Warren Buffett: Stop blaming the rich for income inequality

[werepossum]

It must be nice to live a simple-minded life where there every topic has but a single point. Here in the grownup world, where we have nuance and many shades of gray, LK's point and my point coexist without contradicting each other. Buffett can simultaneously push for higher business profits and higher personal income taxes. That makes him a "bad guy" only to those brainwashed chumps who dumbly believe the left all decry wealth as evil. That's just a simple-minded straw man fed to those chumps to keep them obediently serving the party line.

But you're STILL missing the point. Look at his continuous litigation to avoid taxes. Look at Glenn's post regarding Burger King. A significant part of Buffett's push for higher business profits is BY avoiding taxes. Do not his actions speak louder than his words?

For the record I don't consider Buffett to be a bad person. I DO agree with Legendkiller that Buffet is a massive hypocrite because he claims to be for higher taxes while lobbying for lower taxes of people like him AND taking advantage of every possible loophole to increase his wealth and that of his fellow investors. The only thing that differentiates him from the wealthy so hated by the left is that while lobbying to reduce his taxes, he also pays lip service to increasing them.

 

[Bowfinger]

But you're STILL missing the point. Look at his continuous litigation to avoid taxes. Look at Glenn's post regarding Burger King. A significant part of Buffett's push for higher business profits is BY avoiding taxes. Do not his actions speak louder than his words?

For the record I don't consider Buffett to be a bad person. I DO agree with Legendkiller that Buffet is a massive hypocrite because he claims to be for higher taxes while lobbying for lower taxes of people like him AND taking advantage of every possible loophole to increase his wealth and that of his fellow investors. The only thing that differentiates him from the wealthy so hated by the left is that while lobbying to reduce his taxes, he also pays lip service to increasing them.

"Really? Do you have a link showing how he has lobbied and engaged the government to reduce his personal income taxes (as opposed to corporate taxes and profits)? If not, you have perfectly illustrated my point about missing the point."

 

[glenn1]

It must be nice to live a simple-minded life where there every topic has but a single point. Here in the grownup world, where we have nuance and many shades of gray, LK's point and my point coexist without contradicting each other. Buffett can simultaneously push for higher business profits and higher personal income taxes. That makes him a "bad guy" only to those brainwashed chumps who dumbly believe the left all decry wealth as evil. That's just a simple-minded straw man fed to those chumps to keep them obediently serving the party line.

So you're cool if guys like Buffett advocate for higher personal income taxes but then set up to get compensated mostly via stock options that would be subject to cap gains rather than income tax? Just want to ensure we're all on the same page. It must be a true sacrifice for him to advocate an increase of a tax he isn't subject to very much. Next thing he'll be advocating for higher gasoline taxes since he conveniently drives a Honda GX that runs on natural gas.

 

[Bowfinger]

So you're cool if guys like Buffett advocate for higher personal income taxes but then set up to get compensated mostly via stock options that would be subject to cap gains rather than income tax? Just want to ensure we're all on the same page. It must be a true sacrifice for him to advocate an increase of a tax he isn't subject to very much. Next thing he'll be advocating for higher gasoline taxes since he conveniently drives a Honda GX that runs on natural gas.

Before you embarrass yourself further, why don't you try actually reading the link I gave you, from Buffett. Capital gains taxes are included.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

So you're cool if guys like Buffett advocate for higher personal income taxes but then set up to get compensated mostly via stock options that would be subject to cap gains rather than income tax? Just want to ensure we're all on the same page. It must be a true sacrifice for him to advocate an increase of a tax he isn't subject to very much. Next thing he'll be advocating for higher gasoline taxes since he conveniently drives a Honda GX that runs on natural gas.

Buffet does worse than this. Notice the non-profit he and Bill Gates run. They have basically completely sheltered their wealth behind this non-profit where they have donated major portions of their portfolios.

However, they and in turn their heirs, and their heirs after that will run and draw income from this organizations as permanent members of the board. So while everyone was cheering him on for pushing for a higher income tax to be slapped onto those who draw the majority of their wealth from taxable income during the OWS days. Buffet and Gates were hard at work sheltering their own wealth behind a non-profit. Then again he was/is a useful tool for those only care about pushing their own sacrosanct political narrative while completely ignoring everything else occurring around them.

 

[Bowfinger]

Buffet does worse than this. Notice the non-profit he and Bill Gates run. They have basically completely sheltered their wealth behind this non-profit where they have donated major portions of their portfolios.

However, they and in turn their heirs, and their heirs after that will run and draw income from this organizations as permanent members of the board. So while everyone was cheering him on for pushing for a higher income tax to be slapped onto those who draw the majority of their wealth from taxable income during the OWS days. Buffet and Gates were hard at work sheltering their own wealth behind a non-profit. Then again he was/is a useful tool for those only care about pushing their own sacrosanct political narrative while completely ignoring everything else occurring around them.

While I realize most of you see innuendo and speculation as reasonable substitutes for fact, I try not to drink at that trough. Can you provide a link to a credible, factual source that shows Buffett and his heirs will draw any substantial benefit from their charitable contributions? If nothing else, I expect any compensation they do draw as board members will be taxed as ordinary income, subject to higher taxes than the capital gains rate Buffett would have paid had he kept his donations. I'm willing to be educated if you have evidence to the contrary, however.

 

[dank69]

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.

Deafening silence.

OP does this shit constantly. Posts some shit with no original commentary and tries to play the wha? wha I do? game when called out on it. Usually thinly veiled racist topics but as you can see he likes bashing the poors, too.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Buffet does worse than this. Notice the non-profit he and Bill Gates run. They have basically completely sheltered their wealth behind this non-profit where they have donated major portions of their portfolios.

However, they and in turn their heirs, and their heirs after that will run and draw income from this organizations as permanent members of the board. So while everyone was cheering him on for pushing for a higher income tax to be slapped onto those who draw the majority of their wealth from taxable income during the OWS days. Buffet and Gates were hard at work sheltering their own wealth behind a non-profit. Then again he was/is a useful tool for those only care about pushing their own sacrosanct political narrative while completely ignoring everything else occurring around them.

I'm curious what you think this non-profit will pay these board members that will somehow be greater than if Gates or Buffett simply left the entirety of their fortunes to their children. Even with a 90% estate tax (which we don't have), the estates of Gates or Buffett would be in the billions. Do you honestly believe that a permanent position on a non-profit board is going to be more lucrative than that? We don't even have to speculate, as the 990s for the Gates Foundation are publicly available. No one on the board gets paid a seven figure or above salary, so I guess your contention is that it's really going to work out in these heirs' favor when they work for 1,000 years, even though their salaries are subject to higher taxes than the estate tax... meanwhile, the non-profit has already granted literally billions in funding because TAX DODGE!

This point is such nonsense that I don't even know how to address it. Saucy puppet show, perhaps?

 

[Svnla]

Deafening silence.

OP does this shit constantly. Posts some shit with no original commentary and tries to play the wha? wha I do? game when called out on it. Usually thinly veiled racist topics but as you can see he likes bashing the poors, too.

Keep on whining and bitching like a $5 whore will not get you anywhere. Funny how you and your ilk kept saying "we don't like what you post" yet continue to follow me over and over again like pathetic lap dogs even after I said over and over again...You.No.Wanted. Stop.Follow.Me.And.Lick.My....<.> Get a clue.


This thread IS about Buffet. Understand, moron? I already said what I need to say. As I told the proven liar previously..."Bitch please". I am sure you will come back with some weak sauce that you think they are so clever.

<ignore you for the rest of the thread>

Now let resume the regular scheduled programming...about Buffett.

 

[dank69]

Keep on whining and bitching like a $5 whore will not get you anywhere. Funny how you and your ilk kept saying "we don't like what you post" yet continue to follow me over and over again like pathetic lap dogs even after I said over and over again...You.No.Wanted. Stop.Follow.Me.And.Lick.My....<.>


This thread IS about Buffet. Understand, moron?

<ignore you for the rest of the thread>

That's right, focus on me and avoid his question like a little bitch. Funny how you saw my post and responded to it but missed his. Maybe you are the one stalking me?

 

[jhbball]

Keep on whining and bitching like a $5 whore will not get you anywhere. Funny how you and your ilk kept saying "we don't like what you post" yet continue to follow me over and over again like pathetic lap dogs even after I said over and over again...You.No.Wanted. Stop.Follow.Me.And.Lick.My....<.> Get a clue.


This thread IS about Buffet. Understand, moron? I already said what I need to say. As I told the proven liar previously..."Bitch please". I am sure you will come back with some weak sauce that you think they are so clever.

<ignore you for the rest of the thread>

Now let resume the regular scheduled programming...about Buffett.

AT's biggest racist, ladies and gentlemen.

 

[werepossum]

"Really? Do you have a link showing how he has lobbied and engaged the government to reduce his personal income taxes (as opposed to corporate taxes and profits)? If not, you have perfectly illustrated my point about missing the point."

Let's break it down. Berkshire Hathaway earns $300 million after expenses. The federal government says that Berkshire Hathaway owes $105 million in tax on that $300 million, leaving Berkshire Hathaway $195 million in after-tax profit. 1/3 of that increase in wealth belongs to Warren Buffett; he just got a $65 million increase in net worth.

Instead, Warren Buffet uses loopholes (for which he lobbied) and arguably incorrect accounting procedures to reduce Berkshire Hathaway's tax bill to $45 million, leaving Berkshire Hathaway $255 million wealthier. Warren Buffett is now personally $85 million wealthier. His behavior in reducing his corporate tax load just increased his personal wealth by an additional $20 million. Additionally, none of the changes for which he advocates include taxing that additional wealth unless and until he sells that stock, and since he has more money than he can swim in, that isn't likely, so he pays no additional taxes.

None of that makes him a bad person. But it certainly makes him a man who is first and foremost looking out for himself, not for poor people.

Note also that these numbers are made up solely to illustrate the example. Berkshire Hathaway's 2014 profits were actually close to $20 billion.

EDIT: Note also that moving companies' incorporations from the USA to Canada would by itself cut that $105 million tax load to $45 million.

 

[Bowfinger]

Let's break it down. Berkshire Hathaway earns $300 million after expenses. The federal government says that Berkshire Hathaway owes $105 million in tax on that $300 million, leaving Berkshire Hathaway $195 million in after-tax profit. 1/3 of that increase in wealth belongs to Warren Buffett; he just got a $65 million increase in net worth.

Instead, Warren Buffet uses loopholes (for which he lobbied) and arguably incorrect accounting procedures to reduce Berkshire Hathaway's tax bill to $45 million, leaving Berkshire Hathaway $255 million wealthier. Warren Buffett is now personally $85 million wealthier. His behavior in reducing his corporate tax load just increased his personal wealth by an additional $20 million. Additionally, none of the changes for which he advocates include taxing that additional wealth unless and until he sells that stock, and since he has more money than he can swim in, that isn't likely, so he pays no additional taxes.

None of that makes him a bad person. But it certainly makes him a man who is first and foremost looking out for himself, not for poor people.

Note also that these numbers are made up solely to illustrate the example. Berkshire Hathaway's 2014 profits were actually close to $20 billion.

EDIT: Note also that moving companies' incorporations from the USA to Canada would by itself cut that $105 million tax load to $45 million.

And? None of that contradicts anything I said. In particular, I've never suggested Buffett doesn't want to make money. Clearly he does. Lots of it. He also believes he and other wealthy people should be taxed more. He advocates paying higher individual taxes, even as he also pushes to reduce business taxes and increase profits.

I'm not sure how to make this any simpler in English. If there's another language you understand better, let me know and I'll see what I can do.

 

[Svnla]

AT's biggest racist, ladies and gentlemen.

Ah, another village idiot, my follower..following me and trying to lick my <.> so many times even I told him explicitly several times that I am not in to that. Hey, how about you and dank get together and do what ya'll are good at, ok? Then ya'll can tell each other how clever you are. :biggrin:

Shoo..shoo...You.No.Wanted. <ignore you, along with that dank moron, for the rest of the thread>

 

[MongGrel]

Ah, another village idiot, my follower..following me and trying to lick my <.> so many times even I told him explicitly several times that I am not in to that. Hey, how about you and dank get together and do what ya'll are good at, ok? Then ya'll can tell each other how clever you are. :biggrin:

Shoo..shoo...You.No.Wanted. <ignore you, along with that dank moron, for the rest of the thread>

I seriously doubt you have followers....

 

[LegendKiller]

And? None of that contradicts anything I said. In particular, I've never suggested Buffett doesn't want to make money. Clearly he does. Lots of it. He also believes he and other wealthy people should be taxed more. He advocates paying higher individual taxes, even as he also pushes to reduce business taxes and increase profits.

I'm not sure how to make this any simpler in English. If there's another language you understand better, let me know and I'll see what I can do.

Yes, he advocates higher individual taxes. That explains why he structures almost all of his individual wealth to be in the form of tax advantageous capital gains and runs everything through his companies.

Furthermore, part of the problem is that corporations are reducing their tax burden by astronomical amounts and adding to executive compensation in the same tax avoiding manners. Why do you think he prefers to use equity?

You pretend that corporate tax avoidance, which he has mastered, and personal tax avoidance, are two different things for these people. The issues are utterly conflated at this point.

Why do you think dividends are out of favor with the wealthy? Why do you think they like stock buybacks, while issuing debt. It isn't because it's better for pensioners. It's because it's better for the wealthy and executives on a personal level. Company A issues debt, the interest on that is deducted pre-tax. They then buy back shares with the proceeds. This appreciates the stock, helping people avoid paying current income tax on dividends and rather pay cap gains taxes. This helps executives make more by using RSUs and Options, both of which are structured in tax avoiding measures. Double bonus to the exec who manages to Tax Inversion the company, as Buffett has recently done.

You are an utter fucking naive rube if you think that corporate and personal taxes of the ultra-wealthy, bought and paid for through Congress (Free speech is money!), aren't 100% linked.

Look at Carried Interest.

Look at how Congress can trade on inside information legally.

There is a reason why the wealthy chuckle when Buffett starts talking. It's because he's their guy, they know he will use every loophole available to make them more money too. The rest of it is window dressing, Bread and Circuses for the masses.

It obviously works very well on you.

 

[Bowfinger]

Yes, he advocates higher individual taxes. That explains why he structures almost all of his individual wealth to be in the form of tax advantageous capital gains and runs everything through his companies.

Furthermore, part of the problem is that corporations are reducing their tax burden by astronomical amounts and adding to executive compensation in the same tax avoiding manners. Why do you think he prefers to use equity?

You pretend that corporate tax avoidance, which he has mastered, and personal tax avoidance, are two different things for these people. The issues are utterly conflated at this point.

Why do you think dividends are out of favor with the wealthy? Why do you think they like stock buybacks, while issuing debt. It isn't because it's better for pensioners. It's because it's better for the wealthy and executives on a personal level. Company A issues debt, the interest on that is deducted pre-tax. They then buy back shares with the proceeds. This appreciates the stock, helping people avoid paying current income tax on dividends and rather pay cap gains taxes. This helps executives make more by using RSUs and Options, both of which are structured in tax avoiding measures. Double bonus to the exec who manages to Tax Inversion the company, as Buffett has recently done.

You are an utter fucking naive rube if you think that corporate and personal taxes of the ultra-wealthy, bought and paid for through Congress (Free speech is money!), aren't 100% linked.

Look at Carried Interest.

Look at how Congress can trade on inside information legally.

There is a reason why the wealthy chuckle when Buffett starts talking. It's because he's their guy, they know he will use every loophole available to make them more money too. The rest of it is window dressing, Bread and Circuses for the masses.

It obviously works very well on you.

Yawn. I know you're a smart guy, yet you seem to share Werepossum's difficulties in English comprehension (or maybe it's just in forming honest arguments). Would you care to point out specifically what parts of what I wrote you think you're refuting? Cite exact quotes this time instead of generic pontificating.

I said Buffett advocates for higher individual tax rates for the wealthy -- including on capital gains. That is fact, and I linked proof in his own words. I never suggested Buffett didn't try to make money, nor that he didn't take advantage of every opportunity available to reduce his taxes. Like any smart actor, he plays the game to his maximum advantage. Nonetheless, he also recognizes the rules of that game are slanted and the result is undesirable for the masses. He has called for those rules to be changed.

 

[LegendKiller]

Yawn. I know you're a smart guy, yet you seem to share Werepossum's difficulties in English comprehension (or maybe it's just in forming honest arguments). Would you care to point out specifically what parts of what I wrote you think you're refuting? Cite exact quotes this time instead of generic pontificating.

I said Buffett advocates for higher individual tax rates for the wealthy -- including on capital gains. That is fact, and I linked proof in his own words. I never suggested Buffett didn't try to make money, nor that he didn't take advantage of every opportunity available to reduce his taxes. Like any smart actor, he plays the game to his maximum advantage. Nonetheless, he also recognizes the rules of that game are slanted and the result is undesirable for the masses. He has called for those rules to be changed.

Do as I say, not as I do. Financing an inversion is exactly what I am talking about. He didn't need to do that, there are plenty of other investments available to him, yet he did. Why? Because he is a fucking hypocrite.

What you attribute to fiduciary duty I attribute to intentional and malicious contribution to the worsening of the problem.

 

[Jhhnn]

Stop Coddling the Super-Rich

Direct from Buffett himself.

They can't hear you, mostly because they have their panties tied up in a self righteous knot. And because Buffett. It'd be the same for Soros but not for Mitt or the Koch Bros, of course.

If both the net jets tax break & Buffett's income tax proposals were enacted simultaneously, the net result would likely increase the tax burden of net jet members and federal tax revenues as well. If tax breaks on the corporate side are more than balanced by tax increases on the personal income side, the treasury comes out ahead. It reduces the attractiveness of offshoring corporate headquarters as well. If all income were taxed progressively as earned income, a whole lot of other tax shenanigans would instantly become pointless.

The rest? I'm sure none of the critics ever passed up any tax breaks for which they qualified, a whole different kind of hypocrisy. We never heard a peep from any of them when Repubs turned back the proposed "Buffett rule" tax measure in in 2012, either. They were generally too busy dry humping the leg of the false Job Creator meme for that.

 

[bradley]

Only suckers fall for smoke-and-mirrors. You either follow the status quo out of fear or admiration in hopes a few crumbs fall your way.

The Charitable-Industrial Complex by Peter Buffett
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/27/opinion/the-charitable-industrial-complex.html

Although the below criticisms resound far more deeply. Now multiply the hypocrisy by 1,700 or the amount of billionaires currently in the world.

Exclusive: Emails Reveal Deceased Hedge Fund Manager Refused To Join Bill Gates’ "Worthless" Giving Pledge: Bill Gates tried to get hedge fund founder Robert W. Wilson, who committed suicide over the weekend, to join his giving pledge. Wilson, who gave away hundreds of millions of dollars of his personal fortune on his own, politely told Gates he wanted to “stay far away” from his effort.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/exclusive-emails-reveal-deceased-hedge-fund-manager-refused

From: Robert W. Wilson
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 12:16 PM
To: Bill Gates
Subject: Re: Giving Pledge discussion

Mr. Gates, I decided more than ten years ago to try to give away 70% of my net worth and have already given away one-half billion dollars. (I’ve never been a Forbes 400) So I really don’t have to take the pledge.

Your “Giving Pledge” has a loophole that renders it practically worthless, namely permitting pledgees to simply name charities in their wills. I have found that most billionaires or near billionaires hate giving large sums of money away while alive and instead set up family-controlled foundations to do it for them after death. And these foundations become, more often than not, bureaucracy-ridden sluggards. These rich are delighted to toss off a few million a year in order to remain socially acceptable. But that’s it.

I’m going to stay far away from your effort. But thanks for thinking of me. Cordially

——- Original Message ——-
From: Robert W. Wilson
To: Bill Gates
Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2010 4:15 PM
Subject: Re: Giving Pledge discussion

Mr. Gates, thanks much for your email. But as my previous email indicated, I wouldn’t have much fun or add much value to this group. You, being a liberal, think you can change people more than I think.

But let me make one comment. When I talk to young people who seem destined for great success, I tell them to forget about charities and giving. Concentrate on your family and getting rich—which I found very hard work. I personally and the world at large are very glad you were more interested in computer software than the underprivileged when you were young. And don’t forget that those who don’t make money never become philanthropists.

When rich people reach 50 and are beginning to slow down is the time to begin engaging them in philanthropy.

I’d greatly appreciate just leaving it at that. Cordially

Very wise words Mr. Wilson. RIP.

 

[glenn1]

Yawn. I know you're a smart guy, yet you seem to share Werepossum's difficulties in English comprehension (or maybe it's just in forming honest arguments). Would you care to point out specifically what parts of what I wrote you think you're refuting? Cite exact quotes this time instead of generic pontificating.

I said Buffett advocates for higher individual tax rates for the wealthy -- including on capital gains. That is fact, and I linked proof in his own words. I never suggested Buffett didn't try to make money, nor that he didn't take advantage of every opportunity available to reduce his taxes. Like any smart actor, he plays the game to his maximum advantage. Nonetheless, he also recognizes the rules of that game are slanted and the result is undesirable for the masses. He has called for those rules to be changed.

Okay, so let's say we take his advice and we raise income taxes and capital gains. That *might* fix income inequality by bringing down the rich, but it doesn't bring up the poor as Buffett has said himself (see quotes from the OP). Which is the biggest reason for my objection as unlike the populist progressive side I have no desire to bring the rich down a peg just because especially if it does nothing to help those lower in the income scale except to allow them a momentary schadenfreude.

“No conspiracy lies behind this depressing fact: The poor are most definitely not poor because the rich are rich,”

Instead, this widening gap is an inevitable consequence of an advanced market-based economy.”

"I may wish to have all jobs pay at least $15 an hour, but that minimum would almost certainly reduce employment in a major way, crushing many workers possessing only basic skills. Smaller increases, though obviously welcome, will still leave many hardworking Americans mired in poverty.”

 

[Bowfinger]

Okay, so let's say we take his advice and we raise income taxes and capital gains. That *might* fix income inequality by bringing down the rich, but it doesn't bring up the poor as Buffett has said himself (see quotes from the OP). Which is the biggest reason for my objection as unlike the populist progressive side I have no desire to bring the rich down a peg just because especially if it does nothing to help those lower in the income scale except to allow them a momentary schadenfreude.

As I read it, he views them as two different issues. Buffett didn't advocate for increased taxes on the wealthy in order to help the poor, or even to "fix" income inequality. Rather, he advocated tax increases to help reduce the deficit. (Note he didn't say it would eliminate the deficit, but it would help. He also called for reduced government spending to reduce the deficit.) Reducing the deficit helps us all.

 

[Jhhnn]

Okay, so let's say we take his advice and we raise income taxes and capital gains. That *might* fix income inequality by bringing down the rich, but it doesn't bring up the poor as Buffett has said himself (see quotes from the OP). Which is the biggest reason for my objection as unlike the populist progressive side I have no desire to bring the rich down a peg just because especially if it does nothing to help those lower in the income scale except to allow them a momentary schadenfreude.

"Bringing down the Rich" means what, exactly? Is there some lifestyle difference between paying 40% in taxes & 15% in taxes on enormous incomes? Will they have to select less luxurious accoutrements for their custom Gulfstream? Not likely.

Or is it more of an issue of reducing their influence over politics & economics? An issue of establishing that America's Rich are of us rather than above us?

Perhaps it's an issue of creating a system of wealth & liquidity distribution more like that of the Post-WW2 New Deal Era incorporating the realities of offshoring & automation?

Or will we descend from there into the ancient regime way of doing things, the shining city on the hill surrounded by slums as far as the eye can see?

 

[glenn1]

"Bringing down the Rich" means what, exactly? Is there some lifestyle difference between paying 40% in taxes & 15% in taxes on enormous incomes? Will they have to select less luxurious accoutrements for their custom Gulfstream? Not likely.

Or is it more of an issue of reducing their influence over politics & economics? An issue of establishing that America's Rich are of us rather than above us?

Perhaps it's an issue of creating a system of wealth & liquidity distribution more like that of the Post-WW2 New Deal Era incorporating the realities of offshoring & automation?

Or will we descend from there into the ancient regime way of doing things, the shining city on the hill surrounded by slums as far as the eye can see?

Or maybe we can ascend to an intelligent way of doing things, where you don't have an overweening government that consumes trillions annually. But no, we can't reduce the scope of government you gotta make sure the millionaires who aren't in office can't influence the millionaires in office. As if that will make one fucking whit of difference to the "little guy" if you repeal Citizens United and all the other trivia you so

 

[Murloc]

Okay, so let's say we take his advice and we raise income taxes and capital gains. That *might* fix income inequality by bringing down the rich, but it doesn't bring up the poor as Buffett has said himself (see quotes from the OP). Which is the biggest reason for my objection as unlike the populist progressive side I have no desire to bring the rich down a peg just because especially if it does nothing to help those lower in the income scale except to allow them a momentary schadenfreude.

stuff like free universities and investment in vocational secondary schooling would bring up the poor, without them having to learn to manage their finances or anything like that.
Just not having people walking around with huge student debt would be a huge win. I've read articles claiming student debt will be the next banking crisis surprise from america.

And this is just one thing. There's plenty of other stuff you can touch, even without getting people on the dole and thus having negative side effects.