Warren Buffett: Stop blaming the rich for income inequality

[JMapleton]

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.

No, he is forced. You are forgetting that the majority of the Berkshire is not owned by him, but other shareholders. As a CEO of a publicly traded company, he has an obligation to his shareholders. The same way the CEO of any other company would no matter how many or how little shares he owns.

He has a job. A literal job, just like you and I do. He goes to work. He could be fired if he screws up. He gets a paycheck. Etc.

His job is to maximize profit as the head of an investment holdings firm.

 

[Jhhnn]

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

False. Scott Brown, Ted Kennedy's replacement, was sworn in Feb 10, 2010, giving Repubs the power to filibuster in the Senate, which they did quite ruthlessly. Dems actually lost the power to stop that when Ted Kennedy died Aug 25, 2009 because they no longer had 60 votes, the required 3/5 majority. They've held filibuster power ever since, and the HOR from 2011 forward.

I mis-spoke in saying veto, I meant filibuster, but they're functionally the same thing.

You may not have realized that you were engaging in revisionist history, but now you do.

 

[Jhhnn]

No, he is forced. You are forgetting that the majority of the Berkshire is not owned by him, but other shareholders. As a CEO of a publicly traded company, he has an obligation to his shareholders. The same way the CEO of any other company would no matter how many or how little shares he owns.

He has a job. A literal job, just like you and I do. He goes to work. He could be fired if he screws up. He gets a paycheck. Etc.

His job is to maximize profit as the head of an investment holdings firm.

Gawd. He can retire any time with more money than he could possibly spend. He works on a voluntary basis. It's been that way for decades.

 

[shira]

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?

To put this another way: Why would anyone criticize someone for playing by the rules that exist to maximize their income? Why would anyone criticize someone for, say, acting within the tax laws to minimize their taxes?

Clearly, the problem is that we have a system in which the rich and powerful have a grossly disproportionate influence on the legislative process that creates and modifies business and tax laws. Why should anyone be surprised, therefore, that the "system" increasingly favors those at the very top and is increasingly failing everyone else?

To put this yet another way: Is there ANYONE who thinks that a country in which an ever greater proportion of the total economy is being concentrated in a smaller and smaller number of hands, and where a greater and greater percentage of the population is falling behind, is a good thing? If the answer is "no," shouldn't we change the system to reverse what's happening?

 

[MagickMan]

It's just as entertaining to watch righties drop to their knees drooling because Buffett says something that doesn't contradict their talking points.

Wouldn't know, I'm not a "righty", but that doesn't appear to be accurate at all. Mostly just lots of mockery.

 

[Linux23]

http://www.msnbc.com/politicsnation/watch/alec-facilitating-backroom-legislative-deals--452639299661

/thread.

 

[MagickMan]

MSNBC? Sharpton? Seriously? D:

 

[TheSlamma]

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.

If this was a direct democracy (which I wish it was) then yes, but it's a democratic republic. every representative we have no matter what party is always Rich > Corporations >>>>>> Poor >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> middle class

 

[Linux23]

MSNBC? Sharpton? Seriously? D:

um, did you bother to watch it? it was done by a local investigative news team.

 

[sm625]

Yep. Rich people are in total control of the monetary process. They have the power to freely print money and give it to themselves. In the process of printing that money, they drive up the price of beef to $5 a pound and healthcare to $10000 a year with $6000 deductibles, yet those poor suckers who are stuck making the same wage for years are just dumb for blaming the rich. Yeah you poor suckerz is so dumb, its all your fault. In a twisted sort of way, he is right, because those dumb poor suckers actually allow the rich to print money and give it to themselves and totally wreck the value of the currency for everyone. Hell, you dumb suckerz keep voting for more of it. And anyone who is against this is a frickin kook! Yeah you are a kook if you are against the debauchment of your money so that the rich can buy more $200 million mansions and picassos! It sure is nice to be able to totally control the masses simply by spending a small fraction of the money you steal on indoctrination propaganda!

 

[theeedude]

I think everyone agrees we need fiscal, not monetary, stimulus when economy is running slow. Instead we get the opposite.

 

[MagickMan]

um, did you bother to watch it? it was done by a local investigative news team.

I saw one side of the story, made of cherry-picked comments, sprinkled with a heavy amount of confirmation bias.

 

[JEDI]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/mark...ing-the-rich-for-income-inequality/ar-BBk7Alo

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

required monthly birth control shots for those on welfare/socal security disability would greatly reduce the next generation poor.

any major presidential candidates supporting this option?

 

[Linux23]

Yep. Rich people are in total control of the monetary process. They have the power to freely print money and give it to themselves. In the process of printing that money, they drive up the price of beef to $5 a pound and healthcare to $10000 a year with $6000 deductibles, yet those poor suckers who are stuck making the same wage for years are just dumb for blaming the rich. Yeah you poor suckerz is so dumb, its all your fault. In a twisted sort of way, he is right, because those dumb poor suckers actually allow the rich to print money and give it to themselves and totally wreck the value of the currency for everyone. Hell, you dumb suckerz keep voting for more of it. And anyone who is against this is a frickin kook! Yeah you are a kook if you are against the debauchment of your money so that the rich can buy more $200 million mansions and picassos! It sure is nice to be able to totally control the masses simply by spending a small fraction of the money you steal on indoctrination propaganda!

well if you control the money, you control the power. the very tippy top of this currency pyramid are the gatekeepers and the key makers. control is just an illusion, the choice has already been made for us (i.e, the feds and its secret members).

 

[MongGrel]

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.

You're missing the point, actually.

He is a major factor in getting those laws passed that he is "forced" to follow.

 

[werepossum]

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.

Ah, then agreed.

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.

Bullshit. No one is forced to do something unethical. One might be fired for refusing to do something one considers unethical, but Buffett is one of the richest men on Earth; no one has any leverage over him that he does not choose to allow. In addition, he outright owns a third of the voting shares and is by far the controlling investor; no one else owns more than five percent, and with proxies Buffett easily controls a majority of the voting stock. He cannot be fired, period. And as MonGrel points out:

You're missing the point, actually.

He is a major factor in getting those laws passed that he is "forced" to follow.

QED

I admire Buffett for his acumen and for what he has built, but the end does not justify the means.

 

[Bowfinger]

As I understand it, the point most of you are missing is that Buffett is addressing two different issues. As a businessman, he fully supports companies making money. This includes things like reducing corporate taxes. As an individual, however, he believes wealthy people (specifically including himself) should pay much higher taxes. Those two goals are not contradictory, and in his view, both serve America's best interests.

 

[werepossum]

As I understand it, the point most of you are missing is that Buffett is addressing two different issues. As a businessman, he fully supports companies making money. This includes things like reducing corporate taxes. As an individual, however, he believes wealthy people (specifically including himself) should pay much higher taxes. Those two goals are not contradictory, and in his view, both serve America's best interests.

No one is missing anything. While Buffett CLAIMS to want wealthy people (specifically including himself) to pay much higher taxes, Buffett's ACTIONS are geared toward wealthy people (specifically including himself) paying as little tax as possible, including continual lobbying and regularly engaging the federal government in litigation toward that end.

 

[Bowfinger]

No one is missing anything. While Buffett CLAIMS to want wealthy people (specifically including himself) to pay much higher taxes, Buffett's ACTIONS are geared toward wealthy people (specifically including himself) paying as little tax as possible, including continual lobbying and regularly engaging the federal government in litigation toward that end.

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]

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.

Sure, why not since his base salary is only $100,000 annually? Why do you think he doesn't give a crap if you raise his personal income tax rate? He's doubly playing the progressive left for suckers when he advocates for higher income taxes since he knows many of those same progressives are professional urbanites who get hit hardest by income taxes in their high cost-of-living locales. Hell, many of them get income taxes at super high rates from multiple levels of government, from federal to state and municipal.

 

[Bowfinger]

Sure, why not since his base salary is only $100,000 annually? Why do you think he doesn't give a crap if you raise his personal income tax rate? He's doubly playing the progressive left for suckers when he advocates for higher income taxes since he knows many of those same progressives are professional urbanites who get hit hardest by income taxes in their high cost-of-living locales. Hell, many of them get income taxes at super high rates from multiple levels of government, from federal to state and municipal.

You might have a point if Buffett had called for a tax increase only on earned income. He didn't and you don't.

 

[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.

The point - which Legendkiller perfectly laid out - is that by hooking in chumps like you by claiming to want higher taxes whilst fighting for Berkshire Hathaway to pay as little in taxes as possible, Buffett has been able to massively increase his wealth while still being supported as one of the good guys by those who continuously decry those of wealth as evil. I agree that someone is missing it, I just disagree as to whom that is.

 

[glenn1]

You might have a point if Buffett had called for a tax increase only on earned income. He didn't and you don't.

Feel free to point out where he's supported anything but personal tax increases. Corporate tax reform doesn't equate to a corporate tax increase, as his transaction to purchase Burger King and move corporate HQ to Canada for tax reasons seems to demonstrate.

 

[Bowfinger]

The point - which Legendkiller perfectly laid out - is that by hooking in chumps like you by claiming to want higher taxes whilst fighting for Berkshire Hathaway to pay as little in taxes as possible, Buffett has been able to massively increase his wealth while still being supported as one of the good guys by those who continuously decry those of wealth as evil. I agree that someone is missing it, I just disagree as to whom that is.

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.

 

[Bowfinger]

Feel free to point out where he's supported anything but personal tax increases. Corporate tax reform doesn't equate to a corporate tax increase, as his transaction to purchase Burger King and move corporate HQ to Canada for tax reasons seems to demonstrate.

Stop Coddling the Super-Rich

Direct from Buffett himself.