When Warren Buffett wrote his much-ridiculed New York Times op-ed calling for higher taxes on people like Warren Buffett, a headline writer who was being completely honest about the level of new information revealed in the piece might have titled it, "Democrat Calls for Higher Taxes" or perhaps, in the spirit of the old "Weekend Update" report about General Franco, "Buffett Still Democrat."
Buffett may be an expert investor, but why should his fondness for taxation interest us any more than his love for Cherry Coke? Buffett is a man of many eccentricities. Put a plate of sushi in front of him, for instance, and he reacts like Dracula at dawn. In a field of garlic. Next to a churchyard.
Buffett was deliberately echoing the opinion of another man of means, Barack Obama, who vowed never to accept a debt-ceiling increase in which "I'm able to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income that I don't need" shortly before he indeed accepted such a deal.
But Obama is much like Buffett in that he can no longer conceive of any needs going unmet. Obama can summon anything a fellow could possibly desire (except possibly high approval ratings). Once he leaves office, he will, like fellow taxation enthusiasts Bill Clinton and Al Gore, enjoy virtually unlimited opportunities to generate unearned wealth -- collecting hundreds of thousands for speeches drafted by others, millions more to put their names to ghostwritten tomes and untold sums for renting their prestige to corporate boards. Possibly he feels guilty about the lack of effort required on his part, but the tax code is not to be used as therapeutic treatment for individuals suffering from psychic malaise, no matter how powerful they may be.
Buffett and Obama are essentially making the argument known in law as the declaration against interest. You must believe me, they implicitly say, because I'm speaking out against my own side. If a nine-foot giant tells us that no one should be allowed to be taller than seven feet, we take his point seriously.
The Buffett/Obama argument is meant to be a sort of saint's rejoinder to a "Do as I say, not as I do" hypocrisy. Sts. Buffett and Obama are first in line to be chopped down to size,
But how saintly are these men?
Other writers have noted that Buffett is a man in the habit of writing large checks each year to philanthropic causes, so if he believes the U.S. Treasury is a worthier recipient of his largesse than the many private charities he supports, he can easily locate the address of the office that takes unsolicited donations on behalf of the nation. For Obama the process is even simpler. He could just hand Tim Geithner a check.
That neither of them is handing over his wealth to Treasury indicates that neither is interested in paying more to the government per se; each is enthralled by the idea of doing so if they can be comforted by the knowledge that there are crowds lined up behind them (forced) to do the same.
They're being awfully generous, in other words, with other people's money.
As for their generosity with their own money, it's somewhat overstated. Few Americans have so spectacularly exceeded their own goals as these two humble sages. Yet even successful Americans have plenty of dreams that are as yet unfulfilled, and low capital gains taxes help them achieve. This is an excellent thing, for wealthy people create jobs as they try to turn small fortunes into large ones. Buffett suggests that even a capital gains tax of 40 percent is not too high to discourage investment, yet fails to point out something he has surely noticed -- that unleashing the power of capital from such punitively high rates in the 1970s preceded an explosion in wealth. He doesn't bother to note that a decrease in the rate of capital gains taxes was accompanied by an increase in revenue from these taxes. If rich Americans feel coddled, yet revenue rises, is this a bad thing?
The sacrifices Obama and Buffett volunteer to make simply aren't meaningful. Their willingness to sweep some crumbs off their plate has no bearing on whether you or I should enjoy a meal we earned.
Where did I get such an idea? From Warren Buffett, who told Forbes just last year, "Real philanthropy is when people put $5 into a collection plate on Sunday when they can barely afford it," he said. "That's real generosity. Despite all the money I've given away, it has not changed the way I live my life. I haven't had to adjust my lifestyle."
5 comments