Warren Buffett needs to STFU when it comes to Tax Policy

"I think we need to...take a little more out of the hides of guys like me," Buffett testified"

If Buffett thinks wealthy people should be paying more in taxes, then I suggest he makes his next charitable donation directly to Uncle Sam. Nothing stopping you from giving more than the IRS asks for.

Not to mention, the asshole has billions in the bank which will not be touched by taxes until he is dead. Therefore, any income tax increases are completely meaningless to him...yet he makes these grand statements about the rich not paying their fair share. The top 50% in this country pays ~70% of all the taxes. If that's not enough, then what is?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/21/warren-b…

 

Yeah I totally agree. If they stopped raping high income people on taxes, maybe they wouldn't try to hide their money in swiss private banks and what not. I don't think anyone should pay more than 30% in taxes.

-MBP
 

Haha, yeah, I never understand his continual talking about raising taxes.

I think rich people should donate more money, but anything being given to the government might as well be burnt.

I have been watching a lot of Milton Friedman videos (thanks Gekko21) and he really hit it on the nail of the head. You never spend someone elses money as effectively as you spend your own.

 

Illini - Problem is once you hand over your money I doubt they will do anything. I also see way too much inefficiency and waste warrant anymore money from me or you.

Not one penny more until they get their shit in order!!!

 

But he is also donating the majority of his wealth. I think that donation will help more people than raising the taxes. Not to mention all the wealth he has created through Bershire.

Giving money to the government is about as smart as burning it.

*** I would soften my view if any increase in taxes was accompanied by a legal document demanding a decrease in government expenditures, an increase in efficiency, and all the extra tax revenue would go directly to paying down the budget ***

 

I think the problem is that there is a sense in Middle America that the rich have done really well over the past ten years but the middle class have been left behind. Particularly on tax cuts.

It's not politically viable to just fix welfare and social spending without the rich having to take some of the pain too.

It's also not viable to just soak the rich and continue with the spending. We need to respect hard work in this country and that means letting folks stay comfortable with the fact that we're not going socialist and will most likely stick to a lower tax schedule than Reagan's first tax cuts.

A return to the Clinton tax schedule- and entitlement reform- would largely bridge the budget gap and get us back to a surplus. It would be a very painful three or four years- and a lot of folks would be going to bed hungry- but it would get the country back on a more sustainable path.

Reagan's 1982 tax schedule capped out at 50%:

http://www.truthandpolitics.org

We can have a tax schedule that caps out at 39.6%, taxes the middle-class at 28%, and still have a great economy over the long run if we figure out a way to get the medicare situation under control. The Laffer curve doesn't peak until we're taxing north of 65%. My view is that most rich Americans are reasonable folks; they're going to stay if they see that everybody is getting hurt by austerity measures. If we tax them exclusively, they will leave for Bermuda. If we leave their taxes at 35% while cutting social spending, we may just turn into the PSA (Peoples' State of America). Many on the far left are already calling for that- something I find very chilling. When I was a college student and member of the far left, I was only calling for Bush's impeachment and trial for illegal torture.

Either these people need to be offered a makeshift boat to sail to Cuba in or we need to think about a strategy that EVERYONE initiallly finds unfair, and therefore eventually realizes is actually pretty reasonable.

 

I lose more and more respect for Buffett as every day passes. It's easy for him to advocate raising taxes because he will largely be unaffected and will still be flying in a private jet everywhere he goes. Just like it's easy for the non-wage earners and non-taxpayers to bitch about life being unfair because they don't have as much.

Get government spending under control, let America know what the deficit/surplus is going to be and let us decide whether a tax hike is warranted. The problem with raising taxes to make the government whole is it doesn't teach anyone a lesson about moderate government spending and crippling social programs.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
 

He wants higher tax rates because he would get the biggest tax deduction ever for his donations! Haha just a guess.

But really, the higher the taxes, the more wasteful government spending. The way to cut the deficit is to cut worthless state programs like:

– The Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools whose results “have not been demonstrated,” even though its budget allocation has more than doubled. Savings: $1.8 billion.

– NASA’s plans for commercial spaceflight, which are simultaneously “commercial” and funded with government subsidies. Savings: $1.2 billion.

– The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which has convinced itself that Jim Lehrer requires taxpayer money to compete with Katie Couric. Savings: $500 million.

Or

– Pay hikes for civilian workers at the Department of Defense who have been getting raises at about twice the rate of inflation. Savings: $5.3 billion.

...which come from http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2010/11/15/mean-street-not-enough-shock-in-a…

That's just the tip of the iceberg. Medicare??? This country is scarily becoming like a European welfare state. Taxes are so high in Europe that people don't donate to charity like they do here. This is justified because most of their salary goes to subsidize the free-loaders through government safety nets.

 
LeveragedFiend:
He wants higher tax rates because he would get the biggest tax deduction ever for his donations! Haha just a guess.

But really, the higher the taxes, the more wasteful government spending. The way to cut the deficit is to cut worthless state programs like:

– The Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools whose results “have not been demonstrated,” even though its budget allocation has more than doubled. Savings: $1.8 billion.

– NASA’s plans for commercial spaceflight, which are simultaneously “commercial” and funded with government subsidies. Savings: $1.2 billion.

– The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which has convinced itself that Jim Lehrer requires taxpayer money to compete with Katie Couric. Savings: $500 million.

Or

– Pay hikes for civilian workers at the Department of Defense who have been getting raises at about twice the rate of inflation. Savings: $5.3 billion.

...which come from http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2010/11/15/mean-street-not-enough-shock-in-a…

That's just the tip of the iceberg. Medicare??? This country is scarily becoming like a European welfare state. Taxes are so high in Europe that people don't donate to charity like they do here. This is justified because most of their salary goes to subsidize the free-loaders through government safety nets.

That's not a lot of money, brah. I'm cool with getting rid of Medicare tho. I hate old people too.

TheKing:
If I saw Buffett in the flesh. I'd walk straight up to him and open-palm smack him in the face.

I also am not a zealot when it comes to taxes, but I do take issue with these sort of comments from people sitting in mother fucking ivory towers.

Wait...your screenname is TheKing, and your big moment is going to be a slap? Seriously?

 
TheKing:
If I saw Buffett in the flesh. I'd walk straight up to him and open-palm smack him in the face.

I also am not a zealot when it comes to taxes, but I do take issue with these sort of comments from people sitting in mother fucking ivory towers.

Is that before or after he crushes you with his wallet?

 
Best Response
LikeToKnow:
TheKing:
If I saw Buffett in the flesh. I'd walk straight up to him and open-palm smack him in the face.

I also am not a zealot when it comes to taxes, but I do take issue with these sort of comments from people sitting in mother fucking ivory towers.

Is that before or after he crushes you with his wallet?

So, basically, you can't disagree with someone who has more money than you. Get the fuck out of here.

One thing I will agree on, is that the fact that carried interest is only taxed at 15% is ridiculous. Hedge fund and PE guys are definitely gaming the system in that way, in my opinion. But, to say that generally the rich aren't paying enough in taxes, that's absurd beyond belief. It's pretty fucking easy to say that shit when taxes are completely irrelevant to you cause all of your wealth (in the bilions) is already earned.

Also, Buffett is proving my damn point by giving his money to charity. If he felt the government should get more money, then he'd be donating it to the mother fucking IRS.

Again, if I saw him, I'd smack him in the face, knocking him out of his mother fucking hypocritical ivory tower.

 
TheKing:
If I saw Buffett in the flesh. I'd walk straight up to him and open-palm smack him in the face.

I also am not a zealot when it comes to taxes, but I do take issue with these sort of comments from people sitting in mother fucking ivory towers.

If you can smack him for me I would appreciate it. In 2008 he went from being a value investor to a senile piece of shit who rode the TARP gravy train to the bank. That is why you will smack him twice.

 

It's the vindictive lower classes mad at the small group of dbags in our industry who sunk the economy.

As if the government could put the money to better use than the millionaires in this country... and no the Iraq war, TSA nor welfare are worthy places to dump taxpayer money. My family donates about $50k to charities each year, if we end up paying $50k more in taxes each year my quality of life won't be sacrificed, we will just stop donating money and instead it will feed the Iraq war machine.

 

Time to get people riled up. Haha this is coming from a PE person whose industry's compensation is taxed as capital gains and not as ordinary income. Also, the government will never be efficient. There's no such thing as lowering spending programs. Anyone in a hissy fit? Go do something about it. Go run for Congress. I didn't think so. I'm tired of people complaining about government policies in general and thinking they have the magic solution. We are all sheep. Unless you have the charisma and leadership skills to convince an entire NATION and Congress to run things your way then forget about it. Why is government inefficient you ask? It's called lobbyists and the like. Politicians are the worst by the way. Way too many people are hypocrites in a sense and can't admit it. Off topic, I remember reading the other day someone saying farm subsidies should be gone. Hey genius, why do you think food is so cheap? Have you ever read anything to understand the overall structure of the food industry, why most food is based on corn, and why farmers get subsidies?

Yes, I am a fan of Buffett. Yes, he is an old fart who is far removed from the day-to-day activities of life. Like an older person once told me, in democracy every idiot has a voice. I'm ready to get your insults now ha.

 
buffett:
Time to get people riled up. Haha this is coming from a PE person whose industry's compensation is taxed as capital gains and not as ordinary income. Also, the government will never be efficient. There's no such thing as lowering spending programs. Anyone in a hissy fit? Go do something about it. Go run for Congress. I didn't think so. I'm tired of people complaining about government policies in general and thinking they have the magic solution. We are all sheep. Unless you have the charisma and leadership skills to convince an entire NATION and Congress to run things your way then forget about it. Why is government inefficient you ask? It's called lobbyists and the like. Politicians are the worst by the way. Way too many people are hypocrites in a sense and can't admit it. Off topic, I remember reading the other day someone saying farm subsidies should be gone. Hey genius, why do you think food is so cheap? Have you ever read anything to understand the overall structure of the food industry, why most food is based on corn, and why farmers get subsidies?

Yes, I am a fan of Buffett. Yes, he is an old fart who is far removed from the day-to-day activities of life. Like an older person once told me, in democracy every idiot has a voice. I'm ready to get your insults now ha.

I disagree with his tax policy, but as someone who recently met him, he is neither an "old fart" or removed from anything. The guy is extremely sharp and very involved in Berkshire.

I apologize for having an opinion sir. Please forgive me in all of your magnificence.

Farm subsidies keep food cheap? Maybe they keep farmers in business. Supply and demand set prices.

I think you are a college student. Not a very bright one. You come on here and complain against people having an opinion, yet you go off on a tangent and are completely wrong. Not everyone has the time or the desire to run for office. That does not mean we cannot have an educated opinion on things and vote accordingly.

Please attempt to bring something intelligent to the table next time.

 

It's just like people who say if I make more money I wouldn't be in debt. Giving the government more money wouldn't do anything they will just spend more money.... The government has to fix it's spending habits. Throwing money at the current problem wont do anything.

The answer to your question is 1) network 2) get involved 3) beef up your resume 4) repeat -happypantsmcgee WSO is not your personal search function.
 

Anthony,

I completely admire Buffett but he is removed or insulated from the day to day of life in a lot of ways. I mean "old fart" just as very old, 80 years old. I figured I'd got a ton of monkey sht/hate just because I chose Buffett as my name.

"I apologize for having an opinion sir. Please forgive me in all of your magnificence." When did I say you or anyone in particular was an idiot for having the opinion. Getting defensive? You obviously can't take anything light hearted especially if you would have paid attention to the first sentence I specifically wrote.

"I think you are a college student. Not a very bright one. " Far from a college student. Pretty funny how you make all these assumptions. You know what they say when you make assumptions.

"You come on here and complain against people having an opinion, yet you go off on a tangent and are completely wrong." Right. I am sorry you are the measuring stick for relevancy as to what is correct and what isn't. I mentioned having an opinion (adjusting taxes in any way) as being pointless because at the end of the day you or your vote will not decide what will happen. There is no point to argue about policies like this. ie Do you think social security should be fixed in some way? Whatever your response is, it will not affect how it is ultimately decided. The politicians who are already in office will decide.

"Not everyone has the time or the desire to run for office. That does not mean we cannot have an educated opinion on things and vote accordingly. " What you fail to realize is your idea of voting and making a difference is a joke. You really think your vote counts? Based on that premise, then you must be the one in college with an idealized view of the world. Politicians runs for their seat. They make promises during their campaign and do not have to follow through with them. When was the last time you reviewed your local Congressman's voting record on a certain issue, let alone check if he/she attended the Congressional session for certain bills?

"Farm subsidies keep food cheap? Maybe they keep farmers in business. Supply and demand set prices." Pretty naive; you say "maybe" so it appears you don't even know. Supply and demand do not always come into play. If a proponent of the subsidies points to national security as a reason, the economics has no bearing. Please research the food industry before you make any comment about this subject.

"Please attempt to bring something intelligent to the table next time." I apologize. I will keep you in mind whenever I decide to write on this forum. When you finally cool off and realize I write to widen a discussion topic and have no ill will towards anyone (you included), let me know. The above was just to not get online slapped by you and just stand there ha. :)

 

TheKing,

Stop hating on Buffet for not paying alot of tax, hes donating all of his money anyways. That said I agree with him on inheritance tax. To put it in taleb's words, mild success is due to ones own ability, vast success is due to luck.

 

@ Buffett, Anthony

I think I'm the one who was referenced as saying food subsidies are a gross waste of money, so I figure I should respond. Firstly, supply and demand has very little to do with setting food prices. I'm more familiar with the economics of EU food subsidies than US food subsidies, but in the EU the CAP is a massive waste of money that distorts prices (significantly) upwards, while hurting farmers in third world countries due to heavy import taxes. The agricultural sector is very atypical, for emotional and historical reasons. In poor nations, farmers are typically among the heaviest taxed, while in wealthy nations they tend to be recipients of massive government largesse. Historically, farm subsidies make some sense; the CAP was introduced to ensure safety-of-supply following starvation in Europe post-WWII, while US agriculture subsidies were introduced during the Great Depression/Dust Bowl to alleviate what were serious problems. Now, however, they make no sense, and it is nonsense to argue that we are better off as a result of them. The US is among the most fertile lands in the world, and does not need government handouts to be productive in agriculture. The question of subsidies effect on US agriculture prices, from a quick 5 minutes of Googling, seems to be ambiguous and dependent on what assumptions your model makes. However, Congress certainly isn't voting for subsidies to benefit consumers, and definitely not to keep prices down. They do so because farmers want them to, and because farming is seen as a wholesome, American activity that you do not want to be against. They do so because highly paid lobbyists call them up and tell them to do so. The Northeast Dairy Compact, for instance (which is no longer in effect), was put together by a bunch of lobbyists working for dairy farmers for the sole purpose of keeping milk prices high in the Northeast. It was framed as a way to ensure the continued economic viability of the family farm in New England, which was partly true, but does not address the actual question of why family farms are necessary, and why consumers should pay higher prices for this, and why taxpayers should subsidize it.

There is quite simply no valid reason to support farm subsidies, unless you are a Congressman or Senator in a farming state. Then, I can guarantee you that you will not be reelected if you oppose them. So, should they be eliminated? Yes. But is it worth the political capital and time to do so? Debatable. The idea that government is a seamless instrument is ludicrous; it is nice to criticize politicians for compromises and blatant pandering, but it is better than the alternative, if that is that nothing would get done.

 
drexelalum11:
@ Buffett, Anthony

I think I'm the one who was referenced as saying food subsidies are a gross waste of money, so I figure I should respond. Firstly, supply and demand has very little to do with setting food prices. I'm more familiar with the economics of EU food subsidies than US food subsidies, but in the EU the CAP is a massive waste of money that distorts prices (significantly) upwards, while hurting farmers in third world countries due to heavy import taxes. The agricultural sector is very atypical, for emotional and historical reasons. In poor nations, farmers are typically among the heaviest taxed, while in wealthy nations they tend to be recipients of massive government largesse. Historically, farm subsidies make some sense; the CAP was introduced to ensure safety-of-supply following starvation in Europe post-WWII, while US agriculture subsidies were introduced during the Great Depression/Dust Bowl to alleviate what were serious problems. Now, however, they make no sense, and it is nonsense to argue that we are better off as a result of them. The US is among the most fertile lands in the world, and does not need government handouts to be productive in agriculture. The question of subsidies effect on US agriculture prices, from a quick 5 minutes of Googling, seems to be ambiguous and dependent on what assumptions your model makes. However, Congress certainly isn't voting for subsidies to benefit consumers, and definitely not to keep prices down. They do so because farmers want them to, and because farming is seen as a wholesome, American activity that you do not want to be against. They do so because highly paid lobbyists call them up and tell them to do so. The Northeast Dairy Compact, for instance (which is no longer in effect), was put together by a bunch of lobbyists working for dairy farmers for the sole purpose of keeping milk prices high in the Northeast. It was framed as a way to ensure the continued economic viability of the family farm in New England, which was partly true, but does not address the actual question of why family farms are necessary, and why consumers should pay higher prices for this, and why taxpayers should subsidize it.

There is quite simply no valid reason to support farm subsidies, unless you are a Congressman or Senator in a farming state. Then, I can guarantee you that you will not be reelected if you oppose them. So, should they be eliminated? Yes. But is it worth the political capital and time to do so? Debatable. The idea that government is a seamless instrument is ludicrous; it is nice to criticize politicians for compromises and blatant pandering, but it is better than the alternative, if that is that nothing would get done.

Great post. +1 SB, sir.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
 

Great value investor.

Terrible political philosopher.

********************************* “The American father is never seen in London. He passes his life entirely in Wall Street and communicates with his family once a month by means of a telegram in cipher.” - Oscar Wilde
 

This B.S. about how only 43% people paying taxes need to stop. I agree that everyone needs some skin in the game. All governments are inefficient, it has to do with public's money.

What I don't get is how we allow Tax Haven to exist because they are a small" and weak" country. Liechtenstein and Luxembourg. Come on, these countries locations sucks. Not like Monaco, Bahamas, etc. where I would actually live because of weather and atmosphere. Not that I wouldn't take advantage of it, given the chance. Luxembourg and Liechtenstein has among the highest living standards in the world? For what? Not because they are any smarter, more hard working, lots of resources, etc. They don't contribute much to anything but a place to park money. Simply because they are independent countries and set super low tax rate which then triggers rich foreign people to open bank accounts that then feed the country's citizens high living standards.

At least Singapore has shipping and health industries. Kuwait has oil. Luxembourg and Liechtenstein is super rich with pretty crappy resources and has its citizens subsidized for high standards of living because they can as small independent countries.

----------------------------------------------------------------- Hug It Out
 
Ari_Gold:
This B.S. about how only 43% people paying taxes need to stop. I agree that everyone needs some skin in the game. All governments are inefficient, it has to do with public's money.

What I don't get is how we allow Tax Haven to exist because they are a small" and weak" country. Liechtenstein and Luxembourg. Come on, these countries locations sucks. Not like Monaco, Bahamas, etc. where I would actually live because of weather and atmosphere. Not that I wouldn't take advantage of it, given the chance. Luxembourg and Liechtenstein has among the highest living standards in the world? For what? Not because they are any smarter, more hard working, lots of resources, etc. They don't contribute much to anything but a place to park money. Simply because they are independent countries and set super low tax rate which then triggers rich foreign people to open bank accounts that then feed the country's citizens high living standards.

At least Singapore has shipping and health industries. Kuwait has oil. Luxembourg and Liechtenstein is super rich with pretty crappy resources and has its citizens subsidized for high standards of living because they can as small independent countries.

Sounds like a smart decision for a country that has pretty crappy resources if you ask me.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
 
cphbravo96:
Ari_Gold:
This B.S. about how only 43% people paying taxes need to stop. I agree that everyone needs some skin in the game. All governments are inefficient, it has to do with public's money.

What I don't get is how we allow Tax Haven to exist because they are a small" and weak" country. Liechtenstein and Luxembourg. Come on, these countries locations sucks. Not like Monaco, Bahamas, etc. where I would actually live because of weather and atmosphere. Not that I wouldn't take advantage of it, given the chance. Luxembourg and Liechtenstein has among the highest living standards in the world? For what? Not because they are any smarter, more hard working, lots of resources, etc. They don't contribute much to anything but a place to park money. Simply because they are independent countries and set super low tax rate which then triggers rich foreign people to open bank accounts that then feed the country's citizens high living standards.

At least Singapore has shipping and health industries. Kuwait has oil. Luxembourg and Liechtenstein is super rich with pretty crappy resources and has its citizens subsidized for high standards of living because they can as small independent countries.

Sounds like a smart decision for a country that has pretty crappy resources if you ask me.

Regards

True that. Why was Ireland the Celtic Tiger in the first place. But it still doesn't negate the absurdity of it all. It is in my opinion another form of beggar thy neighbor by "stealing" their rich citizens.

I didn't mention Switzerland, because I have to give some props to the Swiss bankers. They have drafted, before OECD and US pressured them out of it, a charter to keep the secrecy of their clients and always maintain a state of neutrality. These are the quintessential bankers. But Lichtenstein? Luxembourg? A fluke of history. To be a Prince of Monaco...

----------------------------------------------------------------- Hug It Out
 

Taxes should be cut, not raised....we have a bloated federal/state/local government funded by 39% income taxes, 2.5-7.5% social security taxes, 3-10% local taxes, 4-6% sales taxes, corporate taxes, excise taxes, payroll taxes, 20% long term capital gains, 1% per year property tax, ect ect ect.

After all that Uncle Sam's taking taking most of your money...and spending it on CRAP.

Does the US need to spend as much as much on Defense as the rest of the world combined? Look at a map man, we aren't going to get invaded soon. Why give all that change to Uncle Sam so he can blow it on F21s?

I'm in favor of simplifying the tax code and all social systems. Get rid of social security, medicare, medicaid, universal healthcare, food stamps, FAFSA, all that crap. Basically, any government funded scholarship/payment of any sort. Also get rid of our current tax system.

Replace it with a lump sum payment to every adult (18+) of $7500, and every child (under 18) of $2500. Levy a flat tax of 20% on personal income. Also, cut military spending to 5% more than the next largest military budget (that brings it down from 663 billion to...104 billion.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7a/U.S.Federal_Spending-_F…

The lump sum (~1.7 trillion) payment replaces about 45% of the budget (1.7 trillion), so they offset perfectly. But marginal federal tax rates go down from 41.5% to...20%.

Federal spending on defense goes down $0.55 trillion. Assuming another $0.1 trillion in savings from reduction in bureaucracy, that's 650 billion in savings. Cutting marginal tax rates by more than half should greatly stimulate the economy according to both economic theory and observation. Lets say GNI increases by 10%, then the 20% flat tax brings in $3.24 trillion, or substantially more than our current personal income tax system (which brings in only 45% of tax revenue). Factor in the 650 billion reduction in federal spending, and that's well over $1 trillion spending per year that the government can now use to reduce the federal debt, fund biomedical research, reduce/replace taxes, increase lump sum payment. All this despite 20% marginal tax rates and higher GDP.

 

Buffett is no longer a plucky value investor.

He's a market moving force of nature and a sycophant to the political system.

********************************* “The American father is never seen in London. He passes his life entirely in Wall Street and communicates with his family once a month by means of a telegram in cipher.” - Oscar Wilde
 

Stop the madness. Please. Are we really calling Buffet an evil socialist because he proposes raising taxes? Can we have a logical debate about this?

Higher taxes does not equal socialism. Taxes for the top bracket in the '50s and '60s ranged anywhere from 70-90% +. Did we have a socialist government then? I'm not advocating for taxes at those levels. My point is it didn't stop Buffet from amassing a fortune. He wasn't sitting around bitching about how he can't have live a comfortable life, or run a successful business because of the highest tax bracket (which I doubt many of you fall under).

I agree now is not the time to raise taxes. But the reality is we will eventually have to raise taxes on everyone. Raising taxes by 10% on someone making $1M+ per year with plenty of disposable income makes more sense than raising taxes by 10% on someone making $30,000 per year with very little disposable income. The trickle down effect is not proven. If we want to increase consumption, there needs to be lower taxes on people who spend ALL of their disposable income.

The problem with raising taxes has become politically unfeasible. Taxes is now a dirty word. Even if the tax rate does eventually rise it will be such a marginal increase that it will do little to address the deficit problem. As long as almost 1/5 of this country is unemployed (U-6 UE is around 17%) and the RMB remains at artificially low levels, there will be a deficit.

And everyone get off Buffet's back. He too is entitled to his own opinion.

 
Dr Barnaby Fulton:
Stop the madness. Please. Are we really calling Buffet an evil socialist because he proposes raising taxes? Can we have a logical debate about this?

Higher taxes does not equal socialism. Taxes for the top bracket in the '50s and '60s ranged anywhere from 70-90% +. Did we have a socialist government then? I'm not advocating for taxes at those levels. My point is it didn't stop Buffet from amassing a fortune. He wasn't sitting around bitching about how he can't have live a comfortable life, or run a successful business because of the highest tax bracket (which I doubt many of you fall under).

I agree now is not the time to raise taxes. But the reality is we will eventually have to raise taxes on everyone. Raising taxes by 10% on someone making $1M+ per year with plenty of disposable income makes more sense than raising taxes by 10% on someone making $30,000 per year with very little disposable income. The trickle down effect is not proven. If we want to increase consumption, there needs to be lower taxes on people who spend ALL of their disposable income.

The problem with raising taxes has become politically unfeasible. Taxes is now a dirty word. Even if the tax rate does eventually rise it will be such a marginal increase that it will do little to address the deficit problem. As long as almost 1/5 of this country is unemployed (U-6 UE is around 17%) and the RMB remains at artificially low levels, there will be a deficit.

And everyone get off Buffet's back. He's entitled as the rest of you to speak his mind. At least he's doing it publicly and not behind some stupid fucking pseudonym like "TheKing" (although he is certainly entitled to such a pseudonym).

First of all, with your user name, I wouldn't be throwing shots like that. I guess you're Cary Grant, eh? Get the fuck out of here you fucking prospective monkey clown.

Second off, if I had a platform to speak publicly about this, I would. That's a bullshit counter-argument because you're attacking me for something I can't possibly do. Give me a fucking break. Sorry I don't have enough clout to write an Op-Ed in the WSJ about it, you dumbass.

I never said raising taxes is socialism, I even said that taxing carried interest at 15% is wrong and that hedge fund / PE guys should have carried interest taxed as normal income.

What I, and others, have said, is that Buffett is full of shit on many issues (i.e. his stances on the bailouts) and that it's BS to rally for higher taxes when they don't actually have any effect on you whatsoever. And Buffett isn't some sort of righteous God, he's a man who puts his God damned pants on one leg at a time, just like you and me. If he says something that's bullshit, then it should be called out.

 
Anthony .:
MrFuture:
LOL, a bunch of Wall Street wannabes bitching about Warren Buffet on an internet board...priceless.

Speak for yourself kid. Gold star means people work in industry.

Well you hold on to that "gold star" my friend, don't lose it.

 
Anthony .:
I'm not your friend.

Try and learn a little about this board because you go around insulting people or talking shit.

Dude, chill, you are taking this waaaay too seriously. Take a walk or something, it's not like all of your posts are always useful or smart, trust me. Go play with your gold intergalactic star...kid.

 

I love people that go on topical internet forums and rip on people for discussing topical things. It just boggles my mind.

Rather than coming into this thread and saying why they agree or disagree, or even just adding to the facts, they just trash the idea of having the conversation or having an opinion on a subject. Absolute fucking clowns.

 
TheKing:
I love people that go on topical internet forums and rip on people for discussing topical things. It just boggles my mind.

Rather than coming into this thread and saying why they agree or disagree, or even just adding to the facts, they just trash the idea of having the conversation or having an opinion on a subject. Absolute fucking clowns.

Clown: a young person with an average networth who thinks he can tell Warren Buffet what to think or say about taxes.

 

Rerum laborum iusto praesentium qui vel et a nemo. Est ea qui maiores velit tempore id. Non nisi excepturi culpa voluptates aut. Ducimus est non aut eveniet qui enim. Incidunt quia rem quaerat.

Id aut eos harum. Molestiae sint ut sit maxime aut.

Et aliquid totam maiores aut beatae aspernatur aliquid. Porro dicta corporis quisquam quos molestiae. Illo rerum a eius id. Quam est magnam adipisci placeat.

Adipisci ipsum rem facilis. Animi ut nulla aut dignissimos aspernatur eveniet. Perspiciatis dignissimos aliquid iusto voluptas quae doloremque id.

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
 

Eos eos nihil sit natus modi non omnis. Quo enim eum pariatur. Tempora quia molestiae tenetur quibusdam sit voluptas. Qui itaque praesentium a quidem neque ipsa atque eveniet. Quia tempora facere voluptatem vel molestiae aliquid pariatur.

Occaecati et numquam vel id perferendis nemo exercitationem dignissimos. Dolore quod sit velit est voluptatibus provident quibusdam quia. Adipisci aut dignissimos rem id accusamus nam soluta. Et dolor repellendus rem illo dolor in. Architecto molestiae quis harum.

Praesentium dolores error autem in quam aliquid enim. Aperiam voluptas magni pariatur est voluptates nam. Qui aut quibusdam repellat et nulla et rerum aut. Est quia ut atque nihil non nihil.

A ut minima repudiandae consequatur eum illum. Omnis quod ratione facilis ipsam exercitationem sit explicabo.

 

Vitae consequatur dolorum aut et tempora libero consequatur. Perspiciatis ducimus non ullam quae placeat ad nisi. Omnis et sit vitae aliquid voluptas maxime.

Libero ab voluptatem cum maiores ipsa. Neque dolor non enim enim ea consequatur qui esse. Repellendus sunt ipsa molestias et maxime aut. In esse recusandae cum sapiente perspiciatis alias sed. Aut enim voluptatum rerum illum. Magnam tenetur eaque possimus velit tenetur. Similique nihil voluptatem voluptatum animi.

Officiis placeat nostrum aperiam deserunt aut doloribus. Atque numquam dolores molestias ducimus cumque qui.

Aspernatur ex suscipit mollitia fuga. Cumque velit sint aut adipisci. Temporibus rerum facere consequatur ipsum ea ea.

Career Advancement Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. (++) 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (86) $261
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (13) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (66) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (202) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (144) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”