Warren Buffett is a Hypocrite, Part I

Amass an 11-digit fortune, and you should probably forgo a name tag

We’ve never done a post on The Oracle of Omaha, which makes us unique among personal finance blogs. We also didn’t misspell his name as “Buffet”, which also makes us unique among personal finance blogs.

Yes, he’s the greatest investor of all time. No one disputes this. The problem is when he starts talking about topics he either knows nothing about, or is being deliberately obtuse about. Amassing wealth doesn’t make you an authority of every subject. Case in point, his recent lament about taxes.

Buffett wrote in The New York Times that the current progressive tax system in this country, in which rich people bankroll most everything, just isn’t progressive enough. He pointed out, yet again, the absurdity of his secretary paying a higher percentage of her salary in taxes than he does.

Summarizing, Buffett claims that at least one of his employees allegedly pays an effective tax rate of around 41% on income, while Buffett himself pays 17%.

First, the former claim is a lie. The highest marginal tax rate in this country isn’t even 41%, let alone the highest average tax rate. The highest marginal tax rate is 35%, and given the income level at which the IRS administers it, to pay an effective tax rate of 35% you’d have to make $6 million a year.

So Buffett’s not comparing himself to the woman who answers phones at Berkshire Hathaway. He’s comparing himself to a manager who makes a higher salary than almost everyone in America, even more than your average NBA or major league baseball player.

We’re giving Buffett the benefit of the doubt here, assuming that he meant 35% instead of 41% even though those numbers are easy to distinguish. No one knows where he got the 41% figure from.

Furthermore, that 35% maximum rate is on taxable income. Anyone who’s ever filled out a 1040, or had someone else do it, knows that taxable income is considerably less than total income. There are these things called deductions and credits, which Buffett is presumably familiar with (and which any manager who makes $6 million a year must be familiar with, too.)

It makes for a great class warfare talking point: every dollar that I fail to make is somehow some richer person’s doing. And who better to inspire envy among the poor salaried millions than a tycoon who’s finally seen the error of his ways?

Buffett – and we salute him for this – has spent a lifetime earning money via capital gains, rather than salary. Do we think this is a good idea? Hell, we wrote a book about it.

Capital gains are taxed at lower rates than salaries are. The people who write the tax code, and make it the most cumbersome and impenetrable thing on the planet, ensure this. Of course they do. Legislators write the code to accommodate and exploit this, because they derive most of their income through capital gains.

Let’s assume that Buffett indeed has employees who are paying twice the proportion of their income in taxes as he is. What’s the fairest way to make things fair? Again, multiple-choice.

  1. Further soak the rich.
  2. Get government’s foot off the throat of the poor.

Raise the rich people’s taxes to make things even, or lower the poor’s? Rich people seem to enjoy being rich. Why not reduce rates on the salaried masses to put them in line with whatever Buffett’s definition of “rich” is, instead of the other way around? Instead of creating prosthetic limbs for amputees, Buffett wants to break the right arms of the able-bodied.

The reactionary answer is “Because it’ll reduce much-needed tax revenue.” It wouldn’t. People respond to incentives, and will have incentive to work harder, longer hours if they get to keep more of what they make. When I can keep 84¢ of my next marginal dollar, there’s a better chance I’ll work for that dollar than if I only get to keep 67¢.

It’s the height of arrogance to complain about the tax system not because it hurts you, but because it benefits you. Especially when there are so many ways for Buffett to fix this perceived injustice. Sure, he could cut Washington a check for whatever amount he feels he should be paying. He could increase his employees’ pay enough to offset any tax advantage.

Or, and this is the least likely of the three, he could rework the dividends that flow through his corporations so that he could receive all his income as salary, rather than capital gains.  The chance of this happening is roughly equivalent to the likelihood of Buffett running a 4-minute mile.

————————-

We’ve been pushing the concept of a diagonal tax since we were old enough to understand the concept. Everyone gets a basic personal deduction – say $20,000 – and pays some percentage – say 17 – on the rest.

The guy making $6 million would thus pay 16.94% of his income in taxes. The guy making $30,000 would pay 6% of his income in taxes. The guy whose net worth increases $10 billion in a year would pay 16.99997% of his income in taxes.

People who want to soak the rich should love this system. It treats the rich and the hyper-rich almost identically, biting them almost 3 times as hard as the working stiff, relative to what all three make. If that’s not enough, just manipulate the deduction and percentage numbers until it all makes sense.

 **This article is featured in the Yakezie Carnival-October 2, 2011 Welcome Fall Edition**

Au M G!

This bears revisiting, yet again. 88 weeks ago we encouraged you to look at the “rising” price of gold from a different, opposite perspective.

Why is “rising” in quotes? Because it implies that gold is getting more expensive, when technically all it means is that it takes more dollars to buy the same amount of gold than it did previously.

No, that’s not splitting hairs. It’s a distinction with a gigantic difference. Again, it takes more dollars to buy the same amount of gold than it did previously. In other words, each dollar now buys less gold.

Why do we assume that it’s the dollar that’s the consistent source of value and the gold whose price is deviating from some norm, rather than the other way around? Especially since the supply and inherent value of gold are far less subject to political pressure and artificial maneuvering than are the supply (and inherent value) of the dollar?

We proposed that instead of quoting the price of a fixed quantity of gold in dollars, we quote the price of a dollar in the corresponding amount of gold. Hence a new makeshift currency, the Aumg (milligram of gold.)

For instance, as of this writing the price of gold is listed as $1830 per ounce. Using the reciprocal of that, a dollar is thus worth .00056 ounces of gold. Clearly ounces are unwieldy units to use here, so instead we use milligrams. There are 31,103 milligrams in a troy ounce*, therefore a dollar is worth 17 Aumg.

Which means nothing on its own. Instead we have to look at comparisons over time and across currencies.

When we first devised this idea, the dollar was trading at 30 Aumg.

Last November, it was down to 22 Aumg.

And in 1968, it was worth 883 Aumg.

It’s not as if gold suddenly got less plentiful over the last 43 years, or even the last 43 weeks. The world’s gold reserves didn’t exit the atmosphere and head for Venus. It still takes unbelievably long man-hours and prohibitively expensive capital investments for mining companies to dig gold out of the ground and turn it into something shiny and marketable. That’s part of the reason gold has been such a constant source of value throughout human history: unlike oil, natural gas, pork bellies or other commodities, the annual output of gold stays consistent (and low, especially relative to what’s already been mined.)

Dollars are a different story. First off, they’re artificial. They’re an arbitrary representation of value, created and put into circulation by a government that controls all the printing presses. Not to go Montana Freeman on you, but even the most ardent monetarist in the world would have to concede that. It’s a fact, not an opinion. And because dollars are imaginary, there’s no limit to the number of dollars the government can create. If Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke orders the Fed to create $38 octillion, it can and will. The number isn’t even limited by the amount of paper and ink available: all the Fed would have to do is increase the denominations.

Dollars are imaginary, but that doesn’t mean they’re worthless. (You can place an ad on the ControlYourCash.com sidebar, and we’ll take dollars as payment. At least for now.) But look at the numbers above if you don’t believe they’re a declining source of value.

So who cares? Prices rise, wages rise correspondingly. They’re just numbers, right? My grandparents bought a house for $40,000, but it still represented 4 years’ wages like a similar house would today. What’s the problem?

The problem is that the government owes money. Lots of it. To future retirees, to foreign governments, etc. The federal debt is the largest dollar figure regularly quoted in the media. Either those bills need to be paid, or the government must default.

Government “of, by and for the people” means that 1/300,000,000 of that debt is yours. If that sounds overwhelming, you can thank the representatives and executives you chose to represent you.

Those payments are quoted in dollars. An insolvent government has every incentive to weaken the value of each dollar it owes. It does that by printing more of them, making each dollar worth fewer and fewer Aumg.

Here’s all the proof you need that the number of dollars in circulation isn’t close to keeping pace with the gold in circulation. Those annual increases in the money supply far exceed any increases in population.

What does this mean for you? Relative to the pound, the euro, and the Canadian dollar, the U.S. dollar might stabilize. It might even increase in value. But relative to gold, wagering on the dollar is a losing bet.

Unless that federal debt gets any smaller.
(Try to contain your laughter.)

*You know that childhood brainteaser, “What weighs more, a pound of feathers or a pound of gold?” The answer is the feathers. Metals are measured in troy weight, just about everything else is measured in avoirdupois weight. An “everyday” ounce is larger than a troy ounce, and besides, there are 16 avoirdupois ounces to an avoirdupois pound as opposed to 12 troy ounces to a troy pound.

**This article is featured in Totally Money Carnival #36: Football is Back Edition**

So what does it all mean? 



A little caulking, and you can't even tell the difference

 

UPDATE 7:14 p.m. MDT: AA+, baby! First American downgrade in the 90-year history of ratings! U-S-A! U-S-A! Fortunately, the Obama Administration has unveiled the true culprit: the messenger.

A nation’s credit rating is analogous to your credit score. Pay your bills on time, never carry a balance, and your score will be near the theoretical maximum of 850. Act like the representatives and functionaries of the United States government do, and your credit rating will be closer to the theoretical minimum of 300.

The higher your score, the more credit you’re entitled to, and at lower rates. Your diligence on the front end can result in lower mortgage payments when you apply for a loan. Same goes for car financing, etc. (Not that we encourage car financing, but if you can find a rate so low that it lets you free up your own capital to be invested elsewhere at a higher rate, take it.) It’s hard to find a definitive source for this quote, but the classic line is “Credit is most available to the people who need it least.”

National credit ratings are on a different, more coarsely calibrated, non-numerical scale. The same principle is supposed to apply: the better the rating, the lower the interest rates the country can borrow at; and indirectly, the more likely it is that businesses will invest in said country. Standard & Poor’s, the biggest credit rating agency, uses the following rating scheme: AAA/AA/A/BBB/BB/B/CC. Below AAA, each rating also includes either a plus sign, or a minus sign, or nothing. Beyond that, each rating includes a terse descriptor: “positive”, “stable”, the ominous-sounding “watch negative” or “negative”. Confusing things even more, the “positive” and “negative” descriptors have nothing to do with the + or – signs found in some ratings. S&P (the same people behind the S&P 500 stock index) doesn’t rate every country in the world, because places like Tuvalu and the Vatican City don’t attract enough foreign investment to warrant anyone crunching the numbers (nor do those countries even have their own currencies.)

Standard & Poor’s does rate 128 countries, including pseudo-countries such as Abu Dhabi and Hong Kong. There are no AAA positive countries by definition, as they have nowhere to go but down. Here’s the complete list of AAA stable countries:

Australia
Austria
Canada
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Hong Kong
(but not China, which is AA- stable)
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Norway
Singapore
Sweden
Switzerland
UK/Isle of Man/Guernsey

Notice anything missing? Here’s the complete list of AAA negative countries:

United States

Which for us is historically low. Fall to the next level, AA+ stable, and we’d be sharing creditworthiness with New Zealand and closing in on Belgium.

If you’re interested, the only CC country in the world is Greece.

Therefore, it would seem, the United States’ transition from the world’s most dynamic economy to a backwater incapable of paying its bills and digging ever further into debt is  a foregone conclusion at this point. But it isn’t, and this is why:

Volume.

Let’s say you make $40,000 a year and indeed use credit as wisely and sparingly as possible. And say you somehow crack the Fair, Isaac & Co. secret formula to the point where your credit score sits at a perfect 850. You apply to your bank for a loan, primarily just to see if you can do it but also because you want to see how low an interest rate you can qualify for.

The moment after you walk in, Sergey Brin and his 849 credit score apply for a loan.

Who do you think’s going to get a loan with more favorable terms? Mr. Brin might not be quite as on top of his obligations as you are, but he’s not far behind. And he’s got far more money than you do, and far more potential for making yet more. Don’t take it personally.

On Monday the House of Representatives voted to raise the debt ceiling, leaving the Senate to rubber-stamp a similar bill Tuesday and drawing more attention to a particular vote than anything since the nationalization of health care. The nation will reach its credit limit in a few months, Congress will request another increase, and so on indefinitely. Why? Because they can. The Greeks didn’t have this luxury of preeminence, at least not in the last 25 centuries or so.

For the last few weeks we’ve been subjected to a panicked call from journalists who don’t know any better and politicians who never let a good crisis go to waste, trying to make you believe that the world economy is on a precipice. It isn’t. Economies don’t collapse overnight, and if they did it wouldn’t be because of legislative stalemate. If Standard & Poor’s and its fellow agencies Moody’s and Fitch downgrade America’s rating, it’s still going to be relatively strong. Far stronger than China’s, for instance. And we’ll still attract investment from abroad, simply from sheer size. No other country can boast 300 million first-world consumers with a relentless penchant for buying things. That’s a greater determinant of economic robustness than anything else.

That’s not to say that our economy isn’t in the toilet. Nor that our elected representatives don’t need to exercise some serious restraint. Raising the debt ceiling (to more than twice what it was during George W. Bush’s first term) only invites more opportunity to finance an already unsustainable level of government spending. But let’s call Monday’s vote to raise the debt ceiling what it was: it wasn’t a last-second attempt to right the American economy before it collapsed. It was an indirect means of letting our nation’s record debt break even more records. Greater interest payments and an economy built more on borrowing than on wealth creation? Yes, but that’s your grandkids’ problem.

**This article is featured in the Carnival of Personal Finance #322: Diminished Expectations Edition**