Buffet says tax the super rich

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Nov 29, 2006
15,908
4,486
136
I understand liberals aren't the most intelligent people in the world, but let me break it down for ya'll using small words. Buffet is a hypocrite because he's calling for the taxation of rich people to solve government problems while doing everything in his power to make sure HIS money doesn't go toward solving the problem. He wants OTHER people to pay.

So him advocating the government to take more of his money via taxation means he doesnt want his money going to the government and that he wants other people to pay and not himself? Sounds logical to a deranged lunitic i suppose.

Harry: Just when I thought you couldn't possibly be any dumber, you go and do something like this... and totally redeem yourself!
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
Will the real Warren Buffet please stand up.

http://wallstfolly.typepad.com/wallstfolly/2006/09/page_six_warren.html



Warren Buffett recently got married, and now he's announcing a divorce: According to Page Six, Buffett has disowned Nicole Buffett, the adopted daughter of his son Peter, via snail mail after she appeared in Jamie Johnson (of the Johnson & Johnson dynasty) documentary "The One Percent" which is his second film about the lives of the very rich.... AN infuriated Warren Buffett has renounced one of his granddaughters - telling her she is no longer his relative "legally or emotionally" because she took part in a documentary about the lives of the very rich.
What kind of documentary could cause someone to disown his adopted daughter if she participated in?

One that exposes the super rich for what they really are
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamie-johnson/the-one-percent_b_87459.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCNKn7JirBU&feature=related

There may be widespread fears of an impending recession running through the minds of most Americans, but there aren't among the country's richest citizens. Contrary to common assumption, many of the wealthiest Americans aren't worried about the weakening economy at all, they are actually excited about it.
To them, the crisis in the housing market, the recent slide in stock prices, and the general loss in purchasing power for millions of Americans have resulted in the thinning of the aristocratic ranks, or in other words, have decreased demand for the highest level of luxury living. Ironically, for the mega-rich, recession brings with it the ability to live well at a lower cost and with less of a hassle.
For the past eight years, I have been chronicling in documentary films the lives of the vastly rich and the role they play in the economy. As a member of the family that founded the Johnson and Johnson pharmaceutical company, I have been given unprecedented access to Whitneys, Vanderbilts, Forbeses, Gateses, Buffetts and Bloombergs. I have seen firsthand how many of these families run their businesses and I have watched them react to sudden shifts in the market and changing economic conditions. And now, with the threat of a recession looming on the horizon, I hear many of them saying-" Thank God, it's about time."
Paul Orfalea, for example, who is the founder of the Kinkos copy centers and a subject in my current film, The One Percent, used to like to tell me about a jet he owned called a Challenger. According to Paul it was the perfect plane for him, but he never got to use it because every time he tried to make arrangements to travel, he was told that the plane was actually chartered out to someone else. Originally Paul intended to make the plane available for charter only on occasion to help cover annual maintenance expenses, but he soon realized that there was so much demand for the plane and it was booked so far in advance that he was rarely able to fly in it himself. When I asked Paul what he thought the reason was behind the demand for his plane, he only had one culprit to blame -- the surging economy.
Another subject I recently interviewed blamed what he called mere "centa-millionaires" for the breakdown in exclusivity of his elitist world. For him, the overnight stars of the seven-year bull market not only overcrowded private air travel, but also drove up the price of high-end real estate. Buying a third home in the Hamptons became a burdensome experience for him. As far as he was concerned, there was just too much urgent demand, and although he could easily afford the asking prices, he found the heightened numbers personally offensive. He did assure me at the end of our conversation, however, that as soon as he sees the recession start to hit people, he'll be the first to buy.
While working on films about the vastly rich, I have seen countless displays of excessive privilege that serve as markers for the staggering inequality that plagues our country. Often times I have imagined that after recording scenes of wealthy prep-school students saying to less fortunate classmates, "Fuck you, I'm from New York. I could buy your family, piss off" that it couldn't get any worse. I believed that the distinction between The Two Americas that people commonly speak of was as pronounced as it could ever be.
But in recent days, watching the super-rich exuberantly anticipate a recession has forced me to realize that I was wrong to assume that the indicators of inequality wouldn't become more conspicuous. It appears that the opposite is true, that under the threat of hard times the mega-wealthy aren't feeling a greater responsibility to reflect upon the problems surrounding the growing wealth gap; they are, in fact, trying to fatten their wallets and further insulate their lifestyles.
I had hoped that foreboding economic circumstances would have caused the ultra-rich to think not just of themselves and increasing their own personal affluence. Unfortunately, however, too many of them lack concern and without this concern, the divisive imbalance will only worsen with recession.
 

Fear No Evil

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2008
5,922
0
0
So him advocating the government to take more of his money via taxation means he doesnt want his money going to the government and that he wants other people to pay and not himself? Sounds logical to a deranged lunitic i suppose.

Harry: Just when I thought you couldn't possibly be any dumber, you go and do something like this... and totally redeem yourself!

I'm just going by what the man has said himself. If he only pays 17% in taxes clearly he is taking advantage of every deduction, loophole, and credit he can. Nothing wrong with that, but his ACTIONS speak louder than his words. He doesn't trust HIS money with government.

Of course I have no way of ultimately knowing his intentions, but being criticized for it by the lefties of this forum who for the past 30 years have done nothing but question the 'motives' of conservatives I think its pretty disingenuous. I'll stop speculating on Buffet's motives when the left stops speculation on Sarah Palin's.
 
Nov 29, 2006
15,908
4,486
136
I'm just going by what the man has said himself. If he only pays 17% in taxes clearly he is taking advantage of every deduction, loophole, and credit he can. Nothing wrong with that, but his ACTIONS speak louder than his words. He doesn't trust HIS money with government.

He is taking advantage of them because they are there. He is advocating for the government to get rid of these advantages for the rich so they pay their fair share. Obviously 17% is not a fair share to him nor any sane person. Not when i pay more than that and make in a year what probably takes him 2 seconds to make.
 

mvbighead

Diamond Member
Apr 20, 2009
3,793
1
81
I understand liberals aren't the most intelligent people in the world, but let me break it down for ya'll using small words. Buffet is a hypocrite because he's calling for the taxation of rich people to solve government problems while doing everything in his power to make sure HIS money doesn't go toward solving the problem. He wants OTHER people to pay.

Again, I understand logic and stuff is quite difficult for most of you libs.. but in no way am I saying him giving money to charity is a bad thing. As a matter of fact, it shows how smart he actually is. By avoiding giving as much as possible to the government he is helping many more people and doing much more good.

My problem is that he seems to think its OK to waste OTHER peoples money on wasteful and useless government spending but is doing everything possible to avoid spending HIS money. Its completely disingenuous to be saying people should be paying more in taxes when his actions show that he has absolutely no trust in the government to spend it wisely. He should be telling rich people to donate more to charities, which I would be fully and completely in agreement with him on.

I dunno... seems pretty bold of you to suggest that his motive is simply tax evasion. And while it certainly may be, it doesn't negate the positive effect that would be experienced by doing what he has suggested.

Your argument seems to steer towards the idea that if he believes in this concept, he should just bend over and not do anything to increase or retain his income. Problem is, he is going to be mostly out for his own interests, just as you are to be out for your own. With respect to the government, he suggests that they should increase taxation of the wealthy, which would thereby increase taxation of himself.

His actions and words represent two entirely different view points. If the government is to increase their income through taxation, they should increase taxes in areas that can support the increased taxation... such as, the wealthy. Especially with the economy being in a less than stellar standpoint.

But as for himself, why the hell wouldn't he try to itemize deductions? Why wouldn't he donate to charity? He doesn't WANT to pay more taxes. But he realizes that part of the equation in reducing a debt problem is to create more income. If you're a frickin nation, you increase taxes.

Stop analyzing his actions as anti-taxes when they very clearly are driven to improve his own self worth. His recommendation is not intended to be beneficial for himself, but simply a plausible idea to bring about more income for the government.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,073
55,604
136
I'm just going by what the man has said himself. If he only pays 17% in taxes clearly he is taking advantage of every deduction, loophole, and credit he can. Nothing wrong with that, but his ACTIONS speak louder than his words. He doesn't trust HIS money with government.

Of course I have no way of ultimately knowing his intentions, but being criticized for it by the lefties of this forum who for the past 30 years have done nothing but question the 'motives' of conservatives I think its pretty disingenuous. I'll stop speculating on Buffet's motives when the left stops speculation on Sarah Palin's.

He is not advocating against each person paying the least amount of taxes that they legally owe, he is advocating for that amount to be higher.

You can't be this dumb. You were wrong, and this is a retarded hill to die on.
 

Fear No Evil

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2008
5,922
0
0
I dunno... seems pretty bold of you to suggest that his motive is simply tax evasion. And while it certainly may be, it doesn't negate the positive effect that would be experienced by doing what he has suggested.

Your argument seems to steer towards the idea that if he believes in this concept, he should just bend over and not do anything to increase or retain his income. Problem is, he is going to be mostly out for his own interests, just as you are to be out for your own. With respect to the government, he suggests that they should increase taxation of the wealthy, which would thereby increase taxation of himself.

His actions and words represent two entirely different view points. If the government is to increase their income through taxation, they should increase taxes in areas that can support the increased taxation... such as, the wealthy. Especially with the economy being in a less than stellar standpoint.

But as for himself, why the hell wouldn't he try to itemize deductions? Why wouldn't he donate to charity? He doesn't WANT to pay more taxes. But he realizes that part of the equation in reducing a debt problem is to create more income. If you're a frickin nation, you increase taxes.

Stop analyzing his actions as anti-taxes when they very clearly are driven to improve his own self worth. His recommendation is not intended to be beneficial for himself, but simply a plausible idea to bring about more income for the government.

Why do people keep changing my words? I've said he's tried to AVOID paying taxes. Not TAX EVASION which seems to imply he's doing some illegal. Mr. Buffet is clearly making a political point in suggesting the rich pay more in taxes, questioning his reasoning and motives behind it is clearly our right.

Sure, revenue generation is clearly a problem. But most people realize that with the government sending them money is like pissing into a fan. Sure, it may relieve some pressure but ultimately you are making a real mess.

When you spend 105k a year and make 100k a year, sure.. more revenue could be the solution. When you spend 500k a year and make 100k a year.. revenue is a VERY minor piece of the puzzle.
 

Fear No Evil

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2008
5,922
0
0
He is not advocating against each person paying the least amount of taxes that they legally owe, he is advocating for that amount to be higher.

You can't be this dumb. You were wrong, and this is a retarded hill to die on.

He's advocating the RICH pay more.. and since most of his money is going to be donated to charity, he is referring to OTHER rich people and not really himself. He is blocking the government from getting access to his money by donating it. He clearly doesn't trust the government with his money or else he would just let the government take 50% of it in inheritance taxes when he dies and then donate the rest to charity? If he doesn't trust the government to spend HIS money wisely when he is dead, why should ANYONE trust the government to spend their money wisely?
 

mvbighead

Diamond Member
Apr 20, 2009
3,793
1
81
Why do people keep changing my words? I've said he's tried to AVOID paying taxes. Not TAX EVASION which seems to imply he's doing some illegal. Mr. Buffet is clearly making a political point in suggesting the rich pay more in taxes, questioning his reasoning and motives behind it is clearly our right.

Sure, revenue generation is clearly a problem. But most people realize that with the government sending them money is like pissing into a fan. Sure, it may relieve some pressure but ultimately you are making a real mess.

When you spend 105k a year and make 100k a year, sure.. more revenue could be the solution. When you spend 500k a year and make 100k a year.. revenue is a VERY minor piece of the puzzle.

Oh gosh golly Oliver... while tax evasion does suggest illegal activity, the definition of evade is nearly the same as the definition of avoid. Focus on the point, and not some word that gets your panties in a bunch. You know what I meant.
 

mvbighead

Diamond Member
Apr 20, 2009
3,793
1
81
He's advocating the RICH pay more.. and since most of his money is going to be donated to charity, he is referring to OTHER rich people and not really himself. He is blocking the government from getting access to his money by donating it. He clearly doesn't trust the government with his money or else he would just let the government take 50% of it in inheritance taxes when he dies and then donate the rest to charity? If he doesn't trust the government to spend HIS money wisely when he is dead, why should ANYONE trust the government to spend their money wisely?

Why should he have to leave a majority of his money to the government? He is free to choose where that money goes. Whether he agrees or disagrees with their tactics, it is still HIS money.

The government is to be paid for by everyone that is a citizen of that country. Not just the middle class and lower class.
 

Fear No Evil

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2008
5,922
0
0
Oh gosh golly Oliver... while tax evasion does suggest illegal activity, the definition of evade is nearly the same as the definition of avoid. Focus on the point, and not some word that gets your panties in a bunch. You know what I meant.

No, I clearly did NOT know what you meant. I've had 2 people in this thread twist my words. EVADE has a clearly different meaning. People don't say criminals were trying to AVOID the police.. they say EVADE. Clearly different. If you didn't mean it that way I understand, but you can see why I feel the need to correct you.
 
Nov 29, 2006
15,908
4,486
136
He's advocating the RICH pay more.. and since most of his money is going to be donated to charity, he is referring to OTHER rich people and not really himself. He is blocking the government from getting access to his money by donating it. He clearly doesn't trust the government with his money or else he would just let the government take 50% of it in inheritance taxes when he dies and then donate the rest to charity? If he doesn't trust the government to spend HIS money wisely when he is dead, why should ANYONE trust the government to spend their money wisely?

So he would be giving more to the government as well as donating what is left. You do realize he can advocate for him and other rich people to be taxed more and still donate excess wealth right?

He is just smart enough to realize he has TOO much money and it serves him no purpose. He can buy what he wants, when he wants, where he wants and still have more money then he could dream of spending. He is just trying to give some back to people in more need than himself via taxation and donations.
 
Last edited:

mvbighead

Diamond Member
Apr 20, 2009
3,793
1
81
No, I clearly did NOT know what you meant. I've had 2 people in this thread twist my words. EVADE has a clearly different meaning. People don't say criminals were trying to AVOID the police.. they say EVADE. Clearly different. If you didn't mean it that way I understand, but you can see why I feel the need to correct you.

TBH, I believe I have heard it both ways. Regardless, while tax evasion has a clearly different meaning, let me just say that I meant tax avoidance if it helps the argument.

In any case, you're losing. Your only point is that Buffet should bury his head in the sand and ignore any item that benefits him if it takes away from the government. The reality is, the man is looking at a much bigger picture than himself.
 

Pens1566

Lifer
Oct 11, 2005
13,891
11,579
136
He is not advocating against each person paying the least amount of taxes that they legally owe, he is advocating for that amount to be higher.

You can't be this dumb. You were wrong, and this is a retarded hill to die on.


Seems fitting then.
 

Fear No Evil

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2008
5,922
0
0
Why should he have to leave a majority of his money to the government? He is free to choose where that money goes. Whether he agrees or disagrees with their tactics, it is still HIS money.

The government is to be paid for by everyone that is a citizen of that country. Not just the middle class and lower class.

Am I speaking to a wall here? I am in no way disagreeing with his actions as far as paying taxes, avoiding paying as much taxes as possible, donating to charity etc. Its absolutely his right to do that and to decide where his money goes. But what he is calling for is that OTHER rich people don't have the right to decide to donate their money to charity, they should have it confiscated in the form of higher taxes.

I'm saying its hypocritical of Buffet to avoid things such as the 'Death Tax' while calling for others to have more of their income confiscated to pay for whatever social programs Buffet supports. If Buffet believed in paying his fair share he would let the government have their 50% cut when he dies and give the rest to charity. He's purposely trying to avoid that by donating to charity before he dies, which tells me he has no trust in government to spend the money wisely.

The middle and lower classes really don't pay much in income taxes so I don't understand your point there. I could turn your point around and suggest the rich pay damn near most of all the taxes in this country shouldn't everyone have some skin in the game? (Hint, poor people as well).
 

Fear No Evil

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2008
5,922
0
0
TBH, I believe I have heard it both ways. Regardless, while tax evasion has a clearly different meaning, let me just say that I meant tax avoidance if it helps the argument.

In any case, you're losing. Your only point is that Buffet should bury his head in the sand and ignore any item that benefits him if it takes away from the government. The reality is, the man is looking at a much bigger picture than himself.

You are missing the point. Of course he is looking at a bigger picture than himself, and he is SPECIFICALLY, SYSTEMATICALLY, and PURPOSELY avoiding the government as part of that big picture. Which is CLEARLY a smart thing to do as the government will waste his money. As others have said in this thread Buffet is a very intelligent person, we should listen to what he says. I say, we should WATCH what he DOES and not what he says.

He shouldn't be SAYING for others to give more money to government when he clearly does not trust them.
 
Nov 29, 2006
15,908
4,486
136
The middle and lower classes really don't pay much in income taxes so I don't understand your point there. I could turn your point around and suggest the rich pay damn near most of all the taxes in this country shouldn't everyone have some skin in the game? (Hint, poor people as well).

I sure wish my effective tax rate was only 17%. Its not about actual dollars its about the percentages.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Will the real Warren Buffet please stand up.

http://wallstfolly.typepad.com/wallstfolly/2006/09/page_six_warren.html



What kind of documentary could cause someone to disown his adopted daughter if she participated in?

One that exposes the super rich for what they really are
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamie-johnson/the-one-percent_b_87459.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCNKn7JirBU&feature=related

This post is massively full of fail. Buffet has donated hundreds of millions to charities, both personally and through his children. He routinely gives his children BRK stock, not for themselves, but for their endowments and charities.

First off, he never really considered her his grand daugther. Nobody knows why. Second, the single biggest rule Buffet lives by is that you NEVER talk about the money, ever. You get into money problems, you are on your own. His sister got into financial problems because she used her stock to gamble with derivatives, she lost and he refused to bail her out. He gave her a "cut" and she squandered it.

His kids have never received a huge portion of the wealth, ever. One of my favorite quotes from him is something like this..."I will give my kids enough money to do something but not enough to do nothing".

That sums this up. It wasn't her money, it wasn't her life she should have been talking about, he doesn't want anybody to flaunt or even talk about it. She broke his unwritten rules and paid for it. Everybody knows the rules.

If he was about perpetuating the wealth through multiple generations he wouldn't have pledged the vast majority to Gates, nor would he be handing it out sparingly.
 

NeoV

Diamond Member
Apr 18, 2000
9,504
2
81
FNE - you can't be that stupid - don't you think his charitable contributions have FAR exceeded any benefit to his taxes? I suppose Bill Gates is nothing but a tax evader as well?
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Where did I say DODGING taxes? Why are you twisting my words? I said he is trying to AVOID paying taxes particularly because he knows government is going to waste it and a charity will spend it much wiser.
Don't play stupid semantics games. "Dodging" and "avoiding" mean the same thing. It doesn't change my point in the slightest.

That you cannot conceive of any reason for giving to charity except avoiding taxes says so much about you and nothing whatsoever about Buffet. Very sad.


Besides, he got all this money from apparently screwing the poor and middle class. Isn't that what we're constantly told from the left? (NOT referring to YOU here).
How so? Many people certainly do gain their wealth through screwing the poor and middle class. How, exactly, does this apply to Buffet? You do understand that criticizing a subset of a group for bad behavior doesn't mean everyone in the group is being criticized?
 

mvbighead

Diamond Member
Apr 20, 2009
3,793
1
81
Am I speaking to a wall here? I am in no way disagreeing with his actions as far as paying taxes, avoiding paying as much taxes as possible, donating to charity etc. Its absolutely his right to do that and to decide where his money goes. But what he is calling for is that OTHER rich people don't have the right to decide to donate their money to charity, they should have it confiscated in the form of higher taxes.

I'm saying its hypocritical of Buffet to avoid things such as the 'Death Tax' while calling for others to have more of their income confiscated to pay for whatever social programs Buffet supports. If Buffet believed in paying his fair share he would let the government have their 50% cut when he dies and give the rest to charity. He's purposely trying to avoid that by donating to charity before he dies, which tells me he has no trust in government to spend the money wisely.

The middle and lower classes really don't pay much in income taxes so I don't understand your point there. I could turn your point around and suggest the rich pay damn near most of all the taxes in this country shouldn't everyone have some skin in the game? (Hint, poor people as well).

Other people don't have the right to donate to charity? What planet are you from?

My wife and I regularly drop off item donations to second hand stores. I can write a check to any charity I wish and keep track of that donation for tax purposes. He's doing something that any person can do.

As for purposefully avoiding taxation? Just... stop. The man has billions of dollars. If a charitable donation decreases the amount he spends on taxes, why not do it? It helps out a charity and helps out his bank account.

You make it sound as if a guy who only shops at one specific grocery store cannot possibly support that grocery store if he uses coupons. I mean, if he really supports that grocery store, he'd be going through and buying damaged or expired goods at full price to help them recoup the cost, no?

Get off your box man, he's calling for increased taxation of people in his tax bracket. Why does this bother you in the slightest? Because he (better be careful with my words her) does what he legally can to ensure he pays the smallest amount of taxes possible? Everybody does that. That doesn't change the fact that the overall number across the entire spectrum goes up.

So if everyone in that tax bracket makes a sum of 1 billion dollars, what taxation percentage would yield the greatest benefit to the government... 17% or 25%?

It's simple math, and regardless of what he does now to avoid taxes, it does not change the fact that he is for it. And just like Gates, his taxes will increase with that percentage, and the charitable donations will still bring the overall number down some. But the end result is a larger percentage for the government.
 

Fear No Evil

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2008
5,922
0
0
FNE - you can't be that stupid - don't you think his charitable contributions have FAR exceeded any benefit to his taxes? I suppose Bill Gates is nothing but a tax evader as well?

Once again, for the 3rd time in this thread.. people are purposely twisting my words. I never said tax 'evader' which implies wrong doing. I said he is trying to AVOID paying as much taxes a possible (legally).

If you would actually READ my posts I've already explained myself. His charitable contributions CLEARLY have exceeded any benefits he would have paid in taxes. He was smart enough to realize that every penny he could (LEGALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) avoid paying would be WAY better served by private sector charities.

So his call for others to pay more for to the GOVERNMENT is patently absurd. It will simply be WASTED as is clearly evident by Buffet's ACTIONS in avoiding giving the government as much as possible.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Once again, for the 3rd time in this thread.. people are purposely twisting my words. I never said tax 'evader' which implies wrong doing. I said he is trying to AVOID paying as much taxes a possible (legally).
---snipped---

Yeah, but...doesnt everyone? Or is it different for us "ordinary" folks?

edit: nvm you answered it in the following post:
I think EVERY American should do absolutely EVERYTHING they can to avoid giving the government as much as possible.
 
Last edited:

Fear No Evil

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2008
5,922
0
0
Don't play stupid semantics games. "Dodging" and "avoiding" mean the same thing. It doesn't change my point in the slightest.

That you cannot conceive of any reason for giving to charity except avoiding taxes says so much about you and nothing whatsoever about Buffet. Very sad.

Where did I ever say that? Are you incapable of reading the dozen or so posts I've made CLEARLY stating that he is donating to avoid giving the government his money because he KNOWS they will WASTE IT. I'm sure his intentions on giving his money away are pure.. he wants to help people. But he realizes that GOVERNMENT isn't going to do that. So he is calling for OTHER people to give more to the government while clearly showing he absolutely does NOT trust HIS fortune to the government.

So.. in reality I am absolutely, 100% agreeing with the actions of Warren Buffet. I think EVERY American should do absolutely EVERYTHING they can to avoid giving the government as much as possible. They should do everything in their power to give as much to legit charities.

Everyone saying I am wrong about Buffet isn't reading what I am saying. I am saying he is being hypocritical in calling for the rich to pay more in taxes when he himself clearly thinks the money is better spent privately. His statement should be that the rich should pay a higher portion of their income to charity and not to TAXES.