Warren Buffett's Lucky Sperm Club

Warren Buffett is a respected, if not beloved, figure in American culture in large part because he is about the richest man in American culture. Sadly though his ego seems to have gotten away from him. He is easily forgiven for clownishly playing the ukulele before fawning fans, and obnoxiously leading them in laughter at his constant stream of very bad jokes, but worst of all, he makes plain goofy political comments.

For example, he is very proud to be for the Estate Tax. His rationale is that one should not be given the right, by Republicans, to inherit money just because one is in what he calls "the lucky sperm club", i.e., a club whose members have wealthy parents who want to give their money to their kids rather than to the Democrats. The Democrats, he feels, must circumvent the loving wishes of parents. If one expands his theory of the family you have to conclude that above average parents should not be allowed to do much, if anything, that is above average for their kids, such as let them live in their big houses, eat their good food, and attend expensive schools. In fact, wealthy kids should not be allowed to benefit in any way merely as a result of who their parents are or how much they are loved. It's a concept that makes sense to Buffett and his Democratic friends, perhaps, but certainly not to Charles Darwin. According to Buffet, in theory anyway, it simply is not fair to those with average or below average parents. The Democrats must equalize parents' desires to do for and love their children.

Separating parents from children to equalize them in a classless society is, surprise, a good old fashioned communistic idea. It brings to mind the stories of scared, lonely 3 year old kids wondering lost in the middle of the night looking for their parents in the dormitories of communist kibbutzim ,or, Democratic teacher unions in America trying to force all children into failing hip hop public schools rather than let them attend competitive and mostly better private schools of their parents' choosing, or, the heroic Stalinist children who were encouraged to turn in their parents for execution, for hoarding a few grains of wheat during the Stalinist induced famines only to become orphanage heroes. It seems parental love must sometimes be circumvented by a state that feels it can more reliably socialize children into the commonweal than parents whose love can find expression in many different ways that are not always consistent with omniscient, Democratic, bureaucratic proclamations.

Of course, Buffet is a Democrat and as such wants the money that is taken from children to be given to the gov't which in turn would grow ever more powerful and then ever more powerfully assert its' right to more and more private sector money. It brings to mind another, but related, badly thought out aspect to Buffett's fractured and tendentious thinking. He loves the state much like all good Democrats but instead of giving his estate to the state he gave it to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation? Foundations are, of course, tax scams that enable rich guys to keep their money and spend it largely as they see fit rather than to let it fall into gov't hands where they wouldn't get full credit for the wonderful good works the gov't always does with it. Oddly, though, the Gates/Buffet foundation and the Federal Gov't will both provide about the same amount of welfare to places like Africa and get about the same dismal failure rates they got with American domestic welfare programs. Perhaps that is why Buffett seems evenly divided about whether the gov't or tax scam foundations waste his and the nation's fortunes?

Similarly, he and his new pal Hillary are supporting a higher capital gains tax on fat cat hedge fund operators, venture capitalists, and private equity firms? The real explanation for this can only be blind, dumb ignorance or a severe psychological ailment, to be gentle about it. Why else would you take money away from hedge funds when they are investing madly in new ethanol plants and related technology? And why else would you take money from venture capitalists when they played critical roles in funding companies like Google, Cisco, and eBay? And why would you object to a private equity firm trying to save the American auto industry after Democrat unions have decimated it for decades? Are gov't bureaucrats, most of whom have never held a real job in their lives, going to put the money to better use than that, or are they going waste every last cent of it and then beg for more until the entire nation is reduced to Soviet proportions?


Here's how JFK saw it in 1963 before his proposals took effect and created a boom in economic activity: "The tax on capital gains directly affects investment decisions, the mobility and flow of risk capital . . . the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures in obtaining capital, and thereby the strength and potential for growth in the economy."

Here's how Sen. Orin Hatch saw it in 2005: "In 2003, our capital gains tax rates were set at 20 percent and 10 percent. Congress reduced these rates to 15 percent and 5 percent. And what were the revenue estimates? The Congressional Budget Office expected that revenues would expand somewhat – from $50 billion to $68 billion. It turns out CBO was a bit off. Capital gains revenues doubled. Let me repeat that. Capital gains receipts jumped from $50 billion to $103 billion."

Buffett and his bleeding heart Democratic friends, oblivious to the lessons of history , also purport to care about the tax burden on his receptionist, and other lower income Americans. But if they really need to sooth their bleeding hearts so badly about "the other America" why did they support amnesty for 12-20 million illegal immigrants in this country? A simple wall (like the kind around prisons that work so perfectly), and biometric ID requirements to work, would instantly open up 12-20 million new jobs for low income Americans, dramatically bid up the wages for those jobs, and reduce the ever growing strain on the gov't social services budget that has accomplished nothing except to cripple generations of Americans.

To demonstrate how broad his confusion stretches, Buffett recently made headlines by explaining that his receptionist paid a higher tax rate than he did? It was part of the silly Democratic chattering about tax cuts for the rich under Bush. But, according to "Tax Cut" software the average wage earner ($33,000/year) would owe Federal tax of $3466 or 10.5%, while someone with $1,000,000 in dividend or capital gains income would pay $153,889 or 15%. Please note that 15% is greater then 10.5%. And of course that does not take into account that Buffett's income came to him through a corporation (Berkshire Hathaway) which probably paid a 35% tax on any income it had before distributing it to Buffett as personal income. So in the end if you figure Buffett's assets at, say, $40 Billion he may have paid around $2 Billion in taxes while his receptionist paid just $3466? It would seem Buffett was mistaken, or lied, about the tax rate. He probably figured a little lie to highlight his caring, bleeding heart before a truckling nation eager to believe anti American Democrats was worth it.

But how fair is a progressive tax anyway when, in theory, everyone should pay the same for gov't services? When you go into a restaurant or clothing store you are not charged according to your income? The rich and the poor pay the same, and it is actually the law, except when paying for gov't? Does a rich person get more missile defense than a poor one? In fact, poor people use gov't goods and services far more than rich people and yet it is the rich who foot almost the entire bill for it? The top 1%, for example, pay about 22% of Federal taxes. And then of course it is the rich who create products and services and businesses that make economic activity and taxation possible in the first place, and then too it is the rich who employ the poor so they can have jobs, eat, and pay taxes. The idea that the rich are obligated to "give back" more or that it is even possible to "give back" more is testimony to how much communism still lingers in our subconscious, and not to the reality that capitalism is the force that made life possible and sustainable on this planet. If Warren Buffet only knew that, he could be very happy with himself. In his spare time he could tell bad jokes and play his ukulele and not subject us to his Democratic vision of the world. Does anyone believe that we'd be better off if rich kids aspired to forgo their inheritances to "give back" as gov't or tax foundation workers rather than if they aspired to be billionaire capitalist entrepreneurs who invent and finance the goods and services that create and sustain life on this planet?

And, not to miss one last risible beat, the sage from Omaha (Buffett) looks at how capitalism has instantly lifted 1.3 billion people in China out of 10,000 years of gov't induced poverty and recommends, what else, socialized medicine for America! Isn't it comforting to know that Buffett and the Democrats have subverted their way to becoming the leading political party in America despite standing absolutely against America? But maybe, just maybe, the ukulele, the bad jokes, and the goofy, deliquescent arguments are merely a sly way for one of the world's richest, and perhaps smartest, men to draw Democratic attention away from the mother load which is, after all, his beloved Berkshire Hathaway Inc. ?


Ted Baiamonte
f1136
comments: bje1000@aol.com