Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktThe WSJ demonstrates again the seemingly bottomless hypocrisy of Warren Buffett. It cannot be said enough…this man is a charlatan. – SC
Admin note: Above is from Scott. I was working on something to add to it but was having trouble with editing…….so this is it. (lms)
Filed under: Uncategorized |
All Things in Moderation 
I really don’t understand the hate aimed Buffett’s way except as retaliation for his class warfare traitor status. Personally I think he is just an extreme example of how well one can do on a random walk, that is someone is bound to be as lucky as he was in investing. It’s just the law of averages.
But his business practices really don’t affect the two main messages he is sending:
1. Capital gains should not be given preferential tax treatment.
2. Enormous wealth should not be inherited.
Attack the man all you want but I see no problem with the policies he is advocating.
And what is with never spelling his name right? Is it a Democrat Party thing? Normally I’m above spelling nitpicks, but this seems deliberate.
LikeLike
yello:
I really don’t understand the hate aimed Buffett’s way…
I really don’t understand why someone wouldn’t understand the distaste for a liar and hypocrite.
But is business practices really don’t affect the two main messages he is sending:
Of course they do. Why should we take him at his word about what he thinks is morally required when his practices show him doing his best to avoid that very requirement?
Normally I’m above spelling nitpicks, but this seems deliberate.
What in the world makes it “seem” that way to you? The fact that I misspell it has never been pointed out before, so I didn’t even realize it. It’s fixed.
LikeLike
Is it a Democrat Party thing?
I had to stop and think what you meant, for perhaps three seconds (are Ds purposefully misspelling “Buffett”…no…I get it…subtle.).
I agree with you on your points, conditionally. The conditions being that we are keeping the current personal income, gift, and estate tax system, and tweaking it to raise revenue, and creating a single personal/family exemption and a single tax bracket. Further, conditioned upon a single corporate tax bracket on net income with a single corporate exemption, but allowing for the deductions of dividends paid by corporations, we could jettison corporate capital gains.
Or we could keep brackets, but revert to an income averaging system like we used to have that did not punish a small businessperson for having, say, 2 good years in 5.
But I make these arguments from four bases: 1] raise revenue where you can, 2] exempt the poor from all but the contribution to SS related stuff b/c that is all they can afford, and Adam Smith argued for exempting the poor in 1776 b/c not doing so would be counterproductive, and 3] simplicity [Rosanne, my wife with the MS in Taxation and CPA says she will retire when that happens], and 4] if a tax system either cannot raise enough, all else considered equal, or proves out to provide real economic disincentives to work, or impresses a true hardship well beyond annoyance it must be retinkered.
Or we could scrap the income tax.
But Buffett shorthands his argument as one based on morality without recognizing that if his low tax rate is offensive to his sense of right and wrong he could volunteer more. That is a crux of a conservative criticism. Ashot and I think it is a logical criticism and a material weakness in Buffett’s argument, but are not motivated to thus call him a “POS”. The call for him and his secretary to release their tax returns is a valid political response, but also not one that moves mountains for me. As an illustration that the successful investor class pays a lower tax rate on its income than the successful white collar and professional classes, it works, even were it to prove to be a false example.
LikeLike
Warren B. is a liar and a hypocrite?? How so with evidence?
Ad hominems on a person really do not advance points at all. It doesn’t discuss the issues either in any way for there to be a give an take.
A lie is something that is said knowing that it is a lie.
When I see expressions such as this it tells me that something’s lacking.
I really do not have a dog in this hunt. I’m obviously a democrat, but I was hoping the Republicans would offer someone I could vote for. What I see going on in Congress, however, is not going to change with a change in the administrative branch. I see the obstructionism tit-for-tat continuing. If there was chance of this going away I would dig down deeper looking at things, but the Democratic Party still meets my ideals better than the Republicans.
LikeLike
mcurtis:
Warren B. is a liar and a hypocrite?
Yes.
How so with evidence?
He claims that he pays less in taxes than he secretary. This is a deception, in that he is ignoring the corporate taxes that he pays as equity owner. He knows it is a deception. He is a liar.
He suggests that tax rates do not effect the investing decisions of investors. He knows this is false, as he makes investing decisions based on tax rates. He is a liar.
He claims that it is unjust that he pays lower tax rates than his secretary. It is within his power to correct this alleged injustice, yet he not only avoids correcting it, he takes steps to magnify this alleged injustice. He is a hypocrite.
Ad hominems on a person really do not advance points at all.
I am not making an ad hominem attack. If a person is lying about the argument he is making, the proper counter is to point out that he is lying.
LikeLike
Let me add this article here:
http://www.omaha.com/article/20120127/NEWS01/301279949/672
Mike
LikeLike
I can’t debate people who simply call other people liars. It will not work with me.
You do not really know what he is thinking. You have no way to know this. Period.
No, he pays less than his secretary and you suggest he correct it. His overall argument, I think, is that as a group people who “earn” what he does pay too little in taxes. As a group they need to pay more. He can’t pay the debt all by himself to any great effect. That is how I take it.
Sorry.
LikeLike
mcurtis:
I can’t debate people who simply call other people liars.
Then don’t.
You do not really know what he is thinking.
I know what he says, and what he does. What he says and what he does is a fair enough indication of what he thinks about such matters.
LikeLike
Let me include this about calling names:
http://www.experienceproject.com/question-answer/How-Does-Calling-People-Idiots-Liars-Fakers-And-Psychos–Inform-Persuade-Or-Motivate-Anyone–Rhetoric-Really/584459
Mike
LikeLike
The hypocrite charge is pretty weak because Buffett is more than willing to pay more taxes if everyone in his situation were treated the same. That he doesn’t do so unilaterally just means he isn’t a sucker.
Buffett has also rather publicly pledged most of his fortune to charity. Mitt Romney counts his charitable contributions to his church as part of his 40-50% burden. Is he a hypocrite too?
LikeLike
yello:
The hypocrite charge is pretty weak because Buffett is more than willing to pay more taxes if everyone in his situation were treated the same. That he doesn’t do so unilaterally just means he isn’t a sucker.
Obviously you misunderstand the charge.
Do you need a law to compel you do things that you think are just, or to prevent you from doing thins that you think are unjust?
If a man says that it is wrong to beat one’s wife, and argues that there should be laws against beating one’s wife, but continues to beat his wife in the absence of such laws, he is a hypocrite. His actions show that his objections are insincere. If he refrains from beating his wife because he thinks it is wrong, even in the absence of a law prohibiting it, he is not a sucker. He is a man of conviction.
LikeLike
yellowjkt:
I think you said what I was saying much better. Thanks.
LikeLike
Buffett does not claim to pay less in taxes than Debbie Bosanek. He stated that the percentage of his income that is withheld is significantly lower than that of hers. You can bet that both of those tax bills were computed to the centavo. The demand for tax returns is essentially a political one. I suggest that it applies equally to Grover Norquist. After all, we deserve to see what impact of ATR’s proposals on its president’s tax bill.
Scott is making is an argument of opinion–that any calculation of capital gains must be incorporated into tax rates. One of the savviest businessmen in the country evidently disagrees with him. Calling him a liar just diminishes the argument and makes it clear how much Buffett has gotten under the skin of conservatives.
We’ve addressed the hypocrite charge in the past. It applies equally to anyone who is paying a different tax rate. Buffett is no more a hypocrite than Scott, who believes that he should be paying a lower tax rate (based on past discussions). S’all right. I’m the same kind of hypocrite. The only loser in that charge is the quality of language. Or, as Inigo Montoya said: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
BB
LikeLike
FB:
The demand for tax returns is essentially a political one.
So is the use of Buffett and his secretary as props in this debate over taxes.
Scott is making is an argument of opinion–that any calculation of capital gains must be incorporated into tax rates.
Really? What I am saying is that Buffett deliberately ignores corporate tax rates, which in the US are among the highest in the world. Those who make capital gains holding equity, as he does, are taxed twice on the same income, first as corporate income, and then as capital gains when the capital gains are realized. To ignore this in order to pretend that he is paying a lower tax rate than his secretary is a deception. The notion that Buffett doesn’t know this, and is not deliberately ignoring it, is absurd.
One of the savviest businessmen in the country evidently disagrees with him.
Ah, the appeal to authority. Buffett must be right because he’s a rich businessman. Hmmm.
We’ve addressed the hypocrite charge in the past.
Each time it is “addressed”, it is conflated with a charge that has not been made. This is demonstrated by…
It applies equally to anyone who is paying a different tax rate.
No. You clearly misunderstand the charge, or are deliberately misconstruing it. The charge does not rest on the mere fact that he is paying a different rate, nor that he wants policy changed so that he pays more. It rests on the claim of injustice in what he currently pays. So it does not apply to anyone paying a different tax rate. It applies to anyone who claims that they themselves pay an unjustly low rate, but then fail to pay what they consider to be a higher, just rate.
The only loser in that charge is the quality of language.
My language has been clear and correct. That you and others repeatedly misconstrue or ignore the claim I am actually making in favor of something else is on you, not my language.
LikeLike
For Buffett to be a liar, it is required that he believes that the impact of corporate taxes should be including in his tax burden. As an alternative, there must be general agreement that corporate taxes should be included in personal tax burdens. As there is no such consensus, one must know what Buffett thinks, not what he does.
That’s why the charge is ineffective at persuading anyone to disregard Buffett.
BB
LikeLike
FB:
That’s why the charge is ineffective at persuading anyone to disregard Buffett.
That the charge is ineffective at persuading you does not mean it is ineffective at persuading anyone. And let’s be honest. The charge is ineffective at persuading you for the simple reason that you agree with the policy he is advocating.
BTW, if corporate taxes are not a personal burden on those who own the corporation, then on whom are they a burden?
LikeLike
Fairlingtnblade: You have far more patience with this than I. 🙂
LikeLike
Capital gains are not double taxed and Berkshire Hathaway pays no dividends. Corporate taxes don’t enter into the calculus.
LikeLike
yello:
Corporate taxes don’t enter into the calculus.
Who pays corporate taxes?
LikeLike
Scott
I really don’t understand why someone wouldn’t understand the distaste for a liar and hypocrite
At the risk of having my head handed to me..lol…go easy I am invoking my status as newbie(how long does that protection last btw?) and so I’m simply curious as the genesis of such a passionate insult.
Calling someone a hypocrite and a liar is a very harsh charge. And so just two thoughts from my perspective.
1.) If I accepted your statement at face value I would immediately go to the “motivation” of Buffet. If he was simply ignorant, I would conclude your charge was overly harsh. If he is doing this intentionally for his own personal, or his family or friends personal gain, well then that would be worthy of such condemnation IMO.
And so my question for you Scott…is what do you suppose Buffet’s motivation might be for him to lie and act hypocritically?
2.) This is simply an observation on my part. You know an opinion and all that they say about “opinions”
You have failed to make a point, as has the WSJ, backing the charge of hypocrisy.
Just to be clear before the “Socratic Method” comes raining down upon me…said with affection and respect Scott not snark…
hy·poc·ri·sy [hi-pok-ruh-see] Show IPA
noun, plural -sies.
1.
a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2.
a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.
At first I thought perhaps Scott you might have a case of at least some dissembling on Buffett’s part. But I went back to his “infamous?” editorial and he clearly was pointing to FICA as the “tax” that tipped the scale in his example.
So he was not lying or stretching the truth. You wish to fall back on the “double taxation argument”, but even that argument depends on whether a company declares dividends or reinvests in their company…in America..and perhaps allowing their companies to pay “workers” a higher wage, therefore making their companies more profitable in the long run. But double taxation arguments could take up a dozen other posts and so let’s just agree to disagree about that for the moment.
The WSJ keeps trotting out the same canard you have used repeatedly. That Buffett uses the tax codes to his and his companies advantage. DUH! Should he simply make a donation to the Gov’t calling it his favorite charity…which of course would hardly help create a fairer tax policy, or should he be free to use the examples he sees to advocate for policy change?
But the closing paragraph of the WSJ is the clincher alright…but not for hypocrisy…
“This brings us to the Buffett Rule, which at its heart is a way to raise taxes on dividends and capital gains. Berkshire still doesn’t pay a dividend, and as for capital gains taxes, well, Mr. Buffett has already made clear that he’ll largely avoid them by transferring his fortune to the Gates Foundation and to charitable trusts controlled by his family. In fact, at the 2010 Berkshire annual shareholders meeting, according to Dow Jones Newswires, Mr. Buffett urged attendees to “follow my tax dodging example” and give away their wealth.’
And so…because Buffett plans to give the substantial part of his fortune away to charity he is an evil lying hypocrite? Because he has arrived at the same conclusion as folks like Carnegie, Rockefeller and other wealthy tycoons before him that inherited wealth in too large a magnitude is not good for our country or it’s economy. Many, not just Buffet, but many economists believe a variation of that same thing…when wealth becomes too concentrated it leads to bad economic results. That is another topic to debate another day though Scott.
You can disbelieve that theory but disagreement doesn’t mean the “other” position is a lie or hypocritical.
To me the real question is “conflict of interest” It goes back to the first question I asked you? What is the motivation. If you’re advocating for something that effects all Americans I hope the answer would be the “good of the nation”.
I think Buffett is sincere…however if you can come up with a truly convincing answer to my first point and quesiton, one that shows at minimum “conflict of interest” or even some diabolical plot…well then perhaps I can yet be convinced that Buffett is a “lying hypocrite”
When I look at MItt Romney I do not begrudge his use of the rules to profit. DUH what else is he supposed to do? We are all supposed to “play by the rules” and he has. What I begrudge is he and his cronies inordinate POWER to create favoritism in those rules at the expense of the middle class. And when I see him advocate a tax policy that would provide even more cuts to his wealthy class I ask…could there be a conflict of interest? Could it be just a little bit possible that Romney thinks this is a good idea because HE and HIS family and friends stand to benefit greatly? But I won’t call Romney a lying hypocrite…I think he is sincere. I think he believers that in spite of all the evidence to the contrary if he can cut taxes even more it’ll be a boon to our economy….I think he’s out of touch with the reality of everyday working Americans…doesn’t make him evil, or lying, or hypocritical…but it makes him somebody who in my judgement is not qualified to get the best deal for the middle class.
LikeLike
ruk:
I have to step out for a bit. I will respond later.
LikeLike
ruk:
what do you suppose Buffet’s motivation might be for him to lie and act hypocritically?
Could be lots of things. Obviously his political inclinations are a part of it. And he’s going to get a lot more attention paid to his political inclinations by making a “fairness” argument and turning it into something personal than by making an economic argument based on economic analysis.
You have failed to make a point, as has the WSJ, backing the charge of hypocrisy.
I disagree. I think the hypocrisy is plain. I think those of you on the left who don’t see it are simply refusing to see it because you agree with his policy position. I think the evidence of this is that counters to the charge of hypocrisy repeatedly misconstrue the charge, and pretend it is being made about something about which it is not being made. See FB below for the perfect example.
Should he simply make a donation to the Gov’t calling it his favorite charity
If he believes, as he claims, that his personal tax rate is unjustly low, then yes, that is precisely what he should do.
which of course would hardly help create a fairer tax policy,
But it would create a “fairer” personal tax situation for WB, by his own standards. Which is what the charge is all about. The charge of hypocrisy has nothing to do with whether or not the creation a “fairer” tax policy is being advanced. It has to do with whether or not WB himself lives up to the standards of justice which he proclaims as his own. Plainly, he does not. Not only does he not live up to them, he takes as much action as he can to undermine them.
because Buffett plans to give the substantial part of his fortune away to charity he is an evil lying hypocrite?
No, that is not the argument the article advanced. The argument is that he his a hypocrite because he claims that he doesn’t pay his “fair” share of taxes, but he does all he can to reduce the amount he pays. One of the ways he does this is by sheltering his money in charitable foundations.
But I won’t call Romney a lying hypocrite
Just because Romney is not a hypocrite for advocating lower taxes does not mean that Buffett can’t be one for advocating higher taxes. I don’t understand why you think your opinion of Romney is relevant to whether or not Buffett is a hypocrite.
LikeLike
Yellowjkt: To correct my ignorance on all this stuff, do you have link that completes the picture concerning capital gains, etc.
LikeLike
BTW Scott…sorry to post and run… i share your disdain for “drive bys” but it’s off for some honey do chores. I’ll check back later.
LikeLike
BB, let me add a little fuel to the fire here. B-H is a giant holding company, publicly traded. WB owns maybe a fourth of it, but controls it.
A year or so ago, it was reported reliably [B-H’s disclosures] that B-H had been fighting IRS over about a billion in taxes since 2002.
[Again, this means very little to me; I would not expect anyone to roll over, play dead, and pay more tax than the minimum required by law. However, as long as you are not volunteering to pay more, base your argument for more tax on some other strand than “t’ain’t fair”.]
LikeLike
One last question Scott again I’ll look for the answer tonight…
Do you really consider wife beating and tax evasion equivalent offenses?
LikeLike
ruk:
Do you really consider wife beating and tax evasion equivalent offenses?
Of course not. I never said they were equivalent offenses. I was using a stark example to show why yello's claim that Buffet's willingness to adhere to the law, if it was law, is irrelevant to the charge of hypocrisy.
LikeLike
Grumble. WordPress ate a response. I’ll have to get back to this later as I’ve a lot to do and only a couple of hours to do it. I will have to get back to this tonight. Here’s my variation on Scott’s question.
If the law said you have to beat your dog, even if you think it’s wrong, would you be a hypocrite for beating your dog?
BB
LikeLike
FB:
If the law said you have to beat your dog, even if you think it’s wrong, would you be a hypocrite for beating your dog?
Of course not.
This example, of course, bears no relationship to the WB situation. In your hypothetical, there is a conflict between what the law allows, and what one’s morality demands. The law disallows me from fulfilling my presumed moral obligation.
But in WB’s situation, the law does not prevent him from fulfilling his self-proclaimed moral duty. It is not against the law for him to contribute what he perceives as the “fair” share of his income to the government. Indeed, the government has specifically set up ways in which one can do just that. WB simply chooses not to do it.
Obviously your hypothetical is ill-conceived for your purposes.
LikeLike
Ah, the hypocrisy of Warren. It makes for an interesting exercise in moral reasoning.
mcurtis,
Ad hominems on a person really do not advance points at all. It doesn’t discuss the issues either in any way for there to be a give an take.
An ad hominem is an attack on the validity of claim or argument based on who made and not based on its merits. It is not ad hominem to say, A lied, therefore A is a liar. You consistently misuse the term.
I can’t debate people who simply call other people liars. It will not work with me.
Interestingly, you might also find that people have limited interest in debating somone whose comments tend to be so self-referential and focused on telling them that they fail to meet his intellectual standards, particularly standards of an illusory sort. This blog does not exist to serve you and doesn’t depend on you for approval or instruction in proper debate. If this debate isn’t working for you, you should probably resign yourself to permanent disappointment.
Scott didn’t simply call WB a liar. He linked an article made the case that WB is knowingly deceiving people, and concluded that he is a liar as a result. When you claim that Scott “simply” called him a liar, you contribute nothing but confusion and ignore the issues despite continually claiming that everyone else does.
No, he pays less than his secretary and you suggest he correct it. His overall argument, I think, is that as a group people who “earn” what he does pay too little in taxes. As a group they need to pay more. He can’t pay the debt all by himself to any great effect. That is how I take it.
Sorry.
His argument is a justice argument: it is unfair, i.e., unjust, for someone of his financial stature not to pay higher taxes in comparison to those of lesser means like his secretary.
The objection that he “can’t pay the debt all by himself” is not a logical objection to the claim that if his position were sincere he could very well and should as a matter of justice voluntarily pay his own “fair share.” To deny this is to claim that one person’s failure to do justice is justified by the failure of others to do justice.
Moreover, even if this objection were logically sound, it would mean that the entire argument that wealthier people should pay more would fail, because the “Buffett Rule” and other proposals for soaking the rich would not pay all of our debt and deficits, either. If you confiscated all of the wealth of billionaires in this country, you probably could not cover just the deficit for one year.
Btw, the imperious tone is not endearing.
LikeLike
I’ll drop the moral argument. Because that’s where the money is. Increasingly as a matter of fact.
BB
LikeLike
FB:
I’ll drop the moral argument.
That’s great. But, of course, it was Buffett’s use of the moral argument, not yours, that is relevant to my comments. So, what you really need to do is drop your defense of Buffett’s hypocrisy, and then we will be all set.
LikeLike
“Capital gains are not double taxed and Berkshire Hathaway pays no dividends. Corporate taxes don’t enter into the calculus.”
Buffett isn’t an employee – his “job” is to own 20% of BRK. He pays 20% of BRK’s corporate taxes.
Capital Gains are absolutely double taxed. Undistributed profits go into retained earnings, which increase the stock price and create capital gains. Distributed profits are dividends.
Buffet’s effective tax rate is 1 – (BRK’s effective tax rate) * (Buffet’s effective tax rate).
Basically around 40% – 41%
LikeLike
ruk said:
And so…because Buffett plans to give the substantial part of his fortune away to charity he is an evil lying hypocrite?
Absolutely. Perhaps you missed the significance of his admonition to other rich people that they follow his “tax-dodging” example and give away their fortunes. That means, give it to private charities rather than let a large portion go to the government in estate taxes. I suspect that you find this to be consistent behavior by WB because what he is advocating is simply that wealth not be inherited. Setting aside this morally and economically dubious merit of this position, however, WB is also arguing that he has amassed much of this wealth by not paying his “fair share” in taxes.
So, in sum he is arguing: “I have gotten away for years without paying my fair share to the government. As a result of the undertaxation of people like me, we have huge deficits and debt, and the government does not have enough money. Nevertheless, I am going to give away my fortune and thus ‘dodge’ my fair share of taxes again.”
Why exactly is WB going to give his fortune to private foundations instead of to the government that he so laments is underfunded by people like him? I would suggest that if you start thinking about that question his gross hypocrisy might begin to come into view.
But I won’t call Romney a lying hypocrite…I think he is sincere. I think he believers that in spite of all the evidence to the contrary if he can cut taxes even more it’ll be a boon to our economy
Romneys’ support for tax policies that would benefit himself does not even raise a question of hypocrisy. He is not doing anything inconsistent with his own stated position. You can question his self-interest, but there is no hypocrisy involved.
WB’s motivations for his statements are an interesting topic for speculation, but they really have nothing to do with whether he is guilty of hypocrisy and deception. Those are a matter of his words versus his actions.
LikeLike
Capital gains are not double taxed and Berkshire Hathaway pays no dividends. Corporate taxes don’t enter into the calculus.
You are simply wrong. Double taxation occurs because (1) a corporation pays income (net profits) tax, and (2) stock holders are then taxed on dividends and capital gains (when they sell stock), both of which forms of income to the stock holder accrue from after-tax earnings. In the case of capital gains, there may be some variation, since stock prices don’t fluctuate solely based on retained earnings, but, other things equal, retained earnings translate directly into the stock price, gains on which are taxed upon sale.
So, it quite clearly is double taxation. Only, WB has, as I recall, largely avoided it, because of not taking dividends and holding his stock forever. How very clever of him. As the WSJ article points out, his massive wealth will largely avoid the rule named for him, because that’s how he as set things up. Sheer hypocrisy.
Update:
To try to summarize some of this, you are right only in one limited and ultimately inconsequential respect, yello. Other than BH stock WB might have sold along the way, WB has probably avoided double taxation given that BH, under his control, does not pay dividends. But his massive wealth is in that BH stock, which he has held, and it would be subject to capital gains upon sale. So he is subject to double taxation; he simply has not yet realized the gain.
Nevertheless, he has already economically borne his pro rata share of the income taxes paid by BH; but for that tax burden, his stock would be worth that much more. So even now his claim that he pays only a low personal tax rate is deceptive.
His plan to donate his fortune to private foundations or public charities will also be designed to avoid and minimize as much as possible the taxes that would fall on gains realized from sale of the stock. I am not a tax lawyer, so I can’t speak to how that would likely work, but you can bet that lawyers have worked on how to use rules favoring charitable donations to minimize the taxes. Indeed, as the article quotes him, he himself calls it tax dodging
LikeLike
Sorry guys, but this seems to be a real case of hating the message so lets beat up the messenger.
No motivation for underhanded or hypocritical actions has been established In fact it appears that Buffett is actually operating from altruistic intentions which aggravates some here.
His basic point is not wrong…the wealthy in many cases are paying a disproportionately smaller share of their income than the middle class in taxes. Now we can argue all night whether FICA is a tax or an investment..or the effect of double taxation on Corporate earnings..or any other red herrings…but the fact is when it comes to taking money for personal use Buffet is able to claim a larger share of his “earnings” than is his secretary. Even if we concede that we understand your viewpoint about “double taxation” “is FICA a tax or investment, etc., it doesn’t support calling Buffet a hypocritical liar simply because he disagrees with your viewpoint.
He is using a ‘real life” example to make his point. You are certainly free to disagree with his point, but calling him a lying hypocrite is hyperbole IMHO.
LikeLike
No motivation for underhanded or hypocritical actions has been established In fact it appears that Buffett is actually operating from altruistic intentions which aggravates some here.
Who said anything about underhanded?
The only way to evaluate the sincerity of someone’s stated beliefs is by comparing them to his actions. We have done that here. You did not respond to any concrete points in that regard.
Buffett might very well be acting from altrustic motives in planning to give his fortune to foundations and charities. That does not change the fact that his failure to pay his fair share to the government and his active “tax dodging” contradict his own claims about what justice requires him to pay to the government. Indeed, the premise for imposing taxes is that the government will use your money better than you will. WB apparently does not accept that premise for himself.
LikeLike
Btw,
WB’s hypocrisy actually doesn’t depond on the moral argument he makes. It also follows from the argument that the rich should pay more because the government needs the money.
Even though WB’s few billion in unpaid “fair share” would not pay off all of our debt, it would pay off some of it, or cover other needs of government.
LikeLike
No, Scott. It is the exact mirror image of your hypothetical. You simply don’t like it when the tables are turned. The same arguments about fairness have been made from the right (part of my gobbled post, but that’s from the Heritage Foundation). If you think it’s unfair that you pay a higher tax rate than a lower income individual and still pay it, you are a hypocrite by your own definition. So, keep beating your dog. Just don’t put yourself on a higher moral plane.
BB
LikeLike
FB:
No, Scott. It is the exact mirror image of your hypothetical.
Yes, it is the exact opposite of a correct analogy.
If you think it’s unfair that you pay a higher tax rate than a lower income individual and still pay it, you are a hypocrite by your own definition.
Laughable. Truly laughable. You’ve got so much wrong here it is difficult to know where to start.
In the first place, one is not morally culpable for being forced into doing something against one’s moral notions, particularly by the law. Second, the injustice in higher tax rate derives from those who impose it, not those who pay it (or don’t). I say it is unjust to impose different tax rates on different people. Not that it is unjust to pay them. Finally, there is a very clear difference between being free to choose a particular action, but refusing to, and being prevented from taking an action via coercion.
qb (to FB):
I have to say, I’m amazed.
I’m not all that amazed. It’s unfortunately typical, actually.
LikeLike
Scott
But in WB’s situation, the law does not prevent him from fulfilling his self-proclaimed moral duty. It is not against the law for him to contribute what he perceives as the “fair” share of his income to the government
This is where our fundamental disagreements stems. I do not interpret WB’s statements or actions to be HIS fair share, but rather what he perceives as a policy flaw that is specifically speaking to his CLASS’ fair share. Arguing from the specific to the general would be a horrible mistake if that is what Buffet is doing. But I think he has used his secretary’s taxes as a simple illustration. Fault the comparison, dispute the figures, but is the ad hominem really necessary? The burden of proof should be on the accusers should it not? That is to say that Buffet is presumed innocent in our nation under current law? How high should that burden be/? Because honestly nobody has made any compelling arguments yet.
Let’s see…he has played by the rules and taken every single tax advantage he could…Yep…he’s not advocating for HIMSELF but for a policy belief. He’s simply for rewriting the tax code in a manner that would be fairer to the middle class. You may say his example is inaccurate, (that’s debatable but I’ll stipulate) you may say that he doing this politically as part of advocacy…well yeah but it’s open and transparent and he’s taken the heat for that transparency…would you prefer he operate like Soros? or some billionaire brothers, with fancy sounding PACS?
It is my impression that Buffet is “advocating” for a policy position. His op-ed does not hide that. He is not calling himself…”Citizens for a Better America” “Restore America” or hiding behind any of that ‘dark” money. He is simply stating HIS opinion. He is doing so right out there in front of God and the conservative press out to demonize him, without hiding behind a SuperPac or “Think Tank” or any other “advocacy” group either left or right. He’s upfront and honest IMO and yet he’s called a lying hypocrite.
I just find that…well you know…I can’t honestly say I know what I find that….I’ll have to think about it.
LikeLike
FB,
If you think it’s unfair that you pay a higher tax rate than a lower income individual and still pay it, you are a hypocrite by your own definition. So, keep beating your dog. Just don’t put yourself on a higher moral plane.
Do you really not understand the difference between a law that allows you to do what you contend is unjust and a law that requires you to do what is unjust (your dog beating example), or between a law that allows you to do what is unjust and a law that subjects you to injustice (your tax example)?
I have to say, I’m amazed.
I can give you a link to the Treasury web page that welcomes voluntary contributions to the government. Can you provide a link to where Treasury allows us to choose a lower tax rate for ourselves? Warren is free to pay as much more as he wants; none of us is free to pay less than what the government demands.
LikeLike
The volunteer argument, IMO, is a desperate red herring. It’ll takes lots and lots of people, conservative, liberals, idependents, libertatians(LOL) and those left out here to contribute for this altruism to be effective.
LikeLike
mcurtis:
The volunteer argument, IMO, is a desperate red herring.
Speaking of red herrings….
It’ll takes lots and lots of people, conservative, liberals, idependents, libertatians(LOL) and those left out here to contribute for this altruism to be effective.
So what? Buffett’s argument has nothing to do with “altruism” or “effectiveness”. He is claiming that, as a matter of justice, he should pay more. It is, according to him, “unfair” that he doesn’t pay more.
Really, it is quite astonishing. I’ve pointed this out repeatedly, yet all of you WB defenders keep using this same, er, red herring to defend him, pretending his argument is something other than what it is.
LikeLike
Corked by qb.
LikeLike
For those who haven’t seen this, it may be of interest here:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2011/08/17/how-buffett-saves-billions-on-his-tax-return/
Also worth noting is Buffett’s justification for not paying more taxes than the law requires – the government isn’t as good of a steward of his money as his charitable foundations are:
” Becky: OK, there were a couple of emails that came in that people that said if you think the government should be able to tax more money, why don’t you just give your money away to the government instead of charity.
Buffett: Well, that’s a choice and it’s an option that… If I had to give it to a single individual, or make some young Buffett a multi-billionaire, or give it to the government, I’d absolutely give it to the government. I think that on balance the Gates Foundation, my daughter’s foundation, my two sons’ foundations, will do a better job with lower administrative costs and better selection of beneficiaries than the government. ”
http://www.cnbc.com/id/44146626
LikeLike
Change of open topic.
There is not only no justification for the vandalism and nuisance caused by “a faction” of Occupy Oakland, the misconduct undercuts the proposed message. The quotation is from the Mayor of Oakland.
Quan, who faced heavy criticism for the police action last fall, on Saturday called on the Occupy movement to “stop using Oakland as its playground.”
“People in the community and people in the Occupy movement have to stop making excuses for this behavior,” Quan said.
On Sunday, Quan said she is tired of the protesters’ repeated actions.
“I’m mostly frustrated because it appears that most of them constantly come from outside of Oakland,” Quan said. “I think a lot of the young people who come to these demonstrations think they’re being revolutionary when they’re really hurting the people they claim that they are representing.”
Saturday’s events began late Saturday morning, when a group assembled outside City Hall and marched through the streets, disrupting traffic as they threatened to take over the vacant Henry Kaiser Convention Center.
The protesters then walked to the convention center, where some started tearing down perimeter fencing and “destroying construction equipment” shortly before 3 p.m., police said.
Police said they issued a dispersal order and used smoke and tear gas after some protesters pelted them with bottles, rocks, burning flares and other objects.
LikeLike
The volunteer argument, IMO, is a desperate red herring. It’ll takes lots and lots of people, conservative, liberals, idependents, libertatians(LOL) and those left out here to contribute for this altruism to be effective.
It’s your second sentence that is a red herring. You utterly refuse to confront the moral claim. It doesn’t take anyone else’s participation for Warren to pay his his fair share.
LikeLike
Sorry guys, but this seems to be a real case of hating the message so lets beat up the messenger.
That is basically what is going on here. Buffett was ultimate hero of the buy and hold crowd until he started advocating higher taxes on himself and his fellow plutocrats.
LikeLike
yello:
That is basically what is going on here.
Absurd. Lots of people have advocated for the types of things Buffett is advocating for. I haven’t called them all hypocrites. Your claim has no basis in evidence whatsoever. You are imagining it.
Buffett was ultimate hero of the buy and hold crowd until he started advocating higher taxes on himself and his fellow plutocrats.
You are confused on two counts. Buffet has never been a “hero” of mine, even before he began his tax crusade. How you might presume to know this about me is just bizarre. Second, we do not have plutocrats in our country. Our government is run by elected representatives, not the wealthy. The abuse of language by many of you is quite striking.
LikeLike
That is basically what is going on here. Buffett was ultimate hero of the buy and hold crowd until he started advocating higher taxes on himself and his fellow plutocrats.
That’s an interesting way to put it. Most of his wealth is in the stock he has held for decades, so he hasn’t yet paid tax on all that unrealized gain. Yet another way he could put his money where his big mouth is.
Most of us who are criticizing him aren’t exactly plutocrats.
LikeLike
Corked by qb.
Sorry Scott! Sometimes I’m just can’t help myself.
Perhaps I will change my avatar again — to Horschak (if you are old enough to remember him).
LikeLike
qb:
(if you are old enough to remember him).
Of course. Vinnie Barbarino, Epstein, Washington, and Mr Kotter!
LikeLike
Scott – I agree. Your metaphor is truly laughable.
BB
LikeLike
FB:
Your metaphor is truly laughable.
What metaphor are you talking about? I didn’t present a metaphor.
LikeLike
A question for those of you on the left (and Kevin) who support higher taxation for the wealthy. Should the charitable donation deduction on taxes be abolished? (I think Mark has already come out in favor of abolishing it.)
LikeLike
Also worth noting is Buffett’s justification for not paying more taxes than the law requires – the government isn’t as good of a steward of his money as his charitable foundations are
This is precisely what I was suggesting in suggesting to ruk that he think about why Buffett is giving it all to charity instead of government. It is a completely reasonable position. It just isn’t consistent with Buffett’s other positions.
So we hear what Buffett says about where his money should be going, and then we see where it actually goes. They aren’t the same. Which one reflects what he really believes about it?
LikeLike
ScottC:
I think I see, IMO, where this is going awry. I do not know if taxing the “wealthy” more is the right idea or not. I’m looking for solutions to the problem. I’m looking for less of a cat fight over these issues where calling people names is off the table.
Charitable donations is a nice thing to have, but I doubt it will be used at all. It’s all moot on that issue.
Revicing the tax code is an important issue and we should get more bang for the buck. However, if we really look at the interested parties, the social contract philosophies people have, the make-up of Congress, and the general confusion of the voters, what can really be accomplished?
There must be an ideal solution that can never be put in place.
Then there must be the sausage we always end up with from Congress.
What about it?
Mike
LikeLike
mcurtis:
Charitable donations is a nice thing to have, but I doubt it will be used at all. It’s all moot on that issue.
I’m not sure what you are saying here, but the charitable donation deduction is used all the time, Buffett being a prime example. He shields huge amounts of his income from taxes by making charitable donations.
However, if we really look at the interested parties, the social contract philosophies people have, the make-up of Congress, and the general confusion of the voters, what can really be accomplished?
I agree that it is highly unlikely that the tax code can ever be revised to make in just and sensible.
There must be an ideal solution that can never be put in place.
There is. The abolishment of corporate taxation, and the implementation of a flat tax on all income, however derived.
Another is the elimination of all income taxation, and the implementatino of a consumption tax.
LikeLike
Scott:
Should the charitable donation deduction on taxes be abolished?
Sure. I’m not sure that I’d abolish the mortgage interest deduction for one residence per family, but I also think that personal exemptions should be capped at a maximum of four per married couple and that doesn’t go over well with the conservative crowd (at least the one here in Utah).
LikeLike
And to expand upon my previous comment, I’d abolish joint returns entirely if I had my way, and each individual income earner would file an individual return (yes, I developed this belief when I was married). I don’t think that flat tax is a fair one, but I think that each of us should be taxed as individuals.
Don’t ask me my opinion on corporate taxes, because I don’t have one. . . other than if we’re going to treat them as people for free speech purposes it seems to me that they then have to pay taxes as people, and that would put them in about the tax bracket they’re in now.
LikeLike
Michi,
Older people tend not to marry, but live together for tax reasons. I’ve lost the reasoning.
LikeLike
Sorry guys, but this seems to be a real case of hating the message so lets beat up the messenger.
I’ve already gone on record as saying that I agree with Scott and QB that Buffett is a hypocrite. That said, I do think there is a certain aspect of hating the message going on here. There are many, many colossal hypocrites from which to choose if we desire to go around calling such people out. Yet Scott brings this up pretty regularly and often, if not always, without any of the liberals or progressive here bringing Buffett up in some sort of positive manner. So there must be something else going on here besides hypocrisy. I’m sure Buffett’s coverage in the press plays a big role, but I’m guessing that if Scott’s political beliefs aligned more with Buffett’s we wouldnt’ hear about this quite so frequently. Maybe that’s not fair, but I think the message involved here does play a role. It is also relatively rare topics that seem to get Scott this fired up or levelling charges of hypocrisy and lying. Maybe it’s the response he gets to these posts that gets him fired up as opposed to Buffett himself.
A few other thoughts:
BB- Your example of the dog beating is not the same. They are similar in that there may be moral culpability for following a law you morally oppose. But in one scenario you are free to remedy your moral culpability without any consequnce (in this case, Buffett could give the gov’t a bunch of money) while in the other you go to jail for following your morals.
Mcurtis- As qb pointed out, calling Buffett a liar and hypocrite is not a logical fallacy. It would be a logical facally if Scott said Buffett is a liar and hypocrite and therefore his argument about raising taxes on the wealthy should be ignored or is wrong etc. But I have not seen such an argument from Scott.
LikeLike
ashot:
So there must be something else going on here besides hypocrisy.
Of course, yes. I am not intent on pointing out hypocrisy for its own sake.
The tax issue is a current and ongoing political issue, and Buffett is being used as a moral authority by politicians in order to advance a policy that I oppose. As long as the issue is current and ongoing, and as long as Buffett is being used as a moral authority to advance the policy I oppose, I will continue to show he is no moral authority, but instead is a hypocrite.
LikeLike
Oh, I misunderstood. Charitable donations, yes, I can go with getting rid of that. We never are able to give at the level required. Giving to charities is important if the private solution idea for providing for the poor and needy is to work. Seems it is a double edged sword.
Flat tax will never fly according to all views I’ve seen write about it. It doesn’t meet the fairness test. It seems that fair is has a meaning that is philosophically different everywhere one looks.
The consumption tax would hit the poor harder than many others. So this will also hit on the various ideas of fairness.
Thanks for responding as you did!
LikeLike
mcurtis:
It doesn’t meet the fairness test.
It is the only income tax that even comes close to meeting the fairness test. At least if fairness is understood to suggest that all people be treated equally by the law.
But you are correct, it will never fly.
LikeLike
Ashot: Calling anyone a liar in a political debate or any other names just doesn’t work for me.
Sorry. It’s just not an acceptable argument where ever it comes from.
Now Eisenhower lying abut the U2 was a lie.
LikeLike
Eh, Scott, and here I was trying to provoke a comment from you. Failed again. . . I’ll have to be more leftish, obviously! 🙂
LikeLike
Mich:
And here I was trying to provoke a comment from you. Failed again…
No, I actually wrote a reply to you, but it wasn’t as clear as I wanted it to be, so I am still thinking about how to write it. In short, contrary to what you suggest, the logic behind the argument in favor of corporate speech rights actually supports the elimination, not the retention, of the corporate income tax.
LikeLike
Calling anyone a liar in a political debate or any other names just doesn’t work for me
Even if a person is a liar (no saying Buffett is or isn’t)?
LikeLike
Depends upon the context. ashot, and the evidence to proves the fact.
One philosopher said that a liar better have a pretty good memory. I tend to live by that thought in my life.
Calling names in a political debate just tells me that no new ideas are going to come along.
LikeLike
Interesting: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16783520
Mike
LikeLike
Calling names in a political debate just tells me that no new ideas are going to come along.
That can certainly be true, and given that we are all familiar with what goes on at the PL we can understand feeling that way. However, that definitely is not a universal truth.
LikeLike
As long as the issue is current and ongoing, and as long as Buffett is being used as a moral authority to advance the policy I oppose, I will continue to show he is no moral authority, but instead is a hypocrite.
Or until everyone on this blog agrees he is a hypocrite?
Anyway, I have to admit to being amused by this continued dance between you and those who refuse to see his hypocrisy or, more charitably, those who see the issue differently. You have to be slightly tired of making the same case.
LikeLike
ashot:
Or until everyone on this blog agrees he is a hypocrite?
That might do it, too. Only might, though.
You have to be slightly tired of making the same case.
Haven’t you seen my gravatar? I am indefatigable.
LikeLike
Ashot,
Let me add to my answer to your question. Such accusations without evidence set a poor example to younger people. They begin to think that such shouting works.
LikeLike
Mark,
You may continue to call Buffett names and the effect will continue to be nil. I’m saying this with all due respect. There are some of us who used to be a part of heavy duty politics and have left such involvement because of this kind of rhetoric. It moves the argument not forward, but makes it off-putting.
LikeLike
Scott:
No, I actually wrote a reply to you, but it wasn’t as clear as I wanted it to be, so I am still thinking about how to write it
Woo hoo! But, to put my corporate tax comment in better context for your answer (maybe) my POV is that (1) taxes should be levied on individual people, rather than joint entities, (2) if corporations are to be treated as people for free speech purposes, see point (1). So why shouldn’t corporations be taxed?
LikeLike
Mich:
So why shouldn’t corporations be taxed?
See ashot’s last.
LikeLike
the logic behind the argument in favor of corporate speech rights actually supports the elimination, not the retention, of the corporate income tax.
Now that’s an interesting argument. Let’s see if I’m followng this out properly. The logic for allowing corporate speech is that a corporation is made up of many individuals and those people don’t give up their rights to free speech simply by forming a business entity of some sort. Since corporations are made up of individuals, and those individuals already pay taxes, there is no need to tax them a second time via a corporate tax.
LikeLike
ashot:
Yes. McWing is right…we are on the verge of turning you.
LikeLike
That might do it, too. Only might, though.
Hahaha…I almost typed “maybe” as a separate question after that. Anyway, I suspect were you to successfully convince everyone you would still post the occasional story on the issue.
I am indefatigable.
Yes, it seems very apropos of this argument in that you are both indefatigable and going nowhere fast.
LikeLike
ashot:
Yes, it seems very apropos of this argument in that you are both indefatigable and going nowhere fast.
Indeed. Maybe I should change my gravatar to a picture of Randall Patrick McMurphy, given that a fine definition of crazy is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
LikeLike
ashot–don’t turn to the Dark Side!
LikeLike
Scott–see my last. 🙂 (before ascot)
LikeLike
Yes. McWing is right…we are on the verge of turning you.
Why? Because I figured out your little logic riddle?
Let’s try this in reverse. The logic behind the need to cut taxes on the wealthy (they pay a high % of the total taxes) actually supports the argument that taxes on the wealthy should be increased, not decreased.
So if you unravel the logic behind my argument does that mean I’m on the verge of turning you?
LikeLike
ashot:
Why? Because I figured out your little logic riddle?
First, it wasn’t intended to be a riddle. As I said to Mich, I had started to write a response to her, but was unhappy with it, so I didn’t post it. But I wanted to convey to her the basic point, so I said what I said.
Second, no, that’s not why. Since you are showing a good grasp of logic, I just figure the right politics will soon follow.
So if you unravel the logic behind my argument does that mean I’m on the verge of turning you?
There is no logic behind that claim that the need for X supports the argument for anti-X.
LikeLike
Sorry I’ve missed this. I am fine with ending the charitable deduction, and most of the rest of them, BTW. I do want to tackles some of this, but by the time I get around to it I’m sure everyone else will have moved on. Sigh.
LikeLike
Yeah riddle was a bad term. I should have said reverse engineered your comment. And as usual I gave a crappy example on the unraveling logic point. Alas, I am clearly not yet republican material.
LikeLike
Kevin:
everyone else will have moved on
Doubtful with this group, especially Mr Indefatigable/Bolder, so have at it! 🙂
LikeLike
I’m late to this one also. Good discussion though. I understand calling WB a hypocrite based upon just the simple definition of the word. I don’t think that tells the entire story however. What is his motivation for advocating a policy that will ultimately harm him financially? Are we supposed to just ignore people making a fairness argument if they’re not acting strictly in the manner that they’re advocating? Are all environmentalists that drive a car hypocrites? If I claim that it’s unfair for internet retailers to have a competitive advantage over walk-in retailers by avoiding state sales taxes, but also engage in internet sales, and in order to remain competitive with other internet retailers I don’t pay those taxes, then I’m a hypocrite by these standards. This appears to be even more true if I actually go out and advocate for all internet retailers to pay state sales tax because that would be more fair to everyone.
It seems to me there are a lot of hypocrites in the world if this is the case. I think if the thing you’re advocating for diminishes your wealth or other personal value and yet you advocate for it regardless, the charge of hypocrite while accurate misses the point.
Who has the better argument, Buffett, who will suffer financially for his advocacy, or Romney, who will benefit personally from his advocacy? That seems to me to be the more important question.
LikeLike
lms:
What is his motivation for advocating a policy that will ultimately harm him financially?
I don’t know, but it seems probable that he is a political liberal, so he is simply advancing standard liberal dogma. And don’t overestimate the financial harm that will come to him. As both the WSJ article and the article linked to by jnc point out, Buffett shelters a lot of his income in charitable foundations run by his children, so it is not at all clear to me that the policy he is advancing will particularly harm him.
Are we supposed to just ignore people making a fairness argument if they’re not acting strictly in the manner that they’re advocating?
No. Again, it is not his simple failure to act that makes me question the sincerity of his professed belief. It is the nature of the belief itself combined with the failure to act.
Are all environmentalists that drive a car hypocrites?
It depends upon what they claim to believe.
If I claim that it’s unfair for internet retailers to have a competitive advantage over walk-in retailers by avoiding state sales taxes, but also engage in internet sales, and in order to remain competitive with other internet retailers I don’t pay those taxes, then I’m a hypocrite by these standards.
Not by my standards. Unilaterally deciding to pay the sales tax will not alleviate the perceived injustice (ie the competitive advantage). Indeed, quite the opposite, it will simply add to the number of victims, as you will now suffer from the competitive disadvantage along with the others.
Who has the better argument Buffett, who will suffer financially for his advocacy, or Romney, who will benefit personally from his advocacy?
I’m not sure which policy you are talking about, but the quality of Romney’s argument is not dependent upon whether or not he will benefit from it.
BTW, just to be clear. I am not arguing that Buffett is wrong because he is a hypocrite (although he surely is wrong.) I am simply arguing that to hold out Buffett as some kind of authority who’s opinion should be respected doesn’t make sense because, based on his actions, even he doesn’t believe the moral claim he is making.
LikeLike
‘Goose, the origin of the joint return was not a romantic notion about marriage. It equalized the 42 English law states with the 8 community property states, which had an advantage before 1948. Why?
Because in Michigan, if W made $60K and H made 0, W pd tax at the $60K bracket.
In TX, same numbers, W paid tax on the $30K bracket and so did H.
This was because community income belongs equally to both spouses.
LikeLike
“qb:
(if you are old enough to remember him).
Of course. Vinnie Barbarino, Epstein, Washington, and Mr Kotter!”
BTW: Epstein died last week.
‘Welcome Back, Kotter’: Robert Hegyes’ ‘Epstein’ helped alter TV
January 27, 2012 | 4:55 pm
“Welcome Back, Kotter” television star Robert Hegyes died Thursday, giving millions of Americans pause to reflect back in time to 1975, when Epstein, Vinnie Barbarino and the other “Sweathogs” ruled.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2012/01/welcome-back-kotter-how-robert-hegyes-epstein-changed-tv.html
“The abolishment of corporate taxation, and the implementation of a flat tax on all income, however derived.”
The primary issue I see with the abolition of corporate taxation would be the incentive it would provide to everyone to self incorporate to arbitrage the rate difference. Anytime you allow any income stream to be tax free, there are always unintended consequences. In the context of a flat tax system with no deductions, double taxation of corporate earnings is an acceptable tradeoff to avoid the arbitrage issues.
LikeLike
John, please give us a post on the NY AG and why he is on a dead end assignment.
LikeLike
Mark:
This was because community income belongs equally to both spouses.
Why should it for tax purposes? I’m advocating for a tax structure in which each individual pays her/his own taxes on income; if a couple has just one partner earning income, only that partner pays taxes.
I may be putting Rosanne out of work here, but it seems simpler and more fair to me.
LikeLike
Like Lili von Shtupp, “I’m tired.”
So, in a glorious celebration of hypocrisy, I depart from political threads for awhile. Is anyone convincing anyone else of anything?
BB
[OK, that’s pretty cool. I didn’t realize the whole Youtube bit woiuld be embedded. I just wish that my earlier comment hadn’t been eaten before I got so tired.]
LikeLike
FB:
Is anyone convincing anyone else of anything?
I doubt it (and thanks for the video), but I’ll share a secret with you if you promise NOT to keep it to yourself! 🙂
LikeLike
Doesn’t the smiley violate some kind of code of conduct around here? Fortunately, I think frownies are still allowed. 😦
More seriously, I’ve got a lot coming onto my plate right now. Debating definitions seems the height of silly season. Buffett argues about fairness. So does the Heritage Foundation. I’d be happy enough with zeroing out the corporate tax and treating cap gains as regular income. If nothing else, just to shut a few yaps.
Secrets are entirely welcome at fairlingtonblade@gmail.com, especially if they’re juicy ones. Meanwhile, I need to steel myself for some serious haggis eating. I’ll be skipping that, but I want to catch home games for both Celtic and the Rangers as well as some vindaloo.
BB
LikeLike
There’s no code against smileys. I’ve told myself, if I feel compelled to put a smiley after a joke, then the joke’s probably not very funny. If we want to soften the blow of a criticism by putting a smiley after it, I think we all know it’s still a criticism……… ;). We’ve got a lot of smart people here and while we don’t always read between the lines as well as we think we do, we still read between the lines.
I was just thinking back to when our kids were teenagers. They used to leave the house with friends and throw off the odd insult, such as, “I’m leaving now you bastard”, their friends would be shocked of course, while their father and I were laughing about how they had the last word on that one.
LikeLike
I am simply arguing that to hold out Buffett as some kind of authority
I’m going to pull a Scott here and ask…authority on what? Morality? The morality of our tax code?
LikeLike
ashot:
Morality? The morality of our tax code?
Yes. The argument Buffett is making has been advanced by lots of people, many times, for many years. But Buffett is being used now as a front man to advance the cause not because he has some new or unique insight on the matter, but rather for the simple reason of who he is. It is his persona, and the presumed authority he commands as a result of it, not the merit of his argument, that gets attention. Do you really suppose that if the op-ed he had printed in the NYT that started all of this was submitted by some economics professor at Depauw University it would have gotten even a second look?
LikeLike
Unilaterally deciding to pay the sales tax will not alleviate the perceived injustice (ie the competitive advantage)
In other words it’s okay that I don’t pay the sales tax on internet sales, even though I advocate for a more fair policy because it won’t alleviate the perceived injustice and yet you expect WB to voluntarily pay a higher rate if he’s advocating a more fair tax policy because that will alleviate the perceived injustice? How?
LikeLike
I’m not sure which policy you are talking about, but the quality of Romney’s argument is not dependent upon whether or not he will benefit from it.
Second that. Such considerations have no bearing on either the quality of argument made, nor the wisdom of the policy. Just because hitting myself in the head with a hammer hurts doesn’t mean that self-hammer-hitting is a good idea, despite clearly not being motived by my self-interest. In fact, something that benefits me is more likely to be of general benefit that something that doesn’t. You should want anyone with enlightened self-interest to be advocating for policies that will benefit them generally, as they would at least intend them to be the most generally beneficial to everybody, including themselves.
In any case, whether or not someone stands to gain or lose on a given policy has no real relevance either to the quality of the policy proposed, or the argument the person who stands to gain or lose by the policy is making.
Additionally, I should expect seasoned veterans of this dog-eat-dog world to be a little more suspicious of Buffett and his motivation. To quote Bill Gates in one of my favorite Simpson’s episodes: “I didn’t get rich by writing checks.”
Clearly, the man knows how to make and hold on to money, and shelter it from the government. And has shown every proclivity to do so. Why not ask what the twist is? Why isn’t this like any number of heist movies, when the papers are signed and the transfer has commenced, a series of flash backs reveal Buffett’s devious plot–and it turns out this has all be a distraction while attractive people with European accents have been stealing the World Bank’s secret stash of gold bars!
If you don’t take of the Koch Brothers at their word, you probably shouldn’t take Buffett at his word, either. More to the point, if I was a rich guy with a nefarious plot for world domination, I certainly wouldn’t come out and say it. I’d cloak it behind my love for children and rainbows, and start a foundation called Good Things for Poor People. Or make an argument about the injustice of my low tax rate, and share the sad story of my poor secretary, who I would gladly pay more, if only the government would pass a law obligating me to do so. 🙂
LikeLike
BTW, the prejudice and bigotry shown by, frankly, most people here regarding smileys and emoticons continues to confound me. I really expected better of you people. 😉
LikeLike
Also, BTW, Buffett’s hypocrisy or lack thereof has no bearing on the quality of his argument. While perhaps not a red herring, it’s not also exactly material. The secretary argument is poor on it’s own, and would continue to be a poor argument, even if Buffett voluntarily sent more money to the government, rather than fighting them tooth and nail for every last penny.
LikeLike
I ask you, what other blog could mix discussion of the so-called Buffett Rule with Blazing Saddles and Welcome Back Kotter? That’s some edifying reading.
LikeLike
In any case, whether or not someone stands to gain or lose on a given policy has no real relevance either to the quality of the policy proposed, or the argument the person who stands to gain or lose by the policy is making.
I would disagree that it has no relevance. I think people should be more suspicious of someone who advocates for a policy that will directly benefit him or her. When discussing drug testing welfare recpipients the other week, a couple of posters from Florida pointed out that the Governor of Florida, more specifically his wife, stood to gain from the proposal. You’re saying the fact that his wife owned drug testing facilities that were likely to see an increase in revenue has no relevance?
Doesn’t the concern over corporate influence on elections stem from the idea that politicans will be motivated, not by the quality of the policy but by the political contributions the corporation makes to the politicians election campaign? Ultimately, if arguing against a policy, you should be able to win on the merits, or lack thereof, of the policy. However, the existence of self-interest isn’t irrelvant in my opinion.
LikeLike
Kevin
My point re Buffett vs. Romney was simply that according to the changes in tax policy that he advocates, not only would the deficit increase but he would also personally benefit from said policy as it would lower his tax obligation even further. He’s free to advocate that and I’m not calling him a hypocrite, I’m just saying that sometimes self-interest bumps up against a perceived injustice as well. I suppose if a person thinks the 1% need to be paying a little or a lot less then a vote for Romney is a good choice. As a policy, I prefer the 1% pay at least the same rate as people making considerably less but still putting in 25% – 30% or more. I don’t really care that Buffett is a hypocrite in the eyes of definition sticklers, if the policy is preferred in my opinion, then that’s the direction I’ll go. I have no personal interest in Buffett so calling him a hypocrite doesn’t exactly hurt my feelings……………although I do think it’s fair to point it out, it doesn’t really compel me to change my opinion.
LikeLike
I would disagree that it has no relevance. I think people should be more suspicious of someone who advocates for a policy that will directly benefit him or her
I understand that line of thought, but I’m not sure they should. If you advocate for a policy that immediately benefits you, and may also benefit me, why should be give our argument less weight than the argument of someone who will not immediately benefit from that policy? If you are advocating good policy, it is a good policy irrespective of it’s benefit to you, and introducing the benefit to you clouds the rational analysis of the policy on its own merits. If someone I don’t like advanced a good policy, and I let the fact I don’t like this person affect my view on that policy, then I am exhibiting a very human tendency–but I’m also introducing factors into consideration that have no actual relevance to the potential efficacy or general desirability of the policy.
LikeLike
Also, BTW, Buffett’s hypocrisy or lack thereof has no bearing on the quality of his argument. While perhaps not a red herring, it’s not also exactly material.
Strictly speaking, this is true, although it certainly has a bearing on the persuasive force that is imputed to his argument based on identity and position. He claims a kind of special authority based on being a billionaire who ostensibly is taking a position contrary to his own self-interest, and that of course is why his eager champions like Barack Obama rush to praise him and invoke his name. “See, even a tycoon like Warren Buffett says he should pay more!”
Their argument is partly an appeal to authority and partly an appeal to special expertise or knowledge (Warren should know, he’s the billionaire!). In this respect, WB’s hypocrisy is quite relevant, since it shows that the “authority” is a fraud.
Moreover, while the logical relevance of his hypocrisy to his argument can be debated, the deceptions inherent in the argument are indisputably relevant. We’ve reviewed some of those deceptions here. To frame the overall situation in another way, WB is implicitly (or perhaps explicitly) invoking his tens of billions in personal wealth in the form of corporate stock to give force to his claim that his taxes are too low, but he is deliberately ignoring the fact that tax has already been paid on net profits accruing to the value of that stock, and that he will on top of that someday have to pay capital gains if he ever wants to cash out the gains (except, of course, that he plans to slip all of it to private foundations and charities and stiff the tax man again).
Btw, I think the entire argument that inherited wealth is unjust and societally harmful is rubbish and indeed perverse and wicked (to use a Madisonian term).
LikeLike
But Buffett is being used now as a front man to advance the cause not because he has some new or unique insight on the matter, but rather for the simple reason of who he is.
Maybe others feel differently, but I don’t see Buffett as an authority on the morality of our tax code. If I see him as an authority on anything, it would be on the topic of ways in which the wealthy can shelter their income from taxes. He seems to have that down pretty well which is of course one of the reasons you like to call him out.
Maybe his insight isn’t unique, but his willlingness to speak up about the issue does appear to be relatively unique.
Buffett is pretty much the opposite of Joe the Plumber and I think many liberals felt about Joe the Plumber the way you feel about Buffett at least with respect to the strength of their feelings. I wonder if more Amerians know who Joe the Plumber is or who Warren Buffett is?
LikeLike
ashot:
Maybe others feel differently, but I don’t see Buffett as an authority on the morality of our tax code.
Clearly Obama and others (eg the NYT) are hoping that others feel differently than you.
I wonder if more Amerians know who Joe the Plumber is or who Warren Buffett is?
That would be an interesting factoid to know.
LikeLike
Doesn’t the concern over corporate influence on elections stem from the idea that politicans will be motivated, not by the quality of the policy but by the political contributions the corporation makes to the politicians election campaign?
Yes, and for good reason. And if I’m being bought off, I’m more likely to vote for poor legislation, but that’s not what makes the legislation poor. In fact, someone may try to advance good policy with huge amounts of money. The money involved, and the politicians feted, aren’t what make a policy bad (in the purest sense; of course, the prevalence of such things may tend to predisposition our system towards the production of poor policy/legislation). And it’s materially different to argue that politicians are being bought off in order to vote for poor legislation, and to say that legislation is bad (or likely to be so) because someone benefits from it.
Of course, someone who may benefit from legislation may advocate for it while pretending or implying that it will actually hurt him, but he or she is supporting it out of noble desire for justice. So that may represent, rather than altruism, simply lack of transparency or candor. So I don’t think one should trust the opinions or advocacy of those who appear to benefit, versus those who appear not to benefit.
LikeLike
Yes, and for good reason. And if I’m being bought off, I’m more likely to vote for poor legislation, but that’s not what makes the legislation poor.
Agreed. And I never said the idea of drug testing welfare recipients is poor because the Governor’s wife might make a bunch of money. We agree on this far more than we disagree. To some extent we are discussing different issues. You made sure to say it isn’t relevant to the quality of the policy whenver you discussed the relevance. I think I’m making a different point. Although it appears you disagree with that point as well.
LikeLike
qb
Btw, I think the entire argument that inherited wealth is unjust and societally harmful is rubbish and indeed perverse and wicked (to use a Madisonian term).
Did someone make that argument here? I guess I missed it.
My husband inherited some property and stock when his mother died. It was during the old days when capital gains were taxed the same as income. I handled the estate in pro per and became very familiar with a lot of this stuff and the rules at the time. One of the things I remember is that the estate was valued at the time of death and taxes were paid on the difference between that value and the price the various properties etc. were sold, minus expenses and whatnot.
LikeLike
lms:
Did someone make that argument here?
Bsimon made a similar argument, if not quite exactly that one.
LikeLike
So I don’t think one should trust the opinions or advocacy of those who appear to benefit, versus those who appear not to benefit.
Agreed. I don’t think Buffett’s views should be afforded more respect or given more weight because he would, theoretically, end up paying more taxes under his own proposal.
Of course, we could largely avoid this discussion if politicians and voters would leave out the morality argument. As that is unlikely, we press on.
LikeLike
Btw, I think the entire argument that inherited wealth is unjust and societally harmful is rubbish and indeed perverse and wicked (to use a Madisonian term).
Did someone make that argument here? I guess I missed it.
Not exactly on those terms, lmsinca, but, yes, posters here have been critical of inherited wealth.
LikeLike
ash
It’s kind of hard to criticize that which a person has no control over so I wouldn’t agree that inherited wealth is either perverse or wicked. I think the way it is taxed is open for debate though.
LikeLike
lms:
…because that will alleviate the perceived injustice? How?
The injustice he perceives does not come at a cost to other tax payers. To use his secretary as an example, whether or not WB pays more, her situation remains as it is. She neither gains advantage from him paying more, nor does she become disadvantaged from him paying less. In other words, the “victim” of the injustice can only be the government, in that it is not receiving as much revenue as it “should”, not other taxpayers. Therefore, if WB pays more, even if no one else does, the injustice is relieved, his part in the injustice is eliminated, and his relationship to the victim will be a “fair” one.
In your hypothetical, the unjust benefit received by some is, and can only be, measured relative to cost suffered by others. A given participant suffers a disadvantage only to the extent that another gets an advantage. There are no neutral parties, as is WB’s secretary and other taxpayers above. So, by deciding to unilaterally pay the sales tax, you have not reduced the injustice at all. You have simply transferred your advantage to someone else, and become a member of the disadvantaged. Since it is not in your power to reduce the injustice, your actions are not, in my mind, hypocritical.
LikeLike
Not exactly on those terms, lmsinca, but, yes, posters here have been critical of inherited wealth.
Way way at the top of the thread, I mentioned that Buffett is giving away most of his wealth to charity. He has tongue-in-cheek called this the ultimate tax dodge. I don’t know whether he is in favor of the estate tax or not, but his actions suggest he doesn’t see passing on his entire estate to his heirs as great a benefit to society as creating a charitable foundation. In this way he is emulating many of the early robber barons.
LikeLike
yello:
but his actions suggest he doesn’t see passing on his entire estate to his heirs as great a benefit to society as creating a charitable foundation.
Perhaps. Or perhaps it suggests that he doesn’t see passing his entire estate to his children as being as beneficial to them as only giving them some of it.
In any event, it is pretty much undeniable that Buffett thinks he knows better than the government how his wealth can best be used, and will therefore keep as much of it as possible out of government coffers. Which makes his current policy advocacy rather, er, interesting.
LikeLike
Scott
The injustice he perceives does not come at a cost to other tax payers
To the extent that the burden of the deficit does come at a cost to other tax payers, and I seem to remember general agreement that even if Buffet voluntarily paid what he believes is a more equitable rate it wouldn’t appreciably lower the deficit, it seems the argument could be made that the injustice he perceives does come at a cost to other tax payers.
Re the argument that there is something inherently evil or whatever in inherited wealth, if that argument was made, then I would have to disagree. I think you could make the argument that the way it is taxed generally favors the inheritors then that’s where the debate should be, IMO.
Unfortunately, I am back to work. Coincidentally, I’m working on my sales tax for the entire year which needs to be paid tomorrow. I’m one of those crazy people who actually does pay in-state sales tax on our retail internet orders because I do think it’s more equitable, and as we’re a manufacturer we already have an advantage re pricing so I figure the least I can do is contribute to the state coffers…………………..we call it a dumbass move around here.
LikeLike
As a consumer, I an also supposed to pay a state value tax on items bought from out of state. I never do because the chance of getting audited is minimal. However, my employer who buys a lot of computers and such online does because they are a big enough fish to go after.
Eventually a mechanism will be put in place.There is too much revenue being left on the table. Online retailers already can calculate shipping based on zip code. It would be little effort to do the same for sales tax.
LikeLike
Did someone make that argument here? I guess I missed it.
It is a view advocated by many including (I think) ruk. It is definitely a reason behind WB’s plan to give away his fortune. Some argue that it isn’t good for your kids to inherit your money, and that’s another argument. I happen to think it is also baloney, but fundamentally I challenge the idea that it is somehow “unjust” that a person’s heirs should inherit his wealth. In fact, I contend that it is unjust for government to confiscate private wealth.
LikeLike
I contend that it is unjust for government to confiscate private wealth.
At some level all taxes are theft. The only reason people agree to them is that they see the value in the public benefit and they feel they are being fairly implemented. Greece is a case in example of when the latter breaks down.
Most large inheritances are unrealized capital gains. If, how, and where this should be taxed has been a debate going on for a decade or so.
LikeLike
At some level all taxes are theft.
What if it were a flat fee, like a toll road? Then, arguably, one could say: look, it just costs you $x to live here. Don’t like that fee, go look for a country that doesn’t charge the flat fee. Of course, there are no real alternatives, but it would seem that that wouldn’t be theft, per se.
LikeLike
Kevin:
What if it were a flat fee, like a toll road? Then, arguably, one could say: look, it just costs you $x to live here. Don’t like that fee, go look for a country that doesn’t charge the flat fee.
The best solution to the “taxes are theft” problem is to allow secession. But we don’t do that. There’s a fairly significant precedent in the other direction.
LikeLike
In fact, I contend that it is unjust for government to confiscate private wealth.
Given that there are ways around it, it’s not precisely theft. I can spend 30% less at the store if I clip coupons. If I decide not to do that, is the store stealing 30% from me?
LikeLike
In any event, it is pretty much undeniable that Buffett thinks he knows better than the government how his wealth can best be used, and will therefore keep as much of it as possible out of government coffers. Which makes his current policy advocacy rather, er, interesting.
It seems that he believes the government should have more of other wealthy people’s money, but not his. Or this is good PR, and he understands that he and his fellow plutocrats will not actually bear the burden of additional taxes on the wealthy, and the capital gains and dividends that receive his Buffett Rule taxation will in fact be people much poorer than him, but rich enough to have assets that pay dividends or would be subject to capital gains taxation.
LikeLike
What if it were a flat fee, like a toll road? Then, arguably, one could say: look, it just costs you $x to live here. Don’t like that fee, go look for a country that doesn’t charge the flat fee.
The Sixteenth Amendment pretty implicitly rejects this policy. It’s been a dead letter for nearly a century.
LikeLike
Scott
Re: Secession. Well, technically, wasn’t it decided that a State, or States, cannot secede unilaterally? I don’t think there is a procedure for secession but that doesnt mean secession, under any circumstances, is forbidden.
Just my two cents.
LikeLike
McWing:
Well, technically, wasn’t it decided that a State, or States, cannot secede unilaterally?
Do you mean to say that a state can secede if other states acquiesce to it? Maybe that is correct. I’m not sure the question has ever been legally addressed (outside of the Civil War itself, that is). Perhaps our ATiM lawyers can weigh in.
LikeLike
Scott:
I’m not sure the question has ever been legally addressed
Texas v. White, 1869. Yes, I’m a fount of useless knowledge.
LikeLike
Mike:
Texas v. White, 1869.
Thanks. I googled it, and it sounds like McWing was right…no state can unilaterally secede. But I admit that I don’t understand the qualifier “unilaterally”. Given the argument made, ie that the Articles of Confederation created a “perpetual” union and therefore the union could not be brokem, it would seem that whether the secession was unilateral or not ought to be irrelevant. If the union must indeed be “perpetual”, then it cannot be undone no matter what and no matter who agrees to undoing it.
Perhaps I’m not getting the whole picture.
LikeLike
Scott:
Perhaps I’m not getting the whole picture.
I don’t really get it either. I think you’d have to ask a Texan or a lawyer, or better yet, a lawyer from Texas (hello, Mark!).
Maybe “perpetual” only means “as long as the US exists.”
LikeLike
Scott, I suspect “unilateral” admits of the possibility that we could amend the Constitution in a way that would allow the union to unravel. That may have been Mike’s point.
Even multi-state compacts, like the Port Authority of NY, must be reviewed by and authorized by Congress. It is a tightly bound union.
LikeLike
At some level all taxes are theft. The only reason people agree to them is that they see the value in the public benefit and they feel they are being fairly implemented. Greece is a case in example of when the latter breaks down.
I don’t agree with the universality of first sentence. Oddly, it is a view I typically see imputed to conservatives and libertarians, which is incorrect. But I do think that estate taxes tend to fall into the category of “theft” under the guise of taxation. I think it is quite difficult to defend them as something else. The typical way is to try to wrap them in the cloak of consent and self-government, but that defense can be offered as to any law that might be enacted and is dubious at best.
Given that there are ways around it, it’s not precisely theft. I can spend 30% less at the store if I clip coupons. If I decide not to do that, is the store stealing 30% from me?
I am disappointed in you, kw. [shaking head with expression of disgust]
There may be partial ways to mitigate or avoid the confiscation, but by definition they require you (assuming you are a tycoon or plutocrat or what have you) to arrange for disposition of your assets in ways not of your choosing, and you probably still take a haircut. Government takes away the simple right to leave your wealth to your heirs without Uncle Sam’s taking a big cut for himself.
To claim that inheritance taxes are unjust despite their (limited) avoidability does not imply that a store robs me if I do not use a coupon. Someone who simply wants to leave his wealth to his children is not buying anything from the government. A store, in turn, does not have the power simply to take my money, and when I go there to buy some Cheeze-Its and Pepsi I am making a personal decision to trade my $$ for those products at an agreed price. (I might have been willing to pay twice as much to feed my Cheeze-It addiction, if only the store had asked me to, but I did not “rob” the store by not offering it.)
LikeLike
I am disappointed in you, kw.
For clipping coupons? It’s money in the bank, dude.
does not imply that a store robs me if I do not use a coupon
But you’re leaving good money out there on the table. Don’t do it, man!
Someone who simply wants to leave his wealth to his children is not buying anything from the government.
Doesn’t an estate tax amount to double taxation? What if there were no estate tax but the government forced the estate to realize capital gains on everything but perhaps a primary residence?
Just thinking. When there are ways to avoid handing over your massive fortune to the government, is it still theft (perhaps it is an onerous burden) if you choose to just let the government take the money? I suppose it is, but do we feel less sympathetic to the fellow who leaves his keys on the top of his Jaguar, and a sign saying: “Lo-Jack broken, please do not steal, I’ll never be able to find you. If found, please get address from wallet, which I left in glove compartment. Thanks!”
Private stores obviously lack punitive and confiscatory powers codified into law, which makes it an imperfect comparison.
LikeLike
The unified gift and estate tax regime is simply an alternate tool for taxing wealth upon transfer.
A universal personal income tax could theoretically handle gifts and estate transfers as income to the recipients, of course.
For me there are no “moral” implications here, just fiscal ones, unless the tax causes economic disruption or true personal hardship.
If we went to commerce and transfer taxes and moved away from income taxes we could move away from the unified gift and estate regime, too.
LikeLike
Mark:
For me there are no “moral” implications here
There are always moral implications when force is used as a means of interaction between people.
LikeLike
Scott, that would move me if our government were not with the consent of the governed. I would have been with the colonials in 1775.
You have chosen to address an issue other than the distinction being drawn between the estate and gift tax regime and other forms of taxation. Do you find estate and gift taxation less “moral” than income taxation? Than sales taxation? Then value added taxation? Than transaction taxation? Than excise taxation? Than property taxation?
Honestly, I do not understand how these lines are drawn on “moral” grounds. I do understand how they can be drawn on collectibility grounds, on efficiency grounds, on least burden on commerce grounds, on any number of grounds other than relative “morality”.
LikeLike
Mark:
I somehow missed this last night.
Scott, that would move me if our government were not with the consent of the governed.
That is a nice sounding concept, but regrettably, even if inevitably, the government does all kinds of things without my consent.
You have chosen to address an issue other than the distinction being drawn between the estate and gift tax regime and other forms of taxation.
Yes, I guess that is true. As regards the moral distinction between types of taxation, I think that a consumption tax is more moral than any type of income or wealth tax, which I regard as absolutely immoral.
Let’s stipulate that a tax is a cost or penalty placed on people, implemented by force. Let’s also stipulate that taxation is needed in order to run a functioning government, which itself is essential to a well-ordered society. Income and/or wealth is a measure of what someone has produced for or contributed to society. Consumption, on the other hand, is a measure of the amount of benefit that someone receives from or takes out of a well-ordered society. It makes much more moral sense to me to charge people for the benefits they derive from a functioning government and well-ordered society than to charge people for the value they provide other people in that society.
It was asserted the other day by someone (KW, I think, among others) that wealthy people “obviously” benefited more from society than non-wealthy people. I don’t think that is at all true. If Warren Buffet lives a middle class lifestyle in a middle class house within a middle class neighborhood, and has middle class spending habits like traveling in coach and standing in the security line at the airport along with everyone else, while donating all of his wealth to philanthropy, or even continuing to invest his wealth in productive activities rather than spending it, in what way has he benefited from society any more than any other middle class person? Now, if he goes out and purchases a 28,000 square foot house with a built-in movie theater and a bowling alley, with a nine-hole golf course in the backyard, along with a personal plane so he can travel without all the normal hassles, well, then he is indeed benefiting from a society which produces all of these things, and to the extent that a functioning government is essential to providing these benefits, then he should pay for it in relation to the amount he benefits from it.
A consumption tax, if it is being used to fund the proper functions of government, is moral. Any type of income or wealth tax, is not.
LikeLike