4 ms·

Let's start with the first argument: "His message seems to be 'I'm rich, and I want the super-rich like me to pay more in taxes.' That's great. Write a check."

by earl 15y ago

Let's start with the first argument: "His message seems to be 'I'm rich, and I want the super-rich like me to pay more in taxes.' That's great. Write a check." But him writing a check isn't the point. If Warren writes a check, we get that check's worth of new government income. If taxes are raised, for Warren's contribution of the same check, we get much larger pool of spending. Put more simply: plan (a) warren donates $10 and we get $10 of government income; plan (b) warren is taxed +$10 and we get $10K of new government income. The rest of the blog is well characterized as Dunning Kruger in action.

lionhearted 15y ago
You picked the least interesting point of Markham's to disagree with. These two were more interesting: > Ok, I'm calling bullshit. What does "sensible investment" mean? Does it mean the amount invested, the risk, and the amount expected in return? Because last I checked, you'd take the amount you're getting in return and decrease it by your tax rate. He then goes on to note tax-deferred and tax-advantaged investments will see capital move to them if tax rates are changed. Which is a good point. And yes, every serious investor calculates their after-tax return and makes it one of their decisionmaking criteria. That's a crucial point that's obvious when written out, but many people miss it. > The rest of the blog is well characterized as Dunning Kruger in action. This should be Godwin's Law II: Whoever accuses someone else of Dunning Kruger loses the argument. There were interesting points in there. You apparently disagree, but that's not a good reason to be flippant. Just address the points you disagree with. Changing tax laws changes the suitability of investments and changes the allocation of investments made and legal structures used. Those are good points and seem correct on a glance.
- cjy 15y ago
  Well said. The guy also makes a good point that Buffett isn't clear what he is advocating. Does he want to raise the capital gains tax only on the mega rich or raise capital gains taxes for everyone which would have a disproportionate impact on the mega rich who get most of their income from capital gains? The former wouldn't raise that much revenue. The latter would encourage people to consume instead of investing their money.
  - seats 15y ago
    I thought Buffett was very clear - "But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate."
- pyoung 15y ago
  Anyone who has the imprudence to argue with Warren Buffett, the savviest investor of all-time, is most likely a victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect. If you can't understand why, then you also may be a victim of the same effect.
  - marknutter 15y ago
    Being a savvy investor does not necessarily imply being an expert on public policy. And your statement pretty much nullifies any attempt to ever argue with anything Warren Buffett says, which isn't a very productive stance to take.
  - lionhearted 15y ago
    > Anyone who has the imprudence to argue with Warren Buffett, the savviest investor of all-time, is most likely a victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect. So you can't argue with him about... -Parenting? -Philosophy? -Regulation? -Physical fitness? > If you can't understand why, then you also may be a victim of the same effect. Markham pointed out that capital is going to be invested differently if tax laws change. I mean, duh, right? It's an obvious, correct, and important point that was overlooked in the OpEd for some reason. If you disagree that changing tax laws is going to change capital investment, the burden is firmly on you to explain why instead of just saying "Dunning Kruger" which is basically a sophisticated way of calling someone an idiot. So I'm holding by the "Godwin's Law II" suggestion - if you try to call someone out on Dunning Kruger, you lose. If you've got a good argument, just make it instead of calling names.
    - pyoung 15y ago
      I am still waiting for someone to make a good argument that effectively counters Buffett's OpEd. 'changing tax laws is going to change capital investment' is not an argument against changing tax laws. Capital investment is affected daily by economic growth, interest rates, investor confidence, and a large number of other factors. Buffett points out in his OpEd that when capital gains tax were much higher in the past than they are currently, economic growth was higher than it is now. This implies that higher capital gains results in more effective investment. Until you can counter that, you do not have a point to make (and please, no more comparisons to Mongolia). Also, only someone affiliated with the Nazi party would try to come up with an addendum to Godwin's Law. Sorry, I had to.

by earl 15y ago

lionhearted 15y ago

You picked the least interesting point of Markham's to disagree with. These two were more interesting: > Ok, I'm calling bullshit. What does "sensible investment" mean? Does it mean the amount invested, the risk, and the amount expected in return? Because last I checked, you'd take the amount you're getting in return and decrease it by your tax rate. He then goes on to note tax-deferred and tax-advantaged investments will see capital move to them if tax rates are changed. Which is a good point. And yes, every serious investor calculates their after-tax return and makes it one of their decisionmaking criteria. That's a crucial point that's obvious when written out, but many people miss it. > The rest of the blog is well characterized as Dunning Kruger in action. This should be Godwin's Law II: Whoever accuses someone else of Dunning Kruger loses the argument. There were interesting points in there. You apparently disagree, but that's not a good reason to be flippant. Just address the points you disagree with. Changing tax laws changes the suitability of investments and changes the allocation of investments made and legal structures used. Those are good points and seem correct on a glance.

cjy 15y ago
Well said. The guy also makes a good point that Buffett isn't clear what he is advocating. Does he want to raise the capital gains tax only on the mega rich or raise capital gains taxes for everyone which would have a disproportionate impact on the mega rich who get most of their income from capital gains? The former wouldn't raise that much revenue. The latter would encourage people to consume instead of investing their money.
- seats 15y ago
  I thought Buffett was very clear - "But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate."
pyoung 15y ago
Anyone who has the imprudence to argue with Warren Buffett, the savviest investor of all-time, is most likely a victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect. If you can't understand why, then you also may be a victim of the same effect.
- marknutter 15y ago
  Being a savvy investor does not necessarily imply being an expert on public policy. And your statement pretty much nullifies any attempt to ever argue with anything Warren Buffett says, which isn't a very productive stance to take.
- lionhearted 15y ago
  > Anyone who has the imprudence to argue with Warren Buffett, the savviest investor of all-time, is most likely a victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect. So you can't argue with him about... -Parenting? -Philosophy? -Regulation? -Physical fitness? > If you can't understand why, then you also may be a victim of the same effect. Markham pointed out that capital is going to be invested differently if tax laws change. I mean, duh, right? It's an obvious, correct, and important point that was overlooked in the OpEd for some reason. If you disagree that changing tax laws is going to change capital investment, the burden is firmly on you to explain why instead of just saying "Dunning Kruger" which is basically a sophisticated way of calling someone an idiot. So I'm holding by the "Godwin's Law II" suggestion - if you try to call someone out on Dunning Kruger, you lose. If you've got a good argument, just make it instead of calling names.
  - pyoung 15y ago
    I am still waiting for someone to make a good argument that effectively counters Buffett's OpEd. 'changing tax laws is going to change capital investment' is not an argument against changing tax laws. Capital investment is affected daily by economic growth, interest rates, investor confidence, and a large number of other factors. Buffett points out in his OpEd that when capital gains tax were much higher in the past than they are currently, economic growth was higher than it is now. This implies that higher capital gains results in more effective investment. Until you can counter that, you do not have a point to make (and please, no more comparisons to Mongolia). Also, only someone affiliated with the Nazi party would try to come up with an addendum to Godwin's Law. Sorry, I had to.