Warren Buffett: Stop blaming the rich for income inequality

[blastingcap]

Once again.

"Beat it" "GTFO" lol. That's all you can say?

How about YOU "beat it." This is a public forum. You posted some drivel, and I took you to task for it. You threw up some bullshit "I was misunderstood" crap and then refuse to say what you "really meant." Pathetic. Either stand up for your own words, or correct them. Don't do this "I was misunderstood but won't tell you what I really meant" bullshit.

 

[Svnla]

"Beat it" "GTFO" lol. That's all you can say?

How about YOU "beat it." This is a public forum. You posted some drivel, and I took you to task for it. You threw up some bullshit "I was misunderstood" crap and then refuse to say what you "really meant." Pathetic. Either stand up for your own words, or correct them. Don't do this "I was misunderstood but won't tell you what I really meant" bullshit.

Where are my exact words as you claimed I said? What is the matter? LOL. You CLAIMED I said something and so far, you are still unable to quote my exact words. Not only you are a LIAR, a pathetic moronic LIAR. Put up or shut up.

Now you know why I said you are a proven LIAR.

 

[norseamd]

OP major fail

 

[blastingcap]

Where are my exact words as you claimed I said? What is the matter? LOL. You CLAIMED I said something and so far, you are still unable to quote my exact words. Not only you are a LIAR, a pathetic moronic LIAR. Put up or shut up.

Now you know why I said you are a proven LIAR.

Stop playing dumb. You seem to think that "I was misunderstood" has to mean a literal quote. It doesn't. In this context, it refers to the common excuse of being misunderstood, the kind of bullshit politicians say when they were caught saying something they shouldn't have said. English is apparently not your first language.

Your broken English version of that politician's excuse was:

You do NOT know what I know or not.

(in response to my pointing out the flaw in your OP--the implication being that you were misunderstood)

Again, where did I say the poor hate the rich or anything about jealousy as you claimed? Since you are still unable to quote my exact words to support your statement, you need to hit the road because you are a liar.

(again, playing the "I was misunderstood" card)

If I misunderstood what you intended to say in your OP, then go on and say what you "meant to say." (Quotes again not to be taken literally. Nobody literally said that, it just refers to the KIND of statement.)

 

[Svnla]

Stop playing dumb. You seem to think that "I was misunderstood" has to mean a literal quote. It doesn't. In this context, it refers to the common excuse of being misunderstood, the kind of bullshit politicians say when they were caught saying something they shouldn't have said. English is apparently not your first language.

Your broken English version of that politician's excuse was:





If I misunderstood what you intended to say in your OP, then go on and say what you "meant to say." (Quotes again not to be taken literally. Nobody literally said that, it just refers to the KIND of statement.)

I went back and read ALL of my posts in this thread and I am still unable to see how you were able to claim that I said poor people hate rich people/jealousy (I DID say something about don't blame all the wrongs of the poor on the rich) and I said I was misunderstood. No wonder no exact quotes from my own words from you. So I guess who will eat the humble pie, eh?

Liar. Proven LIAR.

If you want to continue to play game, go ahead. I will not reply to you until you can provide my exact words to support your claims.

 

[blastingcap]

I went back and read ALL of my posts in this thread and I am still unable to see how you were able to claim that I said poor people hate rich people/jealousy and I said I was misunderstood. No wonder no exact quotes from my own words from you.

Liar. Proven LIAR.

If you want to continue to play game, go ahead. I will not reply to you until you can provide my exact words to support your claims.

Grow up and learn English, kid. Nice troll, though: start a thread with broken English, then if anyone criticizes you for it, claim that people don't know what you are saying, yet refuse to clarify or elaborate on your OP.

 

[JMapleton]

I'm all about working hard to earn a living. But I think this applies much more now days than any other time

http://thewireless.co.nz/articles/the-pencilsword-on-a-plate

Nice try. I agree that higher income children have an advantage, but the sadder reality of the situation is that poor people grow up with bad role models. Parents that drink, abuse drugs, bad mouth successful people, etc.

Growing up in a working class household is a very negative experience, I know first hand.

Also, the part about the parents in the cartoon working two jobs to get by. If they worked two jobs, they would be able to afford to send their kids to better schools in better neighborhoods. In my personal real life experience, poor people are poor because they do not want to work. If anything, poor kids spend more time with their parents. But their parents are poor role models and kids mimic the poor behavior of their miscreant parents.

 

[Bird222]

You ever look at the structure of his deals in the last 50 years youll understand what I am saying.

What I pretty much said is that he wouldn't be as wealthy as he is, not even close. The cumulative effect of 15-30% tax rates on his deals would negate a huge portion of his wealth.

Even his "giving" of it to the Gates foundation was done tax free.

Serious question: How is he doing this?

 

[JMapleton]

Serious question: How is he doing this?

I am not a tax adviser, but donations to non profit organizations are tax free.

It takes a large infrastructure to give away billions of dollars efficiently. He does not have this set up. It's more efficient for him to funnel the donations through Gates' foundation. There is nothing wrong with this.

He's not "giving his money to Bill Gates" as some in the media and some ignorant bystanders have said.

 

[MongGrel]

Nice try. I agree that higher income children have an advantage, but the sadder reality of the situation is that poor people grow up with bad role models. Parents that drink, abuse drugs, bad mouth successful people, etc.

Growing up in a working class household is a very negative experience, I know first hand.

Also, the part about the parents in the cartoon working two jobs to get by. If they worked two jobs, they would be able to afford to send their kids to better schools in better neighborhoods. In my personal real life experience, poor people are poor because they do not want to work. If anything, poor kids spend more time with their parents. But their parents are poor role models and kids mimic the poor behavior of their miscreant parents.

 

[JMapleton]

I would say it is not an intentional dumbing down of the general population they perpetuate, but they simply base their strategies of the fact that since the beginning of time, 98% of the population is made up of followers (as opposed to leaders) and the intellectually lazy.

They know they can rely on the fact that the avg person cares more about NFL football than economic policies.

I personally don't have a problem with it. It only makes it easier for me to get ahead if everyone else is willfully ignorant.

 

[glenn1]

I would say it is not an intentional dumbing down of the general population they perpetuate, but they simply base their strategies of the fact that since the beginning of time, 98% of the population is made up of followers (as opposed to leaders) and the intellectually lazy.

They know they can rely on the fact that the avg person cares more about NFL football than economic policies.

I personally don't have a problem with it. It only makes it easier for me to get ahead if everyone else is willfully ignorant.

For the overwhelmingly vast portion of the population, caring about economic policies does nothing to "get you ahead" and rational ignorance is exactly the proper approach.

 

[shady28]

Let me ask you, what was the wealth distribution like when America was prospering? What was the ratio of executive to worker pay? What was the top marginal tax rate? What was the capital gains tax rate? What was the estate tax rate? Was there something called Carried Interest? How many offshore tax havens were there? How many other ultra-high income earning tax loopholes were there? Did executives get paid in stock, or options, and try to drive tax advantageous financial engineering to prop up equity values at the expense of R&D?

This is what is laughable about ignorant people like you. You sit around and pontificate on shit you have no clue about. You've never considered anything beyond your nose.

All of that in the first paragraph is why Warren Buffet, and his friends, are as wealthy as they are. The amount of handouts they get dwarfs what "poor" people get by such a magnitude that it is staggering to even partially consider.

The entire reason why "poor" people need those handouts is because the rich people get far more.

And I am far from a socialist. I'm just a realist.

+1, best post in thread.

It isn't really that poor people need more breaks, it's that rich people should get far fewer.

And btw, "rich" is not a successful nurse and an engineer with a household income of $250k. That's the red herring Obama used to define "rich". That is a level of success available to most able-bodied people if they work at it.

Meanwhile all of the noted loopholes were left in place for the truly wealthy - and Obama waits until he has a Repub Congress to "address" those loopholes in his "state of the union" speech. This way he can play politics with a topic neither Dems nor Repubs are actually going to address, and blame it on the other party. If Dems were really going to do something about it, they could have done it anytime in the previous 6 years.

 

[LegendKiller]

Serious question: How is he doing this?

His biggest methods are using stock swaps to buy/sell companies. His "gift" to Gates Foundation was in Berkshire shares, not money, because then he'd have to sell the shares, take capital gains taxes, and donate the money. Instead he donates shares and let the Foundation sell them tax free.

He's done this flip flopping for decades. He's nothing but a scammer.

Hell, he even financed a tax inversion deal to help another company avoid paying US taxes.

And how does he make so much money? He uses insurance premiums to fund acquisitions, getting pretty much free money.

The guy is good, no doubt, but he didn't invent the wheel and he is a *massive* hypocrite. He ostracizes anybody who talks negatively about him, utterly. The person who wrote Snowball was a close friend, as soon as the book was unflattering he punted her. Why? Because she dared print even a hint of truth against the God of Finance.

 

[Jhhnn]

+1, best post in thread.

It isn't really that poor people need more breaks, it's that rich people should get far fewer.

And btw, "rich" is not a successful nurse and an engineer with a household income of $250k. That's the red herring Obama used to define "rich". That is a level of success available to most able-bodied people if they work at it.

Meanwhile all of the noted loopholes were left in place for the truly wealthy - and Obama waits until he has a Repub Congress to "address" those loopholes in his "state of the union" speech. This way he can play politics with a topic neither Dems nor Repubs are actually going to address, and blame it on the other party. If Dems were really going to do something about it, they could have done it anytime in the previous 6 years.

I'm terribly sorry to inform you that Repubs have had veto power in the senate since 2010, now hold the majority, and they have held the HOR since the 2010 election.

That doesn't even account for a very conservative federal judiciary.

What have Repubs done with any of it other than obstruct?

 

[realibrad]

I went back and read ALL of my posts in this thread and I am still unable to see how you were able to claim that I said poor people hate rich people/jealousy (I DID say something about don't blame all the wrongs of the poor on the rich) and I said I was misunderstood. No wonder no exact quotes from my own words from you. So I guess who will eat the humble pie, eh?

Liar. Proven LIAR.

If you want to continue to play game, go ahead. I will not reply to you until you can provide my exact words to support your claims.

The Oracle of Omaha has spoken, stop blaming the riches for the wrong(s) with the poors.

So as a 3rd party to this, what did you mean to say? It looks like you are saying that the poor should not blame the rich for their situation as expressed by Warren Buffett. To me, it seemed like sarcasm which would then imply that you think the opposite. If its not sarcasm, then you are implying that people have been blaming the rich for the situation of the poor.

So, I see 2 choices so far as I can see.

Either you believe that people incorrectly blame the rich for the situation of the poor, and you used the quotes from Buffett to provide evidence otherwise.

Or

You used sarcasm in saying that a rich guy is saying not to blame the rich for the exploitation of the poor. The implication there is that a rich person would obviously point the finger somewhere else than himself.

If you think there is another way it could be taken, please let me know.

 

[glenn1]

His biggest methods are using stock swaps to buy/sell companies. His "gift" to Gates Foundation was in Berkshire shares, not money, because then he'd have to sell the shares, take capital gains taxes, and donate the money. Instead he donates shares and let the Foundation sell them tax free.

He's done this flip flopping for decades. He's nothing but a scammer.

Hell, he even financed a tax inversion deal to help another company avoid paying US taxes.

And how does he make so much money? He uses insurance premiums to fund acquisitions, getting pretty much free money.

The guy is good, no doubt, but he didn't invent the wheel and he is a *massive* hypocrite. He ostracizes anybody who talks negatively about him, utterly. The person who wrote Snowball was a close friend, as soon as the book was unflattering he punted her. Why? Because she dared print even a hint of truth against the God of Finance.

Why the hell would he realize a gain and pay taxes on monies he was going to donate anyway? Who pays Uncle Sam for the 'privilege' of giving money away to a charity?

And insurance premiums aren't "free money," unearned premia are a liability to the insurer and don't take into account loss reserves. Those reserves almost always held as high quality debt instruments held until maturity and valued at amortized cost rather than their mark-to-market value. Now if you mean that insurance companies can generate predictable and steady cash flows from their insurance activities when they perform good underwriting and actuarial work, and those profits can then be plowed into acquisitions, then I can agree.

 

[LegendKiller]

Why the hell would he realize a gain and pay taxes on monies he was going to donate anyway? Who pays Uncle Sam for the 'privilege' of giving money away to a charity?

And insurance premiums aren't "free money," unearned premia are a liability to the insurer and don't take into account loss reserves. Those reserves almost always held as high quality debt instruments held until maturity and valued at amortized cost rather than their mark-to-market value. Now if you mean that insurance companies can generate predictable and steady cash flows from their insurance activities when they perform good underwriting and actuarial work, and those profits can then be plowed into acquisitions, then I can agree.

Only making a point how he bends and twists every law he can find.

I am well aware of what premiums are. They are a lot more free than outside capital. The insurance float that Berkshire has is what has driven his success, nothing more. It is far easier to deal with that than hedge fund investors. He just runs the world largest, but cheapest funded, hedge fund.

 

[werepossum]

His biggest methods are using stock swaps to buy/sell companies. His "gift" to Gates Foundation was in Berkshire shares, not money, because then he'd have to sell the shares, take capital gains taxes, and donate the money. Instead he donates shares and let the Foundation sell them tax free.

He's done this flip flopping for decades. He's nothing but a scammer.

Hell, he even financed a tax inversion deal to help another company avoid paying US taxes.

And how does he make so much money? He uses insurance premiums to fund acquisitions, getting pretty much free money.

The guy is good, no doubt, but he didn't invent the wheel and he is a *massive* hypocrite. He ostracizes anybody who talks negatively about him, utterly. The person who wrote Snowball was a close friend, as soon as the book was unflattering he punted her. Why? Because she dared print even a hint of truth against the God of Finance.

I'd certainly agree that he's a massive hypocrite, tax dodger, and all around asshole, but c'mon dude he's no scammer.* Buffett is probably the smartest guy on Wall Street.

* Unless by scammer you mean ONLY in his pretending to be for the little guy. In that, I would agree.

 

[LegendKiller]

I'd certainly agree that he's a massive hypocrite, tax dodger, and all around asshole, but c'mon dude he's no scammer.* Buffett is probably the smartest guy on Wall Street.

* Unless by scammer you mean ONLY in his pretending to be for the little guy. In that, I would agree.

I certainly mean scammer in that he's scammed the commoners into thinking he is one of them, but he isn't.

I used to believe it once also, but the compounding hypocrisies were too much to ignore.

 

[JMapleton]

Only making a point how he bends and twists every law he can find.

I am well aware of what premiums are. They are a lot more free than outside capital. The insurance float that Berkshire has is what has driven his success, nothing more. It is far easier to deal with that than hedge fund investors. He just runs the world largest, but cheapest funded, hedge fund.

Legendkiller, you are ridiculous. Buffett has an obligation to his shareholders to take advantage of every legal tax loophole possible. There is nothing unethical about this.

The same is true for his charity. Minimizing taxes to maximizing charitable giving, I couldn't possible see how anyone could speak down to that.

As for scamming by double speak, the avg person can take his words as they want. It is true most think he is something he is not, but what others think of him is not something he can control simply because they cannot understand the depth of his commentary.

 

[LegendKiller]

Legendkiller, you are ridiculous. Buffett has an obligation to his shareholders to take advantage of every legal tax loophole possible. There is nothing unethical about this.

The same is true for his charity. Minimizing taxes to maximizing charitable giving, I couldn't possible see how anyone could speak down to that.

As for scamming by double speak, the avg person can take his words as they want. It is true most think he is something he is not, but what others think of him is not something he can control simply because they cannot understand the depth of his commentary.

You know, this is a funny point that we keep coming back to.

He takes advantage of the laws he lobbies for. How else do they get passed? Certainly not because us commoners ask for them. Then people like you come around and say "Well, shoot, he is only following the law".

Then he goes out in public with his "awe, shucks, those laws are for the rich people". Meanwhile, he is a rich person, and lobbying for more favorable laws.


It is a chicken and the egg?

The whole thing is a fucking rigged game and he's the master rigger.

That and a PR master, which is what is spoonfed to the commoners to make sure he can keep passing the laws. Look at you, you're like a little doggie. Woof.

 

[JMapleton]

You know, this is a funny point that we keep coming back to.

He takes advantage of the laws he lobbies for. How else do they get passed? Certainly not because us commoners ask for them. Then people like you come around and say "Well, shoot, he is only following the law".

Then he goes out in public with his "awe, shucks, those laws are for the rich people". Meanwhile, he is a rich person, and lobbying for more favorable laws.

You're missing the point. He may be completely disgusted with the methods used by companies to profit, but the reality is, that the moment, is forced to use these techniques because he has been hired for a job. He is an employee of Berkshire Hathaway and has been employed to use the skills at his disposal to maximize profit, ethics be damned.

He may not like doing it or think it's wrong, but he has an obligation to do it. Just the same as a gas station employee has an obligation to sell someone a pack of cigarettes to someone who asks for it, even if they think it's unethical.

 

[shady28]

I'm terribly sorry to inform you that Repubs have had veto power in the senate since 2010, now hold the majority, and they have held the HOR since the 2010 election.

That doesn't even account for a very conservative federal judiciary.

What have Repubs done with any of it other than obstruct?

Nice attempt at revisionist history.

Here are some facts, with a reference.

2009-2011 there were 56-58 Democrats in the senate, 40-42 Republicans.
2009-2011 there were 257 Democrats, 178 Republicans, in the HOR.

It was not until this year, 2015, that Republicans had a "Veto" power in the Senate (which you stated they had in 2010?). They have had majority in the HOR since 2011 though.

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

For two years the Dems had total control of Congress and the Executive branch. They could have passed any law they wanted.

This is what they did :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress

January 29, 2009: Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111–2
February 4, 2009: Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (SCHIP), Pub.L. 111–3
February 17, 2009: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), Pub.L. 111–5
March 11, 2009: Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, Pub.L. 111–8
March 30, 2009: Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111–11
April 21, 2009: Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, Pub.L. 111–13
May 20, 2009: Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111–21
May 20, 2009: Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111–22
May 22, 2009: Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111–23
May 22, 2009: Credit CARD Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111–24
June 22, 2009: Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, as Division A of Pub.L. 111–31
June 24, 2009: Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009 including the Car Allowance Rebate System (Cash for Clunkers), Pub.L. 111–32
October 28, 2009: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, including the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, Pub.L. 111–84
November 6, 2009: Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111–92
December 16, 2009: Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010, Pub.L. 111–117
February 12, 2010: Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act, as Title I of Pub.L. 111–139
March 4, 2010: Travel Promotion Act of 2009, as Section 9 of Pub.L. 111–145
March 18, 2010: Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act, Pub.L. 111–147
March 23, 2010: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub.L. 111–148
March 30, 2010: Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, including the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, Pub.L. 111–152
May 5, 2010: Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111–163
July 1, 2010: Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111–195
July 21, 2010: Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub.L. 111–203
July 29, 2010: Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010
August 3, 2010: Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111–220
August 10, 2010: SPEECH Act, Pub.L. 111–223
September 27, 2010: Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111–240
December 8, 2010: Claims Resolution Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111–291
December 13, 2010: Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111–296
December 17, 2010: Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111–312, H.R. 4853
December 22, 2010: Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111–321, H.R. 2965
January 2, 2011: James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111–347, H.R. 847
January 4, 2011: Shark Conservation Act, Pub.L. 111–348, H.R. 81
January 4, 2011: Food Safety and Modernization Act, Pub.L. 111–353, H.R. 2751

 

[Jhhnn]

You're missing the point. He may be completely disgusted with the methods used by companies to profit, but the reality is, that the moment, is forced to use these techniques because he has been hired for a job. He is an employee of Berkshire Hathaway and has been employed to use the skills at his disposal to maximize profit, ethics be damned.

He may not like doing it or think it's wrong, but he has an obligation to do it. Just the same as a gas station employee has an obligation to sell someone a pack of cigarettes to someone who asks for it, even if they think it's unethical.

Oh, please. At this point in his life, or the life of any billionaire, they're not forced to do much of anything. Running Berkshire Hathaway is entirely optional.