Warren Buffett: Stop blaming the rich for income inequality

[bradley]

The whole argument seems like a red herring.

It doesn't matter who's responsible for income inequality, but it's a problem and needs to be fixed. To do that requires some measure of wealth redistribution.

Paradigm shift in US wealth inequality and money hoarding....

01. Repeal Dodd/Frank and replace it with proven legislation in the Glass Steagall Act.
02. Repeal NAFTA, GATT, CAFTA and TPP.
03. Pull the US out of the WTO
04. Prosecute all players in LIBOR fixing and subsequent insider banking scandals.
05. Prosecute Wall St. precipitants of the 2008 financial collapse
06. Break up a media monopoly where 90% ownership is allowed to six corporations
07. Institute term limits for Congress
08. Confront China on trade relations, including removing 'Most Favored Nation' MFN/PNTR trade status.
09. Make the actions at K-Street completely transparent and open investigations on this private/public sector revolving door.
10. Put an end to fascistic Presidential Executive Orders and Memoranda. Only Congress can enact legislation. Repeal any unconstitutional orders starting with the most troublesome.
11. Wake up the American People from the false dichotomy of a corrupt two-party system.

 

[norseamd]

I think most credible economists, (not hacks like Art Laffer and Stephen Moore) would agree that wealth concentration lowers economic performance due to the multiplier effect being small. The wealthy don't buy much incremental goods and services if they get more money, they mainly use that money to bid up asset prices. So maybe a Picasso will sell for $150M instead of $100M. Doesn't really matter to the economy one way or the other. The Fed has failed spectacularly in trying to get wealth effect from channeling cheap money to the wealthy to translate to real growth, all it has translated into are asset price bubbles. Only fiscal redistribution through higher taxation and government outlays would help.

In any case, fun times are approaching as more and more jobs get automated and robotized. When computers and robots can do better work than majority of population the whole system of wealth distribution based on work is going to collapse. Not that it's based on work already, but that will put that illusion to rest.

Also this is more or less a very good description and you are right about how extra money for the rich just ends up not doing much for the economy usually just more money spent on paintings that deserve to be cared for in museums and other conspicuous consumption. And what new economic benefits that do sometimes occur are very often extravagant and profligate bullshit like luxurious icecubes that only have a minor boost to the economy.

 

[norseamd]

07. Institute term limits for Congress

Not sure if that would actually do that much.

10. Put an end to fascistic Presidential Executive Orders and Memoranda. Only Congress can enact legislation. Repeal any unconstitutional orders starting with the most troublesome.

Not a good idea. Messing around with the balance of power could lead to some very terrible consequences.

 

[bradley]

Not sure if that would actually do that much.



Not a good idea. Messing around with the balance of power could lead to some very terrible consequences.

http://www.congressforkids.net/Constitution_checksandbalances.htm lol

 

[Jhhnn]

IMO, the wealthy (000.1%) are efficient when it comes time to paying taxes. In comparison, wage earners who earn a lot of money are the ones that are heavily taxed. They are the ones buying the new homes, cars, clothes, etc... They mostly live above their means and they get taxed for it when it comes time to pay their taxes.

The wealthy are able to play the tax game to the point where they are paying as minimal as possible. So, why don't most people do follow the rich so they can pay as little as possible during tax time? Would that be even possible?

It's structural. When all your income is right there on your W2, you have limited options. When the vast majority of your income is from investment in a variety of corporate/ hedge fund/ LLC's & so forth, you have more options & receive enormous benefit from perks of all sorts.

Median families & below generally don't pay federal income tax, anyway. They just wish they made enough money so they'd have to. They get it from the other side in property tax, state income tax, sales tax, energy taxes, sin taxes & "fees" which are just a different kind of tax. There are hidden taxes in rent, as well. The only ones of those significant to the wealthy are property & state income taxes. The rest are basically insignificant at their income levels.

 

[norseamd]

Most of what you said was good but the 2 thoughts I quoted are grey territory. Furthermore there are checks and balances on the power of executive order from the Judiciary. Also a description for kids on checks and balances is not something that is probably definitive on the subject of politics and government.

United States presidents issue executive orders to help officers and agencies of the executive branch manage the operations within the federal government itself. Executive orders have the full force of law when they take authority from a legislative power which grants its power directly to the Executive by the Constitution, or are made pursuant to Acts of Congress that explicitly delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation).[1] Like both legislative statutes and regulations promulgated by government agencies, executive orders are subject to judicial review, and may be struck down if deemed by the courts to be unsupported by statute or the Constitution. Major policy initiatives require approval by the legislative branch, but executive orders have significant influence over the internal affairs of government, deciding how and to what degree legislation will be enforced, dealing with emergencies, waging 72-hour length strikes on enemies, and in general fine-tuning policy choices in the implementation of broad statutes.

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

Legislative (Congress)

• Passes bills; has broad taxing and spending power; regulates inter-state commerce; controls the federal budget; has power to borrow money on the credit of the United States (may be vetoed by President, but vetoes may be overridden with a two-thirds vote of both houses)
• Has sole power to declare war, as well as to raise, support, and regulate the military.
• Oversees, investigates, and makes the rules for the government and its officers.
• Defines by law the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary in cases not specified by the Constitution
• Ratification of treaties signed by the President and gives advice and consent to presidential appointments to the federal judiciary, federal executive departments, and other posts (Senate only)
• Has sole power of impeachment (House of Representatives) and trial of impeachments (Senate); can remove federal executive and judicial officers from office for high crimes and misdemeanors

Executive (President)

• Is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces
• Executes the instructions of Congress.
• May veto bills passed by Congress (but the veto may be overridden by a two-thirds majority of both houses)
• Executes the spending authorized by Congress.
• Declares states of emergency and publishes regulations and executive orders.
• Makes executive agreements (does not require ratification) and signs treaties (ratification requiring approval by two-thirds of the Senate)
• Makes appointments to the federal judiciary, federal executive departments, and other posts with the advice and consent of the Senate. Has power to make temporary appointment during the recess of the Senate
• Has the power to grant "reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."

Judicial (Supreme Court)

• Exercises judicial review, reviewing the constitutionality of laws
• Determines how Congress meant the law to apply to disputes
• Determines how a law acts to determine the disposition of prisoners
• Determines how a law acts to compel testimony and the production of evidence
• Determines how laws should be interpreted to assure uniform policies in a top-down fashion via the appeals process, but gives discretion in individual cases to low-level judges. The amount of discretion depends upon the standard of review, determined by the type of case in question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers#Checks_and_balances

 

[Jhhnn]

Buffet's recent statements clearly contradict what he's offered in the past, but few Righties can even recognize that.

“There’s class warfare, all right,” Mr. Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/business/yourmoney/26every.html?_r=0

They've been winning, and winning big over the intervening years, but he somehow reaches the magical conclusion that there haven't been any losers. Funny that.

 

[blastingcap]

Not sure if that would actually do that much.

Speaking as a CA resident, term limits may actually hurt. In CA you have a continual rotation of newbie dumbass legislators who occasionally have good ideas but often have bad, terrible, or incomplete ideas. They need help from lobbyists and consultants just to draft their dumbass ideas and to negotiate the labyrinthine rules for getting a bill from start to finish.

Basically the newbie legislators are like 16 year olds learning how to drive, who need to have an adult driver with them just to survive traffic. And just as they are getting competent enough to earn drivers licenses (push back on lobbyists, draft bills better, get things done), they are term-limited out of office.

The result is that the lobbyists in CA have a TON of clout, thanks in part to term limits.

 

[LegendKiller]

Buffet's recent statements clearly contradict what he's offered in the past, but few Righties can even recognize that.



http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/business/yourmoney/26every.html?_r=0

They've been winning, and winning big over the intervening years, but he somehow reaches the magical conclusion that there haven't been any losers. Funny that.

Nothing more than par for the course. He's also the one that decried derivatives as "Weapons of Mass Destruction", but his companies have made many billions off of them.

Whatever can make Warren a profit, he's fine with.

 

[Moonbeam]

Nothing more than par for the course. He's also the one that decried derivatives as "Weapons of Mass Destruction", but his companies have made many billions off of them.

Whatever can make Warren a profit, he's fine with.

I wonder. If the system you play in for a living has rules that favor you, do you not take advantage of them even though you know the system is rigged in your favor and you tell the rule makers they should make things more fair. How would you get the clout or even the reputation to have anybody listen to you? Is it possible that in a world where the rules are rational and do not favor the few, wouldn't WB's investment philosophy still have made him rich, and possibly even richer? Do you think he does what he does to make money, or to express a philosophy of life, to buy what you iunderstand and what has perceivable value?

 

[nickqt]

Speaking as a CA resident, term limits may actually hurt. In CA you have a continual rotation of newbie dumbass legislators who occasionally have good ideas but often have bad, terrible, or incomplete ideas. They need help from lobbyists and consultants just to draft their dumbass ideas and to negotiate the labyrinthine rules for getting a bill from start to finish.

Basically the newbie legislators are like 16 year olds learning how to drive, who need to have an adult driver with them just to survive traffic. And just as they are getting competent enough to earn drivers licenses (push back on lobbyists, draft bills better, get things done), they are term-limited out of office.

The result is that the lobbyists in CA have a TON of clout, thanks in part to term limits.

Every elected office already comes with term limits.

 

[feralkid]

no one should blame the rich, it's the people who own the least who make up the majority of the population, and in a democratic country that measn that if they really wanted to they could increase taxation on the rich and increase redistribution.

Not with our current Supreme Court, I'm afraid.


***cough***citizens united***cough.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Buffett is nothing more than a brand. He has sold everybody on this folksy "awe shucks" thing, but in reality, he's just another wheeler and dealer who has avoided paying taxes his whole life. Every single deal he does is structured to avoid paying taxes.

This is actually the root of income inequality. If he had actually paid the taxes he should have he'd never have tried to accumulate the wealth he did.

"Paid the taxes he should have"?

How dumb are you? You owe what taxes you owe. If you pay anything else it's just your own stupidity. It's not our fault.

It's not like the IRS is coming to his door next week. The man paid and still pays his taxes as he should.

 

[theeedude]

The rich buy politicians and write tax laws for their own benefit. Then they say, oh, we are just paying what the law says we owe.

 

[DCal430]

Paradigm shift in US wealth inequality and money hoarding....

01. Repeal Dodd/Frank and replace it with proven legislation in the Glass Steagall Act.
02. Repeal NAFTA, GATT, CAFTA and TPP.
03. Pull the US out of the WTO
04. Prosecute all players in LIBOR fixing and subsequent insider banking scandals.
05. Prosecute Wall St. precipitants of the 2008 financial collapse
06. Break up a media monopoly where 90% ownership is allowed to six corporations
07. Institute term limits for Congress
08. Confront China on trade relations, including removing 'Most Favored Nation' MFN/PNTR trade status.
09. Make the actions at K-Street completely transparent and open investigations on this private/public sector revolving door.
10. Put an end to fascistic Presidential Executive Orders and Memoranda. Only Congress can enact legislation. Repeal any unconstitutional orders starting with the most troublesome.
11. Wake up the American People from the false dichotomy of a corrupt two-party system.

I would also remove us from the IMF and WB. These orgs pretend to help poor countries, but they just exploit them

 

[norseamd]

Every elected office already comes with term limits.

Nope.

National legislative seats in America do not have any term limitations.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Nope.

National legislative seats in America do not have any term limitations.

The vote.

 

[norseamd]

The vote.

That is democratic elections not term limitations.

 

[LegendKiller]

"Paid the taxes he should have"?

How dumb are you? You owe what taxes you owe. If you pay anything else it's just your own stupidity. It's not our fault.

It's not like the IRS is coming to his door next week. The man paid and still pays his taxes as he should.

No, the wealthy owe what they can't buy a politician to pass a law to reduce what they owe to 0.

How stupid are you?

 

[nickqt]

That is democratic elections not term limitations.

Their term is inherently limited. 2 years for a House seat. 4 years for the Presidency. 6 years for a Senate seat.

That the voters are allowed to vote in a House or Senate member in multiple elections doesn't change the fact that there are term limits built into each and every elected office.

 

[norseamd]

But by term limitation I mean limitations on how many terms any individual is allowed to serve or at least be elected to any government offices or positions.

 

[Victorian Gray]

That is democratic elections not term limitations.

And if a politician doesn't get enough of them, their term has been limited.

 

[leper84]

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

 

[Zorkorist]

The Government takes a piece of ketchup production.

Maybe you should speak to them?

-John

 

[Nebor]

Why is this guy changing his tune all of a sudden?