You're referring to this OpEd piece he wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/26/opinion/buffett-a-minimum-tax-for-the-wealthy.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/1

You're referring to this OpEd piece he wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/26/opinion/buffett-a-minimum-tax-for-the-wealthy.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/26/opinion/buffett-a-minimum-... To quote: "Would your reply possibly be this? “Well, it all depends on what my tax rate will be on the gain you’re saying we’re going to make. If the taxes are too high, I would rather leave the money in my savings account, earning a quarter of 1 percent.” Only in Grover Norquist’s imagination does such a response exist." He was saying that raising top marginal tax rates would not result in rational investors withholding their capital. This is entirely consistent with the Duracell acquisition, which was tax efficient for both sides involved. Your interpretation is completely wrong. The correct comparison would be if Buffett did not do the Duracell acquisition because he didn't want to pay capital gains on the increased value of his BRK-A holdings (which would be idiotic, and further reinforces the point he made)