $25mil(maybe even slightly higher). The $1mil cutoff sounds nice in a soundbite and it polls well, but it's not hard to find sympathetic faces(small businesses and large family farms) who would get caught up in that. His cutoffs would end up hurting the the "upper middle class" and the "lower rich" more than the "super rich".

And if you want "shared sacrifice", you should be talking about a consumption tax.

What this country needs most is a firm federal spending cap at 20% of GDP. There would be less opposition to raising taxes and balancing the budget if the measuring stick for spending wasn't tax revenues but the GDP.

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#69

Post by steins »

MikeCapone wrote: post #41
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:…

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.

Re: Warren Buffett: Stop coddling the super rich

#70

Post by ck2 »

dwolfson20 wrote: post #52
ck2 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've come to the conclusion that the logic becomes "well if I can't have it, no-one will". People basically trying to take away assistance/help to others by trying to vote it away from everyone, since they somehow perceive themselves as better than others suffering on the lower rungs on society. This also explains why people try to vote away unions and benefits for teachers/schools, the very foundation of society, wh…

People can't vote away multi-million dollar CEO bonuses, though.

They vote against "clawback" taxes on those bonuses, it's the same thing as saying the bonuses are okay.
Post reply on HN