2024 US Presidential Elections Megathread

[Maladict]

Buffet himself has been very public in saying exactly that and imploring politicians to change the system and in particular the tax code.

Nobody will stop him from paying his fair share of tax. He chooses not to.

[crazy canuck]

Buffet himself has been very public in saying exactly that and imploring politicians to change the system and in particular the tax code.

Nobody will stop him from paying his fair share of tax. He chooses not to.

See JR's post.

That argument is bullshit. Nobody is stopping you from donating everything you own, but the fact you don't does not make you evil.

[Habbaku]

Condemning Buffet for not donating 25% or whatever of his wealth to the public treasury every year is the same, stupid logic right-wingers used to attack Bernie over owning a second house.

[The Minsky Moment]

Nobody will stop him from paying his fair share of tax. He chooses not to.

Taxation is not a matter of natural law or of the fundamental reality of the universe.  There is no Platonic "fair share of tax" floating around with the other Universals.  Taxation is set by statute.  Your share is what the law says it is.  If the existing law is unfair that is a fault with the LAW.  Warren Buffett paying some arbitrary additional amount of money to the US Treasury as opposed to giving it to charity does absolutely nothing to remedy the nature of the unfairness.  Warren Buffett being a strong voice to change the law does do something, and something that reflects to his credit.

[garbon]

Condemning Buffet for not donating 25% or whatever of his wealth to the public treasury every year is the same, stupid logic right-wingers used to attack Bernie over owning a second house.

Except that we are talking about entirely different order of magnitude.

[garbon]

Warren Buffett being a strong voice to change the law does do something, and something that reflects to his credit.

It doesn't sound particularly great for democracy that he can have such an outsized voice by virtue of his wealth.

Cynically, it also is less compelling when he's advocating for something that won't actually impact him in his lifetime.

[FunkMonk]

I'm not bought into the argument that being a billionaire automatically makes you a bad person but I do favor policies which would make billionaires non-existent.

[Maladict]

Buffet himself has been very public in saying exactly that and imploring politicians to change the system and in particular the tax code.

Nobody will stop him from paying his fair share of tax. He chooses not to.

See JR's post.

That argument is bullshit. Nobody is stopping you from donating everything you own, but the fact you don't does not make you evil.

I'm not argiung he's evil. I'm just unconvinced by him arguing the tax code needs to be revised. He knows full well that's not going to happen anytime soon. He could actually put his money where his mouth is, but he doesn't.

[Maladict]

Nobody will stop him from paying his fair share of tax. He chooses not to.

Taxation is not a matter of natural law or of the fundamental reality of the universe.  There is no Platonic "fair share of tax" floating around with the other Universals.  Taxation is set by statute.  Your share is what the law says it is.  If the existing law is unfair that is a fault with the LAW.  Warren Buffett paying some arbitrary additional amount of money to the US Treasury as opposed to giving it to charity does absolutely nothing to remedy the nature of the unfairness.  Warren Buffett being a strong voice to change the law does do something, and something that reflects to his credit.

I know there's no objectively fair share. But we all (Buffett included) know his share definitely isn't fair.
I think him being a strong voice AND setting an example of paying a higher amount (whatever he thinks is a fairer share) is more helpful than just being a voice and being fawned over for his charity donations.
 

[DGuller]

I'm not argiung he's evil. I'm just unconvinced by him arguing the tax code needs to be revised. He knows full well that's not going to happen anytime soon. He could actually put his money where his mouth is, but he doesn't.

Voluntarily paying taxes is not putting his money where his mouth is.  Putting his money where his mouth is would be not lobbying for policies that contradict his stated proposal.  Frankly I think this logical fallacy is very destructive to policy debates.

Imagine a different scenario:  it's war, and a soldier is arguing that his unit should be attacking.  The argument is inextricably linked to everyone attacking.  Is it a valid thing to say "well, if you think we should be attacking, put your money where your mouth is, go and attack"?  No, of course it wouldn't be valid, it would be very stupid. 

Making a personal sacrifice that only hurts you without meaningfully advancing the goal your proposal is meant to achieve is not putting your money where your mouth is, it's just a stupid sacrifice.  Buffet donating his money won't materially advance the positive changes his proposals would cause, such as reducing income inequality.

[crazy canuck]

I'm not argiung he's evil. I'm just unconvinced by him arguing the tax code needs to be revised. He knows full well that's not going to happen anytime soon. He could actually put his money where his mouth is, but he doesn't.

Voluntarily paying taxes is not putting his money where his mouth is.  Putting his money where his mouth is would be not lobbying for policies that contradict his stated proposal.  Frankly I think this logical fallacy is very destructive to policy debates.

Imagine a different scenario:  it's war, and a soldier is arguing that his unit should be attacking.  The argument is inextricably linked to everyone attacking.  Is it a valid thing to say "well, if you think we should be attacking, put your money where your mouth is, go and attack"?  No, of course it wouldn't be valid, it would be very stupid. 

Making a personal sacrifice that only hurts you without meaningfully advancing the goal your proposal is meant to achieve is not putting your money where your mouth is, it's just a stupid sacrifice.  Buffet donating his money won't materially advance the positive changes his proposals would cause, such as reducing income inequality.

Agreed.  This is where the criticism of the right that all the left is doing is engaging in a politics of envy gains some traction. 

The debate should be how to create a fair system, not to vilify those who have succeeded within the system we have, while expressing the need for reform of that same system.

@Garbon, the problem with the orders of magnitudes argument is at what point should "wealthy" citizens voluntarily tax themselves.  The top .01%, .1%, 1%, 10%, 50% - and on what principled basis do you draw that line?

[crazy canuck]

Nobody will stop him from paying his fair share of tax. He chooses not to.

Taxation is not a matter of natural law or of the fundamental reality of the universe.  There is no Platonic "fair share of tax" floating around with the other Universals.  Taxation is set by statute.  Your share is what the law says it is.  If the existing law is unfair that is a fault with the LAW.  Warren Buffett paying some arbitrary additional amount of money to the US Treasury as opposed to giving it to charity does absolutely nothing to remedy the nature of the unfairness.  Warren Buffett being a strong voice to change the law does do something, and something that reflects to his credit.

I know there's no objectively fair share. But we all (Buffett included) know his share definitely isn't fair.
I think him being a strong voice AND setting an example of paying a higher amount (whatever he thinks is a fairer share) is more helpful than just being a voice and being fawned over for his charity donations.
 

I don't and neither does Buffet.  What Buffet has said, and I agree, is that it makes no sense for his employees to pay more in tax then he does. 

How are you defining fair here?  And how do you define what is a fair share?

[garbon]

@Garbon, the problem with the orders of magnitudes argument is at what point should "wealthy" citizens voluntarily tax themselves.  The top .01%, .1%, 1%, 10%, 50% - and on what principled basis do you draw that line?

But I'm coming from the opposite side. There is some level of wealth in our unequal world where you cross into being unethical if you sustain it. The location of that line is debatable. I see a billion as a bright line where you are unambiguously in the unethical category.

[DGuller]

From my personal experience, one big knock against Buffett is that companies owned by his conglomerate all seem extremely stingy with expenses.  Not prudently stingy, but stingy to the point where you eat the seed corn.  I think at some point Buffett started taking pride in his persona as a homeless miser with billions in his sack over his shoulder, and that culture permeates throughout his conglomerate.  Just look at the Berkshire Hathaway home page, it just screams "I'm Warren Buffett, I can walk in my pajamas and slippers on the street and you'll think it's a secret to my success, because I'm Warren Buffett".

I have reasons to believe that my experience was not unique to just the particular company I happened to work at.  Frankly after that experience, I find it so much harder to take Buffet seriously as he says all the right words at his annual shareholder meetings.

[crazy canuck]

@Garbon, the problem with the orders of magnitudes argument is at what point should "wealthy" citizens voluntarily tax themselves.  The top .01%, .1%, 1%, 10%, 50% - and on what principled basis do you draw that line?

But I'm coming from the opposite side. There is some level of wealth in our unequal world where you cross into being unethical if you sustain it. The location of that line is debatable. I see a billion as a bright line where you are unambiguously in the unethical category.

Ok, but help me understand why that is a bright line for you.  What if someone has a billion dollars in assets, pays their employees well and giving some percentage of that wealth would mean they would have to share their shareholdings and give away control to others who may treat the employees less well.