August 15, 2011
What image would the NYT use to illustrate the op-ed "Stop Coddling the Super-Rich" by Warren Buffet?
Try to guess before you look? Here at Meadhouse, we're still laughing at this silly black-and-white drawing. Laughing at. Not with. Use your first idea: What would represent coddling and what would represent the super-rich? Now, put those things together in one image.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
227 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 227 of 227The only point I was trying to make was that a CRT, along with other planning tools is a way to reduce ones estate tax liability. Freder evidently had difficulty with the concept.
I will concede a charitable donation from a will us exempt from tax.
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
I need to get me one of those, apparently
Well watch out if you get one of us “Juice”…we’re a tricksy lot, prone to cabals and media domination…just ask Cedarford. He’ll tell you all about us. He might advise you to invest in gold, hard tack, and a Brown Shirt….a Joo’ll get you involved in nefarious Credit Default Swaps, Mortgage-Backed Securities, Financial Derivatives, and a Plot to Dominate the Aryan Volk of this planet. I’m just warning you about us, Bubbellah.
Buffet is not, he's just using guilt, as a reason, not sound logic.
Guilt?
IMO Buffett is using the style of moral reasoning advocated by Adam Smith in his Theory of Moral Sentiments, which is what differentiates Smith from Ayn Rand. Smith asked what was the source of our moral intuition, and his answer was that our ability to imagine ourselves in the other guy's shoes is what spurs us to charity and compassion.
Buffett seems to be trying to let us in on the experience of an ultra-rich person, and using that to argue the very old utilitarian claim that an extra dollar of taxes is less "painful" to a wealthy person than to a non-wealthy person.
There are perfectly fine counterarguments, but Buffett's argument has basically been made for over a century and a half. Not by Marx, but by John Stuart Mill and his followers.
Freder evidently had difficulty with the concept.
Freder didn't have any difficulty with that concept at all. He had trouble with the much stronger claim that a person's heirs could receive a larger net inheritance through the use of a CRT.
I also have trouble with that claim, and will until we get DBQ's explanation of how it's done.
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
No Warren Buffett is busy telling OTHER “Rich” people how to spend their money! It’s his money and if he wants to give HIS money to Bill Gates or Barack Obama, that’s HIS business. But saying, “Hey tax us more” is merely moral preening and drumming up business for B-H. Moral preening, IF he thinks Obama needs more money SEND him some of YOURS, Warren…but Warren isn’t doing that is he? He just saying, he should send Barack more….all the while NOT doing it, but seeming to “care.”
Further by increasing taxes, Buffett drums up business for B-H, which deals in estate planning…it’s like your local glazier calling on the restless ‘utes of the city to express themselves by smashing glass, whilst he touts the new UNBREAKABLE Plexiglas windows.
And taxing Warren and friends at 40-50% won’t “solve” the debt crisis, but it will pave the way for you and I to pay “our fair share” too.
Freder didn't have any difficulty with that concept at all...'
You must have missed the start of the conversation.
@Joe, In your 2:50 comment you seemed to call for higher capital gains taxes, so as to better soak the Kennedys.
Since that's precisely what Buffett's principal tax proposal is in his NYT article, I don't know quite what you're complaining about.
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
@Joe, In your 2:50 comment you seemed to call for higher capital gains taxes, so as to better soak the Kennedys.
Since that's precisely what Buffett's principal tax proposal is in his NYT article, I don't know quite what you're complaining about
My 2.50 is RHETORICAL…I propose a 70% tax rate….it’s only fair.
My point is, Buffett is being hypocritical….
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2011/08/15/the-real-reason-warren-buffetts-taxes-are-low/
The REAL reason Buffett has low taxes…
Bruce Hayden said:
Indeed, it is quite common for third, etc., generation wealth to be frivolously wasted, with those who inherited such often turning into decadent wastrels.
++++
Second generation as well.
Think of Joe Kennedy's kids. Jack, Bobby, Joe Jr. Teddy especially but only because he was around for such a long time.
The third generation Kennedys learned will too. They are even more pimples on the world's ass than the 2nd gen.
John Henry
"... Since that's precisely what Buffett's principal tax proposal is in his NYT article..."
Which is odd since even Obama admitted lower cap gains tax generates more revenue and higher rates generate more fairness.
Or something like that.
@Hoosier, I reread Freder's comment @11:16, where he did begin by asking how a CRT could reduce an estate's liability, so you're right about that.
But he ended that comment by saying:
If your answer is that because he will have less money to pass on to his heirs, then that is just a ridiculous argument.
I read that as saying that unless people are talking about a way in which the net inheritance left to the heirs can be increased, then it's silly to criticize the use of the CRT as a way to get a tax break for charitable donations. I also read Freder's subsequent comments as saying the same thing. So unless there is in fact a way that a CRT can increase the net amount received by heirs, most of this thread is a tempest in a teapot.
If people don't like tax exemptions for charitable gifts, that's another question entirely. I think bagoh20's comments have provided the best arguments in favor of it.
even Obama admitted lower cap gains tax generates more revenue
Can we stipulate that this can't be true at all tax rates? It's great that everybody seems to know about the Laffer Curve, but don't forget that there is always a positively-sloped part as well as a negatively-sloped part. And as long as some people have the ability to structure their compensation as capital gains instead of regular salary, there's going to be a reason to tax capital gains at something like a reasonable income-tax rate.
A better way to stimulate investment (and thus, job creation) than by lightly taxing capital gains is to offer tax writeoffs for new investment.
Perhaps the Times was trying to say that the Monopoly man is all hat and no beef. Perhaps they meant to show how he was able to slip through the cracks in the tax code.....I think it is possible that both billionaires and government functionaries can be ill advised. I think the motivation behind a lot of these charitable trusts is to extend the rich man's power and influence beyond the grave. But lots of luck with that. I don't think either Rockefeller or Ford would be tinkled pink with the activities of the foundations that they founded. Parallel to this, a lot of government benefit programs are not meant to help the recipients of those programs but to extend the power and influence of the administrators of those programs....Hard cheese for Buffet's children. One of the world's richest men and he doesn't believe in passing along the wealth to his children. And what can they say except that daddy, dearest, is right about everything......George Soros is apparently putting some of his money into Brazilian soap opera star futures. This will, in the end, bring himm far more peace and joy than Move On. Org.....At any rate, conservatives should ponder the conundrum that they believe that wealthy men should spend their money however they please and that some wealthy men wish to use their wealth and influence to raise taxes on the wealthy.
"... I read that as saying that unless people are talking about a way in which the net inheritance left to the heirs can be increased, then it's silly to criticize the use of the CRT as a way to get a tax break for charitable donations..."
Which is a fair argument. However that's all DBQ initially stated, which was he reduced his taxable income.
"... Can we stipulate that this can't be true at all tax rates?..."
Sure, property taxes might be a good example.
Ultimately for me the issue is how much is enough? Guys like Freder don't seem to question what spending levels are other than they need to be funded.
Buffett can affford to be generous with his money but he might worry that his eagerness to fund the govt means they'll be coming back to him some more when a 25 or 30% cap gains ain't enough and Seymour his hungry. Sooner or later the 1% just won't have enough money. Then what?
I don't mind reasonable taxes if they ate spent reasonably
Joe said...
If the Kennedy's were obligated to pay taxes at the top rate for ordinary income on every dollar of revenue then the squeals will reach heaven.
What some other commenter's here seem to forget there is a difference between a tax credit and a tax deduction. Sure giving to charities is a tax reduction ploy but it doesn't change the fact that one still has to reduce the actual total amount of wealth that one would gift to their heirs. Again the real question is why do we have a wealth tax on money earned during the lifetime of the person who created the wealth provided the taxes on the money earned were paid during that person's lifetime? How many times must the government steal one's money to redistribute it mostly to the parasite class?
I also have trouble with that claim, and will until we get DBQ's explanation of how it's done. "person's heirs could receive a larger net inheritance through the use of a CRT."
Actually I never said they "would" receive a larger net inheritance. They may be better off financially in the long run.
Every case is different and it also depends on what type of assets we are talking about. Real assets. Appreciated assets. Income generating assets. Also taken into account are marginal tax rates of the grantor AND the grantee/heirs, current capital gains rates. (Maybe it is better to gift the appreciated assets to the low income heirs now instead of later.) The ability of the donor/estate to use the assets for deductions (such as rental property)to offset current income.
What kind of charity are you going to gift to. 20% 30% 50%? Not all charities are created equal. What kind of assets are you going to donate. Ranch land that has appreciated. Stock. Artwork. You are an idiot if you just give cash.
You can donate all kinds of assets for immediate charitable deduction or future create income streams for yourself through the deductions (charitable remainder trust vs charitable lead trust vs charitable private annuity)
First of all reducing the estate taxes owed is a moving target. The amounts exempted under the unified credit keep changing. In 2013 the exemption goes from 5 million per person to 1 million. With the amounts taxed over the exemption at 35% rising to 55% and not counting State taxes.
Second by reducing the taxable estate below the target amount, the heirs will be better off by not having to pay 55% of the remainder or a portion of the remainder, as long as they also pair it with an estate plan to cover taxes (see: ILIT)
Third a charitable trust not only removes the items from the estate, it can also reduce "current income taxes". With less income taxes the donor may be able to continue gifting tax free while living, or leaving more income to be reinvested for growth.
Fourth. Removing some of the assets from the taxable estate and gifting to an ILIT for the purpose of creating tax free life insurance proceeds to pay whatever estate taxes may be due....also can increase the net amount the heirs should receive.
Remember if you own the life insurance policy when you die the amount is added to your estate for taxation even though the beneficiary gets the proceeds tax free.
Remember also your Unified Credit is a use it or lose it thing for married couples.
What would represent coddling
NYT columnists talking about Barack Obama
and what would represent the super-rich?
NYT columnists at a party with Barack Obama.
Put those things together in one image, and sure enough, it's black and white.
DBQ's detailed answer leads one to believe that higher estate taxes will not so much punish the wealthy as coddle the estate planners.
DBQ's detailed answer leads one to believe that higher estate taxes will not so much punish the wealthy as coddle the estate planners.
Ta Dah!!
And just who owns multiple insurance companies and provides much of the tools for estate planners.
Hint.....Warren Buffett
DBQ's detailed answer leads one to believe that higher estate taxes will not so much punish the wealthy as coddle the estate planners.
I suppose it's churlish to point out that Buffett didn't write a single word about estate taxes in the linked article.
I discussed this with my wife tonight and my hunch is that what really bothers folks is that people like him have so much. So even if his assets are taxed once, he still has "so much".
And so I'm wondering if folks actually think that his assets should somehow be "taxed on an annual basis".
Or the shorter version:
he has so much money; we need money. Why can't we have some of his?
Furthermore, his points speak more towards tax reform than tax increase (i.e. "Why did I pay percentage-wise, less in taxes than my secretary")
Here's the part of Buffett's article that seems most worthy of discussing:
In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion — a staggering $227.4 million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent.
Suppose the average tax rate on the top 400 were raised back to 29.2 percent. That would generate--at most--an extra seven billon dollars per year in revenue. Collecting more taxes from the super-rich is almost entirely a symbolic move.
It seems that I'm in a tiny minority here in thinking that it's worth tossing this bone to the Democrats just to demonstrate to people that the deficit problem must be addressed through entitlement reform. Instead, we waste tons of time worrying about whether the top tax rate is 35% or 39.6%.
"To Obama the stupid Marxist and his believers the only purpose in life is to destroy the concept of Private Property."
Hahahahahahahaha!
It's astonishing, the tourette's-like repetivity with which fanatic know-nothings assert Obama's nonexistent "Marxism" and his plotting to collectivize American life.
Is it stupidity? Is it delusion? Is it willful mendacity? (Answer: It's all of the above.)
Obama is no more a Marxist than George Bush, and arguably less so than Richard Nixon, (and certainly less so than Jesus Christ, as per the asshole in Wisconsin the other day).
Another similarity between George Bush and Barack Obama besides their Wall Street and Big Banks-friendly policies: they're both terrible presidents.
Post a Comment