Warren Buffett, socialist?

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
So the crux of his argument is that a vast amount of monetary resources are being held hostage by people who have not shown that they are equipped to put it in productive use via the inheritance mechanism.


[/ QUOTE ]

Come on. If you're worried about money being put to productive use, don't give it to THE GOVERNMENT FFS!

[Jcrew]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The question is whether or not the estate tax should be increased to provide more opportunity(or the perception of more) to the lower factions of society.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you explain how this would actually work?

[/ QUOTE ]

Education vouchers (non-college), an order of magnitude larger standard deduction, subsidized preventative health care.

[ConstantineX]

I don't find objections to the repealing estate tax unreasonable. If we, as a society, concerned about the equality of opportunity from birth, and the morality about the manner which one acquires money - which libertarians DO care about, though the rhetoric heavily focuses on the voluntarism of the transaction. But here's a question to conservatives - if you oppose illegal immigration on grounds that poor immigrants will come vote overwhelmingly for the welfare state, why not employ the same reasoning towards some rich, hereditary plutocracy? Shouldn't one be similarly concerned about this problem? I think the problem with different styles of class warfare arguments isn't emphasizing that classist voting patterns exist, but emphasizing or de-emphasizing favored groups according to one's ideology. Conservative rhetoric is distrustful of the ignorant poor voting bloc. Liberal rhetoric is no less conspiratorial about those horrible, horrible Koch-like foundations that are undermining our democracy (see nonprofits like Media Matters). Here's the truth: the rich's machinations on the voting system are no more or no less nefarious than the poor's. And in America everyone no matter their actual wealth thinks of themselves as solidly middle class anyway.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The question is whether or not the estate tax should be increased to provide more opportunity(or the perception of more) to the lower factions of society.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you explain how this would actually work?

[/ QUOTE ]

Education vouchers (non-college), an order of magnitude larger standard deduction, subsidized preventative health care.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, OK. I thought you were getting at something along the lines of removing money from rich people being the critical step. So there's nothing in particular about your programs that require estate taxes, you just see that as a handy pile of money?

In that case, why shouldn't the question be whether or not the estate tax should be increased to pay for the war in iraq?

Some standard questions I have for death-tax supporters:

Do you support an estate tax exemption, or do you think the entire amount should be taxed?

If you support an exemption, do you think it should apply only to the entire estate or to each individual beneficiary - in other words, do you support an ESTATE tax or an INHERITANCE tax? In other other words, would you support the idea that you could pass an enormous estate ENTIRELY tax-free if it were divided up into tiny bits and spread amoung a large number of people?

Basically what I'm wondering is do you see this tax as a way of preventing spoiled brats from getting big gifts, or do you see this tax as a way of grabbing as much money as you can from a dead guy?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't find objections to the repealing estate tax unreasonable. If we, as a society, concerned about the equality of opportunity from birth, and the morality about the manner which one acquires money - which libertarians DO care about, though the rhetoric heavily focuses on the voluntarism of the transaction. But here's a question to conservatives - if you oppose illegal immigration on grounds that poor immigrants will come vote overwhelmingly for the welfare state, why not employ the same reasoning towards some rich, hereditary plutocracy? Shouldn't one be similarly concerned about this problem?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how the "same reasoning" applies, exactly. Then again, I don't oppose immigration, so I may not have the right mindset. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] But those who oppose immigration usually say "they're taking our (jobs,welfare, whatever)." Supporting an estate/inheritance tax would make the supporter the one taking, wouldn't it? Person A giving his own property to Person B does not "take" anything from Person C.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]

Basically what I'm wondering is do you see this tax as a way of preventing spoiled brats from getting big gifts,

[/ QUOTE ]

For me, that one. Your other questions are interesting re: implementation. I suppose I want to allow people to spread it out, but I'd want some measure of protection against loopholes that make it all come back to one or two people.

[ConstantineX]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't find objections to the repealing estate tax unreasonable. If we, as a society, concerned about the equality of opportunity from birth, and the morality about the manner which one acquires money - which libertarians DO care about, though the rhetoric heavily focuses on the voluntarism of the transaction. But here's a question to conservatives - if you oppose illegal immigration on grounds that poor immigrants will come vote overwhelmingly for the welfare state, why not employ the same reasoning towards some rich, hereditary plutocracy? Shouldn't one be similarly concerned about this problem?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how the "same reasoning" applies, exactly. Then again, I don't oppose immigration, so I may not have the right mindset. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] But those who oppose immigration usually say "they're taking our (jobs,welfare, whatever)." Supporting an estate/inheritance tax would make the supporter the one taking, wouldn't it? Person A giving his own property to Person B does not "take" anything from Person C.

[/ QUOTE ]

That isn't the same argument. The one you mentioned argues that the immigrant poor compete with the native poor driving down wages. I'm arguing just strictly about the effects of immigrant poor on political voting and then policy. I think they are different realms, though of course one does affect the other.

[Money2Burn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Basically what I'm wondering is do you see this tax as a way of preventing spoiled brats from getting big gifts,

[/ QUOTE ]

For me, that one. Your other questions are interesting re: implementation. I suppose I want to allow people to spread it out, but I'd want some measure of protection against loopholes that make it all come back to one or two people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you believe all kids of wealthy people are brats? Do you believe all children of poor people are not? I don't understand why people have such a problem with the chance of rich "brats" getting a bunch of money or being set up unfairly by their parent's wealth. If the kids really are undeserving or unqualified to have the money, it will probably squanered before long anyway.

[Mark1808]

It is interesting that Buffett did not air these views before he was worth $50 billion and decided to give his wealth away. If a man owns a company and dies if their is not enough cash to give the government half of what that business is worth the heirs must sell. What if these heirs have been running the business for years and are quite capable of continuing? Everyone acts like rich people die with $25 million in $100 bills. They usually have assets that must be sold if adequete cash or credit is not available. This to me is wrong. I do not believe giving money to government is ever an efficient thing to do. Government has no right to take a percentage of what a man has accumulated after tax.

Buffett feels the biggest problem facing the world is overpopulation so he is giving his money to a foundation that will find ways to stop overpopulation. Their are those that believe overpopulation is not a problem. Why should Buffett be able to give his wealth to this organization tax free? Either wealth is taxed at death or it isn't, it shouldn't matter who you give it to.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Basically what I'm wondering is do you see this tax as a way of preventing spoiled brats from getting big gifts,

[/ QUOTE ]

For me, that one. Your other questions are interesting re: implementation. I suppose I want to allow people to spread it out, but I'd want some measure of protection against loopholes that make it all come back to one or two people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent.

Note the motivation.

Instead of "wow, that guy has a lot of money, I wish I had a lot of money too" we have "wow, that guy has a lot of money, I wish he were poor like me."