7 ms·

Ebenezer Scrooge lived very modestly too. He was a landlord who exploited the low paid by jacking up prices on run down housing, or was that Buffett? https://

Ebenezer Scrooge lived very modestly too. He was a landlord who exploited the low paid by jacking up prices on run down housing, or was that Buffett? https://www.forbes.com/sites/korihale/2019/04/18/warren-buffets-exploitative-mobile-home-investment/?sh=1eda5db91507 https://www.forbes.com/sites/korihale/2019/04/18/warren-buff... Is this the same Warren Buffett whose railway refused to provide his train workers with sick leave despite the company reporting a net income of nearly 6 billion? https://twitter.com/RBReich/status/1570088566411366405 https://twitter.com/RBReich/status/1570088566411366405 The same train company that didn't meet safety standards and so recently ended up poisoning a whole town after a derailment? https://www.thestreet.com/video/warren-buffetts-bnsf-railway-involved-in-train-derailment-13141358 https://www.thestreet.com/video/warren-buffetts-bnsf-railway... The same Buffett that pays almost no tax? (& can you guess who has to pay the tax in his stead - the poors who are subsidising his private jet flights)

billyraejohnson 4y ago
^This. Please stop publishing the frugal, benevolent billionaire propaganda, we've heard this nonsense so many times. Look up "precision scheduled railroading" for just one real life example of how these KPI-focused idiots ruin the livelihoods of many working people. Those are the stories that should be told, not these hagiographical snippets.
- ElfinTrousers 4y ago
  For those just joining us, "precision scheduled railroading" is a fancy term for "increasing short-term profits by cutting safety measures".
kjghkjghkjgh 4y ago
Clayton Homes sells new mobile homes not "run down housing". They are like any other manufactured home builder.
- yourmatenate 4y ago
  My wording could have been better, but the point stands - according to Forbes (a conservative capitalist source) he is charging interests rates substantially above the usual for housing to low income residents, something they call "exploitative".
kjghkjghkjgh 4y ago
Warren Buffett pays "almost no tax" because he receives a $100k salary and doesn't sell his stocks.
- yourmatenate 4y ago
  And yet somehow still buys a $11 million house in California and flies by private jet. That $100k stretches really far.
  - Py-o7 4y ago
    BRK salary is 100k; the corp pays for the private jet ("the Indefensible"). Aside from Berkshire, he also has a personal stock portfolio worth 9 digits or so [in essence due to investment work prior to Berkshire]. He is able to compound that at high rates and is tax savvy so almost all returns are long-term cap gains (or at dividend rates); this is what he's pointed out when stating how low his overall tax rate is vs say typical administrative staff. Evidently neither you nor the person you're arguing with actually knows much about this topic. It seems like you already have an extremely strong opinion on the man and are trying to back-fill it with "facts". Oh well.
    - yourmatenate 4y ago
      The point of my reply was to point out that having a modest home was not necessarily an indication of character (hence the Scrooge comparison), and that even Warren Buffett - who is seen by some as the best of the wealthy - has come under criticism by the press for his motives and methods having been less than ethical (although they may have been perfectly legal). One of the sources was anti-capitalist, but the journalists who wrote a a couple of those articles for business news sources undoubtedly were supporters of capitalism, and are likely to be know much more about the financial issues than most us do. Although there are larger questions of whether anyone should be in a position to hoard so much wealth, what 'cost' that wealth comes at for the rest of us, and whether the accompanying power he exercises (even if indirectly) is good for society. Those are larger philosophical and ethical queries, that do often come with strong opinions for good reason. Those on the right worry that regulating wealth may come with an affect on some other freedoms, those on the left worry that such wealth comes with a risk to the integrity of the democratic process and comes at a high societal cost. Most of the defences of Buffett against this criticism have seemed to have been: "he is just a money geek who doesn't get into those details", "at least he is planning to give a lot of it away", and "you are in no position to judge him." I, like many others, do not feel he is beyond criticism or that those are sufficient answers.
up2isomorphism 4y ago
At least he is responsible for his shareholders, who is responsible for the tax collected from us, no one. I would send my tax money to a ditch if I can nowadays instead of giving to the government.
- yourmatenate 4y ago
  And what percentage of the population are major shareholders - to the point that their share holding makes a substantial impact or gives them a significant say in the running of the company? It is the 1% who own 53% of stocks who are the ones who he and the board listens to. Are you really happier having a higher burden of taxation because of Buffett and others using these (albeit technically legal) means to avoid paying theirs - whether you like what the government does with those taxes or not?
- billyraejohnson 4y ago
  ..and of course you do not see a relation between the growing concentration of wealth in the hands of a few oligarchs and public spending oddly ever more looking like a neoliberal's wet dream...
kjghkjghkjgh 4y ago
Buffett owns BNSF, not Norfolk Southern. You are being very careless with your facts.
- yourmatenate 4y ago
  It seems there are multiple train companies which have had derailments including his. It is almost as if his train company is just as lax with its safety as the others. But luckily this one did not derail in a town.
yucky 4y ago
> The same train company that didn't meet safety standards and so recently ended up poisoning a whole town after a derailment? This is 100% false, why are you spreading misinformation? Buffet has zero connection to that company at all.
- yourmatenate 4y ago
  My mistake. Different train company - although his also had derailments & is also failing at track and train safety, as detailed in the link.

billyraejohnson 4y ago

^This. Please stop publishing the frugal, benevolent billionaire propaganda, we've heard this nonsense so many times. Look up "precision scheduled railroading" for just one real life example of how these KPI-focused idiots ruin the livelihoods of many working people. Those are the stories that should be told, not these hagiographical snippets.

ElfinTrousers 4y ago
For those just joining us, "precision scheduled railroading" is a fancy term for "increasing short-term profits by cutting safety measures".

kjghkjghkjgh 4y ago

Clayton Homes sells new mobile homes not "run down housing". They are like any other manufactured home builder.

yourmatenate 4y ago
My wording could have been better, but the point stands - according to Forbes (a conservative capitalist source) he is charging interests rates substantially above the usual for housing to low income residents, something they call "exploitative".

kjghkjghkjgh 4y ago

Warren Buffett pays "almost no tax" because he receives a $100k salary and doesn't sell his stocks.

yourmatenate 4y ago
And yet somehow still buys a $11 million house in California and flies by private jet. That $100k stretches really far.
- Py-o7 4y ago
  BRK salary is 100k; the corp pays for the private jet ("the Indefensible"). Aside from Berkshire, he also has a personal stock portfolio worth 9 digits or so [in essence due to investment work prior to Berkshire]. He is able to compound that at high rates and is tax savvy so almost all returns are long-term cap gains (or at dividend rates); this is what he's pointed out when stating how low his overall tax rate is vs say typical administrative staff. Evidently neither you nor the person you're arguing with actually knows much about this topic. It seems like you already have an extremely strong opinion on the man and are trying to back-fill it with "facts". Oh well.
  - yourmatenate 4y ago
    The point of my reply was to point out that having a modest home was not necessarily an indication of character (hence the Scrooge comparison), and that even Warren Buffett - who is seen by some as the best of the wealthy - has come under criticism by the press for his motives and methods having been less than ethical (although they may have been perfectly legal). One of the sources was anti-capitalist, but the journalists who wrote a a couple of those articles for business news sources undoubtedly were supporters of capitalism, and are likely to be know much more about the financial issues than most us do. Although there are larger questions of whether anyone should be in a position to hoard so much wealth, what 'cost' that wealth comes at for the rest of us, and whether the accompanying power he exercises (even if indirectly) is good for society. Those are larger philosophical and ethical queries, that do often come with strong opinions for good reason. Those on the right worry that regulating wealth may come with an affect on some other freedoms, those on the left worry that such wealth comes with a risk to the integrity of the democratic process and comes at a high societal cost. Most of the defences of Buffett against this criticism have seemed to have been: "he is just a money geek who doesn't get into those details", "at least he is planning to give a lot of it away", and "you are in no position to judge him." I, like many others, do not feel he is beyond criticism or that those are sufficient answers.

up2isomorphism 4y ago

At least he is responsible for his shareholders, who is responsible for the tax collected from us, no one. I would send my tax money to a ditch if I can nowadays instead of giving to the government.

yourmatenate 4y ago
And what percentage of the population are major shareholders - to the point that their share holding makes a substantial impact or gives them a significant say in the running of the company? It is the 1% who own 53% of stocks who are the ones who he and the board listens to. Are you really happier having a higher burden of taxation because of Buffett and others using these (albeit technically legal) means to avoid paying theirs - whether you like what the government does with those taxes or not?
billyraejohnson 4y ago
..and of course you do not see a relation between the growing concentration of wealth in the hands of a few oligarchs and public spending oddly ever more looking like a neoliberal's wet dream...

kjghkjghkjgh 4y ago

Buffett owns BNSF, not Norfolk Southern. You are being very careless with your facts.

yourmatenate 4y ago
It seems there are multiple train companies which have had derailments including his. It is almost as if his train company is just as lax with its safety as the others. But luckily this one did not derail in a town.

yucky 4y ago

> The same train company that didn't meet safety standards and so recently ended up poisoning a whole town after a derailment? This is 100% false, why are you spreading misinformation? Buffet has zero connection to that company at all.

yourmatenate 4y ago
My mistake. Different train company - although his also had derailments & is also failing at track and train safety, as detailed in the link.