Never thought I would hear it from one of the ultrawealthy themselves.  In the following interview, billionaire Warren Buffet offers a couple of suggestions on how to alleviate income inequality in society.  He suggests an earned income tax credit for the poor and higher taxes on the ultrawealthy, like himself.

Nothing new in practice, but he is essentially advocating another iteration of a hybrid economic system that is foundationally capitalistic, but with specific socialistic elements.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/warren-buffett-ideas-to-end-inequality-134650421.html

Never thought I would hear it from one of the ultrawealthy themselves.  In the following interview, billionaire Warren Buffet offers a couple of suggestions on how to alleviate income inequality in society.  He suggests an earned income tax credit for the poor and higher taxes on the ultrawealthy, like himself.

Nothing new in practice, but he is essentially advocating another iteration of a hybrid economic system that is foundationally capitalistic, but with specific socialistic elements.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/warren-buffett-ideas-to-end-inequality-134650421.html

There will always be inequality of income because there will always be an inequality of production.

There will always be inequality of income because there will always be an inequality of production.

Inequality is just part of the human condition subject to the law of scarcity.  Hence, how humans address inequality has always been the name of the game throughout history.

For generations, it has been argued that subjecting the rich to higher taxes was counterproductive for the economy.  However, in the modern era, it is comforting to finally hear someone of the ultrawealthy admit and reaffirm what many have intuitively known all along, that higher taxes for the rich is one of the most strategic solutions to address income inequality.

There will always be inequality of income because there will always be an inequality of production.

but, but, but, but that's not FAIR!!!

but, but, but, but that's not FAIR!!!

The issue now is not fairness but instability. When income inequality reaches such obscene levels as we have now then a revolution becomes imminent. WB is a savvy investor with a keen eye of the future who can see the pitchforks and torches gathering while the Bezos, Gates, Musk, and the Waltons are still sucking up our tax money to buy back their own stock and starving their workers like everything is normal.

Where do you think the latest centrally coordinated and extremely well-funded push against gun rights came from? Bloomberg was the head of the worlds largest private army (NYPD) and was privy to the pentagon briefings on civil unrest.

At least Buffet has the good sense to know the hell on earth about to be unleashed by short sighted greed, bad policy, as well as lack of leadership and is trying to stick his finger in the dyke.

The issue now is not fairness but instability. When income inequality reaches such obscene levels as we have now then a revolution becomes imminent. WB is a savvy investor with a keen eye of the future who can see the pitchforks and torches gathering while the Bezos, Gates, Musk, and the Waltons are still sucking up our tax money to buy back their own stock and starving their workers like everything is normal.

Where do you think the latest centrally coordinated and extremely well-funded push against gun rights came from? Bloomberg was the head of the worlds largest private army (NYPD) and was privy to the pentagon briefings on civil unrest.

At least Buffet has the good sense to know the hell on earth about to be unleashed by short sighted greed, bad policy, as well as lack of leadership and is trying to stick his finger in the dyke.

Excellent point HB, as the US is indeed headed to an armed conflict.  The question now is which one?  Will it be the remanence of the American republic versus the present fascist American empire or, as Gerald Celente said in an interview I posted yesterday, the US empire versus China, Russia, Iran, DPRK, and/or anyone else that refuses financial vassal status (i.e., adherence to the US petrodollar).

For those siding with the US empire, they have to remember one thing.  As with all empires, they will work for complete domination of all nations of the World under any pretense they can find, which is exciting for some.  However, empires also demand the same of all its subjects domestically as well.  Their rule is absolute and you can bet the rights of man including that of private gun ownership will not be allowed in the American empire.

The foreign and domestic policy of the American empire is one and the same, as with all other empires in history, submission by all...

The fact that Trump is trying to bring home the troops from Afghanistan is a sign that he knows what is going on. A failing empire is a bomb with many fuses, but at least there are some Americans in power with the good sense to stop doubling down on stupidity.

Meanwhile all the Democrats can say is Russia Russia Russia.

Warren Buffet has the FREEDOM and RESOURCES to give as much of his wealth to the needy/poor/unequal/distressed people in any location he desires.

What pisses me off is how he would be the least affected by government wealth redistribution.  He has the assets to die after a continued comfortable existence.

The ones hurt by any gov't wealth confiscation are those who fall along the arbitrary demarkation line between "haves" and "have nots".  These schemes never work, because no matter how much you take from the 1%, 5% or 10%, it's never going to be enough.  The small business owners, parents with double incomes raising a family or building a retirement nest egg, etc. are the ones who will suffer.  That's because the people writing the laws are incompetent, greedy and for the most part millionaires.  They are not going to take massive amounts of money from a few 1%-level campaign donors when they can take a smaller amount from millions of people and businesses making in the low 6 figures and trying to invest for the future.

Who made a rule that said I have to be guilty about anything I earn for no other reason than there are people who didn't?  Why is it the right of the "have nots" to steal from the "haves", but you're greedy to want to keep the wealth you earned?

We live in an economic time where scarcity is not the determining factor for value and access.  Facebook was a bunch of ideas and coding rolled out to servers.  The infrastructure is already in place (Internet).  The servers are already available to buy or lease.  All it took was capital, which was easy enough with stock sales.  Not bad for a college dorm room project.

Our economy is now services-based, not manufacturing or agrarian like in the past.  We trade stocks, bonds and commodities, we buy and sell currencies, we design, write and test software to produce operating systems, apps and web sites, we develop massive data warehouses for a slew of applications, and so on.  That's just the tip of the massive iceberg of services in the US.  There is UNLIMITED opportunity and access to resources if one merely educates themselves and has a little inspiration to come up with a better way to do things.  Hell, people make millions off the next big toy craze every year.  Just be first to market, and you can be next.

The wealth accumulates with the people who lead.  I see no problem there.  If you want to start putting caps on wealth, let's prioritize the products and services people provide from "critical" to "useful" to "entertainment".  Movie stars, professional athletes and music entertainers who make millions leveraging their talents should be on the chopping block first.  At least someone like Buffet created capital to help start and grow companies and products that have shaped and sustained our country for decades.

The human condition teaches us there will always be poor, hungry and sick.  Nothing we do can ever change that.  Even Jesus said so.

We are free in the US to give away as much of our property/wealth as we want to help the less fortunate.  It's not the gov't's job to play Robbing Hood.

How come we cant just use the same % across the board?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

How come we cant just use the same % across the board?

Great question. I will take -51% as well.

https://publicintegrity.org/inequality-poverty-opportunity/taxes/trumps-tax-cuts/you-paid-taxes-these-corporations-didnt/

How come we cant just use the same % across the board?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

The rationale is, when you earn money, it goes for the benefit of your family in the form of rent or mortgage, food, clothing, medical, etc.  Basically, that money is spent on consumables.

When a corporation spends money, one of their largest outlays is payroll.  That is the money the family in my first sentence gets.

Take away the money from the corporation, and they have less to pay employees. 

Their outlays benefit the economy in ways that pure consumption doesn't.  Keeping a bread-winner employed keeps that person paying taxes, off of public assistance, etc.

The rationale is, when you earn money, it goes for the benefit of your family in the form of rent or mortgage, food, clothing, medical, etc.  Basically, that money is spent on consumables.

When a corporation spends money, one of their largest outlays is payroll.  That is the money the family in my first sentence gets.

Take away the money from the corporation, and they have less to pay employees. 

Their outlays benefit the economy in ways that pure consumption doesn't.  Keeping a bread-winner employed keeps that person paying taxes, off of public assistance, etc.

That is a great theory, but in real life they pay starvation wages, ship jobs overseas, and encourage employees to go on welfare while using the boon of deregulation and tax cuts to buy back their own stock to make it appear they are healthy even though fundamentals say different. It seems they lost the Henry Ford appreciation for the fact that if employees cannot afford the products they are selling then they will not be in business very long. Not without massive bailouts, anyway, which means taking out the entire economy with them when they inevitably self destruct.

That is a great theory, but in real life they pay starvation wages, ship jobs overseas, and encourage employees to go on welfare while using the boon of deregulation and tax cuts to buy back their own stock to make it appear they are healthy even though fundamentals say different. It seems they lost the Henry Ford appreciation for the fact that if employees cannot afford the products they are selling then they will not be in business very long. Not without massive bailouts, anyway, which means taking out the entire economy with them when they inevitably self destruct.

I reject your blanket statement.  I've never worked for a company that did any of that.

I meant for people, have the same % for all level of incomes. Example, guy who makes 33k a year pays 18% tax. So does the 160k a year person.

No need 51% yet cause we dont have socialist healthcare.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

all you people who are demonizing the waltons may want to look at the list of companies that gave people raises in the past month...

all you people who are demonizing the waltons may want to look at the list of companies that gave people raises in the past month...

My friend works for a high end purse/wallet store.  They cut pay by 10% for all employees and will pay the rest until the end of the year.  IDK if that company received any government money.

Macy's paid their employees partial checks till end of March.  Macy's closed it's doors end of feb, early march.

Some of you guys should try a little harder to find news sources other than the lipstick-smeared corporate press releases that pass for journalism these days. Walmart is a massively profitable operation that encourages its workers to abuse the welfare system instead of paying them living wages. Not sure if that is the worst kind of Socialism but it is right up there on the top of the list. If they think they can keep the pitchforks and torches away by throwing out a few hand fulls of candy to the mob every once in a while then they have another thing coming.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/#17d2e6a720b7

I reject your blanket statement.  I've never worked for a company that did any of that.

The fact that you got lucky does not mean these abuses do not exist. The documentation is extensive, people are very angry, and ignoring the problem will only cause a Socialist revolution.

The fact that you got lucky does not mean these abuses do not exist. The documentation is extensive, people are very angry, and ignoring the problem will only cause a Socialist revolution.

That statement proves that your blanket accusations against all of corporate America is a lie.

Hyperbolic much?

The fact that you got lucky does not mean these abuses do not exist. The documentation is extensive, people are very angry, and ignoring the problem will only cause a Socialist revolution.

People are angry because they choose to be. There are tons of people from third world countries who would love to trade places with Americans who feel “abused”.

People in America like to think they should be able to raise a family flipping burgers at McDonald’s or stocking shelves at Walmart. It just doesn’t work that way. People have to be rewarded for making good decisions and you have to let people suffer who’ve made bad decisions. It may seam heartless but nothing motivates someone better then hard times.

HB I once thought like you. A video that really changed my perspective about the rich was a video by peter schiff. The title is “I’m part of the 1% let’s talk”. It actually turned me conservative. Watch it and let me know what you think