Thread

Warren Buffett Steps Down as Berkshire Chairman, Names Son to Replace Him

323 points · 221 comments · saimiam

dugmartin · 1789732295 · focus · HN ↗
I guess Warren’s quote only applies to other people, not him. "It’s like choosing the 2020 Olympic team by picking the eldest sons of the gold-medal winners in the 2000 Olympics." (<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/14/us/dozens-of-rich-americans-join-in-fight-to-retain-the-estate-tax.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/14/us/dozens-of-rich-america...)
1. nlitened · 1789734152 · focus · HN ↗
  As I understand, the son is there not to lead the company (Greg Abel is the CEO), but to oversee their family's share in the enterprise.
  1. yuuu · 1789734967 · focus · HN ↗
    I thought he was giving away 99% of his wealth?
    u1hcw9nx · 1789736927 · focus · HN ↗
    He has. His family manages the foundation that owns BRK stock.
    infecto · 1789737198 · focus · HN ↗
    Isn’t that the usual loophole though? He definitely continues to donate large amounts but I always question setting up a trust that the kids run.
    traviswingo · 1789738100 · focus · HN ↗
    It’s not really a “loophole,” it’s a standard way to give away absurd sums of money.
    Have you ever tried to donate billions of dollars? It’s actually extremely difficult.
    You have to find causes you’re passionate about/things that society needs, find the correct charities to give the money to, make sure your money actually goes towards the thing they say it will (this is difficult), and then figure out how much you can actually donate (you can’t just give N dollars to company Y. They’ve got zero experience managing that much money, and no way to scale into doing it efficiently.)
    What happens then is you have $100b to donate, and mostly only do it $10m at a time or less.
    Warren’s kids are old now. They’ve all been donating money for YEARS (it’s a mandatory part of their trust).
    So yeah, you receive tax benefits by transferring shares to a foundation you also control, but that money is now earmarked for charity. It doesn’t flow both ways, and the laws on this are very tight (bad actors will find a way, but what’s new?).
    mvc · 1789742695 · focus · HN ↗
    If it's so difficult, maybe they could take the easy option and, you know, properly fund the government to build the shared infrastructure on which we all rely by paying tax proportional to their wealth.
    macintux · 1789742894 · focus · HN ↗
    <a href="https://www.investopedia.com/warren-buffett-paid-billions-to-the-irs-and-says-it-s-still-not-enough-why-it-matters-for-your-tax-bill-11950444" rel="nofollow">https://www.investopedia.com/warren-buffett-paid-billions-to...
    dsl · 1789744757 · focus · HN ↗
    Warren Buffet made the largest single tax payment in US history last year. He doesn't play any games.
    s1artibartfast · 1789793788 · focus · HN ↗
    You mean fund ICE and build some more concentration camps?
    Approximately 1% of the federal budget is infrastructure. There are huge advantages to donating to a charity that actually does something productive instead of the federal waste machine.
    soraminazuki · 1789827381 · focus · HN ↗
    Or maybe, just maybe, a system that doesn't create massive concentration of wealth won't try to divert people's focus by pitting people against each other and building concentration camps. Governments aren't fundamentally wasteful. In fact, an effective government is an absolute requirement for functioning healthcare, fair wages, consumer protection, and actual public safety that protects all people equally.
    This isn't to diminish all the good things charities have done, but charities are fundamentally band-aid solutions to a dysfunctional society. Leaving welfare at the mercy of wealthy individuals as the wealth gap keeps getting bigger and bigger is a losing strategy. It shouldn't be the state of things people should be aiming for.
    s1artibartfast · 1789853203 · focus · HN ↗
    Cool. Give me a call when our government isn't wasteful and destructive, then we can talk about the relative benefits of taxes versus charity.
    Until then, I'm going to look at the real world and conclude that charities do massively more good
    Pretending that reality is other than it is nothing short of delusion, living in a fantasy.
    soraminazuki · 1789864940 · focus · HN ↗
    Fixing government and taxing the rich is the only solution that addresses the core of the issue. Charities can't close wealth gaps, because they lack the power to enforce laws that ensure fair labor and trade practices. Charities can't stop the healthcare industry from bankrupting sick or injured people, because that too requires enforcing the law. Charities can't stop concentration camps.
    Charities do have a place in society and they can do enormous good, but can't compensate for a poor government.
    Frankly, the notion that government is fundamentally ineffective and only the private sector can fix things is billionaire propaganda. Billionaires undermine government so they can exploit working-class people with fewer constraints. Then they'd use charity to launder their reputation while pushing their own agenda.
    Deriding calls for fair taxes and claiming charities will fix things is wishful thinking at best.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.