Gyroscopic Investing

Sorry for my outburst... long day at work.

moda0306 wrote: Sorry for my outburst... long day at work.

Troublemaker...

No worries Moda.

l82start wrote: What i don't get about warren buffet (who is a great at both management and spotting talent) is that he thinks the government can do a better job of spending wealthy peoples money (involuntary often mismanaged charity/spending) than the wealthy people that earned it in the first place??  

That's exactly it.  Whether your goal is to help other people or to help yourself, pouring your money into government coffers is a poor way to achieve your goals.

Buffett's own actions bear this out.  He enjoys helping others and chooses to do so via donations to private foundations.  He is completely correct to do this IMO, but it cuts against his recommendations (that people like him should be paying a lot more in taxes.)

What I find most odd about his tax prescriptions is that they would usually strike the "well off" hardest rather than the super rich.  Unfortunately, it's often these "well off" people that have risked capital and busted hump to build a small business.  Or spent the entirety of their 20s in medical school and residency, earning next to nothing (and then risk being sued or being indentured via some "universal healthcare" boondoggle.)  I want their risks to pay off.  These people create jobs, save lives, and contribute productive achievement to the society.

I'm not sure Warren Buffet is arguing for larger government. He seems to just be arguing for more taxation of the rich. It would be perfectly consistent for him to say that he wanted government to stay no bigger than it is at the moment (since as you say they are less good at allocating resources than the private sector in many cases) BUT that the deficit should be reduced (to avoid economic distortions) AND the tax burden should be reduced for the least well off (who often are exceptionally astute at allocating resources to where they most reduce child mortality rates etc etc). That would mean taxing the rich more.

Buffet has some buddies in Europe who seem to want more taxes too: http://www.cnbc.com/id/44239500/

I think they realize that systemic collapse will be worse for their fortunes than a slight raise in taxes.

doodle wrote: Buffet has some buddies in Europe who seem to want more taxes too: http://www.cnbc.com/id/44239500/

I think they realize that systemic collapse will be worse for their fortunes than a slight raise in taxes.

So when a small group of super-wealthy people voluntarily asks the government to take more money from them in taxes, they're doing it for the greater good, but if they take that same money and hand it over to the politicians directly, it's called corruption?

Fascinating.

(I know that's not what you're implying--I'm addressing how most people will probably perceive this development.)

Tortoise,

There is a distinct difference between the two situations you mentioned.

I don't see any option to fixing the tax code, eliminating loopholes and corporate welfare, and ultimately raising total government tax revenue. This money isn't going to come from the lower 50% whose net worth accounts for something like 2% of the total net worth of the entire country.

doodle wrote: I don't see any option to fixing the tax code, eliminating loopholes and corporate welfare, and ultimately raising total government tax revenue.

There is at least one other option to increasing taxes: scale back the role of government. Of course, this is an age-old debate that's sure to incite a flame war, so just pretend I didn't say that

I just find it a bit suspicious that not just one, but several French billionaires are petitioning their government to tax their wealth more heavily. Could it be that in the grand scheme of things, the very presence of a strong government tends to confer a disproportionate benefit on the wealthy and powerful (competition-limiting legislation, bail-outs, etc.), and that that is why several French billionaires are offering themselves as sacrificial lambs to prevent a massive scaling back of government?

Perhaps I'm too cynical. Just offering an alternative viewpoint.

Here's John T Reed's take on Warren Buffet's Op-ed.  Interesting as usual.

http://johntreed.com/headline/2011/08/1 ... ity-stunt/