J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

Is it me or is this guy a bit of legend ?

Apart from his charitable giving a few quotes give you an idea of what kind of person he is, not a total picture and there may be other stuff I havent heard but based on these he seems like my kind of billionaire.

Buffett stated that he only paid 19% of his income for 2006 ($48.1 million) in total federal taxes (due to their being from dividends & capital gains), while his employees paid 33% of theirs, despite making much less money.[130] “How can this be fair?” Buffet asked, regarding how little he pays in taxes compared to his employees. “How can this be right?” He also added:

His children will not inherit a significant proportion of his wealth. This is consistent with statements he has made in the past indicating his opposition to the transfer of great fortunes from one generation to the next.[101] Buffett once commented, "I want to give my kids just enough so that they would feel that they could do anything, but not so much that they would feel like doing nothing"

A market economy creates some lopsided payoffs to participants. The right endowment of vocal chords, anatomical structure, physical strength, or mental powers can produce enormous piles of claim checks (stocks, bonds, and other forms of capital) on future national output. Proper selection of ancestors similarly can result in lifetime supplies of such tickets upon birth. If zero real investment returns diverted a bit greater portion of the national output from such stockholders to equally worthy and hardworking citizens lacking jackpot-producing talents, it would seem unlikely to pose such an insult to an equitable world as to risk Divine Intervention.


I don't have a problem with guilt about money. The way I see it is that my money represents an enormous number of claim checks on society. It's like I have these little pieces of paper that I can turn into consumption. If I wanted to, I could hire 10,000 people to do nothing but paint my picture every day for the rest of my life. And the GDP would go up. But the utility of the product would be zilch, and I would be keeping those 10,000 people from doing AIDS research, or teaching, or nursing. I don't do that though. I don't use very many of those claim checks. There's nothing material I want very much. And I'm going to give virtually all of those claim checks to charity when my wife and I die.


Think the rest of the Billionaires could learn a thing or two, Bill Gates seems to have.

legb4rsk

I see his point but regarding tax on very rich people e.g. 19% of a f**king big number = a lot of money.

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

Yes, I can see that but at the end of the day, he can probably afford to pay more, thats kind of the point he is making, there does seem to be a point where people get to a level where they pay much less tax or none at all as it all goes off shore.

I like his style for being on the other side and saying it, he seems a fairly geniune and even slightly humble man, love the fact he will give all that wealth to charity rather than all to his kids but will give them enough to do stuff but still have to make an effort.

alloy

What people say and what people do are often two entirely different things.

Winning over public admiration is easy when you appease people's perceptions!

having said that Buffet is one of the good guys

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

Can only go on what I have read but I can see how with all that wealth it suddenly isnt that important, maybe having enough is ok for him, perhaps he realises how ever much he has he will still die and may as well leave a decent legacy, Bill Gates as well.

All seems to be a bit of a game to him, a game he was good at but slightly bemused at the result, sometimes the very wealthy dont seem to have that sense of perspective but I think they are surrounded by advisers and lackeys all trying to maximise profit and curry favour.

I suppose as well, some may seem like they dont give anything back but may do it on the quiet.

Leslie

Those who make a lot of money always seem to find it vital to keep making more and more of it even though they eventually would be unable to spend it all in the life they have remaining. They certainly don't like spending it!

I suppose they must regard moneymaking as a measure of success in life so they can't stop doing it.

As long as I have enough to be going on with, I could not be bothered with all that.

Les

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

Yes, I am the same, I like money and could do with a bit more but I have no desire for Millions or Billions, quite happy as it is, a few quid would enhance that but millions would change things too much.

GlesgaKiss

He comes across as an all round decent guy to be honest.

vindaloo

Tax on certain things is lower to attract money/investment...
Otherwise, money stays at home or in the bank or goes abroad.

I get what he's saying but he's more able than most (anyone alive?!?) to make the most of any opportunity.

J.

Trout

iTrader: (1)

You should research Azim Premji

He has already given away billions, but much more importantly he is personally driving fundamental changes in so many areas right across India and the developing world.

He, Buffett and Gates are in a different league as role models of wealth.

hodgy0_2

there is a reasonable economic and philosophical argument for no inherited wealth at all

It can act as a economic “heat sink”, taking money out of the system rather than forcing it to be re-circulated and thus promoting economic activity

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

I think massive inheritance is probably a bad idea but I think there should be some as most people will want to pass money down, trouble is kids who know they will inherit big tend to not have to try, some will, freed of the need to earn money in a standard job do other stuff, art, music, philanthropy etc but a lot tend to slip into not having to try, see it with some of the kids at my sons school, they dont bother doing well as they know they dont have to.

A few grand is not an issue though, look at creatures like Paris Hilton as an example of too much, too young.

Trout

iTrader: (1)

You should go out in Newcastle (or indeed anywhere on a Saturday night) - there are plenty of fake tanned, self-interested girls who look just like Paris Hilton and they haven't got a penny to their name!

GlesgaKiss

I would strongly disagree.

A few of the people in this thread seem to be completely clueless as to the underpinnings of western philosophy and how a market actually works.

Thank god none of you have any political clout, that's all I'll say.

Trout

iTrader: (1)

Hodgy - so where do you think the money goes?

hodgy0_2

I suspect overtime it gets concentrated in fewer and fewer peoples hands, I would imagine this suspicion has lead Buffet. Gates et al to take the position they have re inherited wealth

google it -- plenty of people have written about it

The answer to a problem is not always the obvious one – if it was, life would be easy, and everyone would be as wealthy as us

njkmrs

I intend getting through my wealth before I go .
"I say theres no pockets in shrouds ,I say theres no pockets in ......"

Trout

iTrader: (1)

If I take Berkshire Hathaway as an example - which is where Buffets wealth was - it was absolutely promoting economic activity. It was capitalising growth in some of the world's largest brands; it was rescuing stricken companies that deserved a second chance.

This is employment, economic activity.

And that was aside from being pension funds, endowment funds giving us a more secure future.

So in what way is this wealth stifling economic activity.

hodgy0_2

i am not quite sure you get my point trout

but lets take Berkshire Hathaway anyway, suppose he leaves this to his son, lock stock and barrel

his son does not understand Berkshire Hathaway and the investments/risks it makes and just puts it all in a swiss bank account.

my argument is not about wealth stifling growth -- it is the indiscriminent passing on of the wealth, it is not condusive to economic dynamism

lets say Steve Jobs was left a 100 million dollars when he was 18, he may have become like charlie sheen and just fvcked prostitutes all day long -- and we would have no Apple Computers

it won't happen, and maybe it shouldn't --- but something needs doing -- the US will default on its loans in 3 weeks (and its debt will be downgraded to junks status) if congress don't get their act together - which they will, but that’s not the point really is it

technically the US is bust, just like Greece, but ironically both have a very high proportion of very very rich individuals – why is that?

GlesgaKiss

Take money out of the equation and you can see the case for inheritance more clearly. Capital can be a few things depending on how you define it, but imagine it's a factory or a farm and land which provides a living for a family. They keep themselves to themselves, and through their own merit and hard work they have a sustainable source of income, a means to get by. They might also employ people in this line of work... so through their organisation others benefit, too - they are better off than they were without the job, hence why they took it in the first place.

So imagine everyone in that scenario is content, they have stable lives. Now what is the sense in breaking up that capital, which had to be formed using savings accumulated over time to make it in the first place, to distribute it to people who will not use it as capital but will just quickly consume it? For a start I believe it's completely criminal, but it also doesn't make a great deal of sense. The economic capital is gone and everyone is worse off.

The point of the market is that there's no single absolute goal for humanity. The people in the example above were the market - they did what they wanted to provide for themselves in the way that they wanted. There is a bizarre obsession with promoting economic activity, but in the case above the activity was already there on its own. Having one person plan what the market will do for everyone contradicts the whole idea of it.

Your last post reads like people like Steve Jobs should be under obligation to provide ipods for people and not spend as they please. But it's a free society we're meant to be living in? Apple was formed freely because there was demand for it, not because everyone in the world has a right to Apple goods.

Trout

iTrader: (1)

I think you are either being naive or idealistic - you are a smart guy so I am guessing the latter.

When the 'money' goes into the Swiss Bank what do you think happens to it??

As regards wealth - surely it is always indiscriminate? Rich and poor alike are just as capable of creating inappropriate concentrations of wealth. Why should we prejudice those who inherit the earth?

Leslie

It would be a big help to award contracts to British firms and keep them solvent and save all those jobs than to give them to foreign firms purely to kowtow to the Eu for the sake of eventual personal gain!

Les

hodgy0_2

its interesting -- the concept of inheritance must be focusing the minds of the News Corp board as we speak

what is in the interest of the shareholder?

fundamentally i see it as the antitheses to a Meritocracy

Trout

iTrader: (1)

The Murdoch empire being an nepotistic oligarchy is a whole different ball of wax.

One that will surely get it comeuppance as we are seeing News International unravel as we speak.

I could give an equal and opposite example.

So do we want to discuss corporate governance or do we want to discuss inherited wealth?

hodgy0_2

in the dark and middle ages wealth was kept between families via marriage
it took the industrial revolution to break this stangle hold on wealth -- and it moved humanity forward in leaps and bounds

I think that Warren Buffet sees the same potential for a return to the dark ages of stagnation in the amazing potential of humanity

America was built on the concept of a meritocracy -- a true market in human inginuity, you can argue that the concept of inherited wealth is a natural break on this

we are in a similiar nexus as they faced in the dark ages, the world economy is in crisis, and the IMF and world bank offer the same tired old arguments - which are doomed to failure

just because the status quo is good for you and me does not mean it is good for humanity as a whole

Trout

iTrader: (1)

You are mixing so many arguements here it can only lead me to think there is no argument.

Whether my current situation is good or not is nothing to with inherited wealth. My mother was a 16 year girl from Pallister Park, Middlesborough, I have no clue who my father was. I grew up with nothing.


Your arguement regarding the dark ages demonstrates that I am wrong. You are not idealistic you are naive.

In the Dark Ages the rich had big boxes of gold - a congestion of wealth - you were right.

Wind forward a few years. Wealthy man with 10 billion. He puts it in a Swiss Bank.

But unlike the dark ages, around 90% of that wealth is then pumped into the capital markets spread across a series of instruments ranging from soverign debt, to capital equities to currency investments.

So the money is not stagnant - the money creates economic activity - a completely different world from the dark ages.

So, anyway, decide which argument you want to have!!!

GlesgaKiss

* Goes to get popcorn *

hodgy0_2

i appreciate we have reached your intelectual ceiling so I will leave it there

Trout

iTrader: (1)

BTW - do your research - economic growth was accelerated more by the establishment of a decent banking system than the industrial revolution. The industrial revolution was certainly very depedent on the efficient distribution of capital.

As for your remark - nice put down - did you Google for that one?

hodgy0_2

oh the irony --- and I rarely do smilies