Crunchy Con

Buffett loves his kids, right?

Monday June 26, 2006

To me, the most radical and amazing thing about the Buffett gift is that he's deliberately shutting out his kids from the great majority of his wealth -- not out of spite, but out of concern for their character. Reading Buffett's comments on the way inherited wealth debilitates the character of subsequent generations, you can't help thinking about the Kennedys. But I suspect many of us are acquainted with well-off families whose decline can easily be traced through the generations, almost always having to do with how privilege, one way or another, corrupted the younger generations.

When I was out visiting friends in Silicon Valley a few weeks back, one of my pals told me that this is a constant source of concern for the higher-level executives out there. Given the nature of the industry, many of those execs did not come from wealthy backgrounds, and made their money quickly. I'm told they're worried about what being raised in exceptional privilege will do to their children's character. But I didn't hear that any of them had any substantive strategy for dealing with this. I don't know that I would either, if I had that problem (and believe me, with the way the newspaper industry is going today -- a voluntary buyout program was announced at my paper today -- that's not a problem Your Working Boy is ever likely to have).

I doubt I would have the strength of character to do what Buffett is doing, and cut my kids out of so much of my fortune. Mind you, if he leaves each of them with a piddling billion each, that's still an insane amount of cash, so I don't feel all that sorry for them. Still, I would quite naturally want to give my kids every way possible to protect themselves against catastrophe ... even though as somebody famous once said of the spiritually corrupting power of wealth, "It's easier for a camel to go through an eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven."

It's fun, though, to think about how you'd give your money away if you had a fortune to distribute to charity. I'd give a pile to my high school, and a lot to various religious charities not affiliated with any bishop or church bureaucracy. I'd want to give a bunch of it to causes to help abused and abandoned children, and also to organizations fighting for religious freedom. I'd be interested in setting up a foundation to provide financial help for urban and rural projects designed to renew communal life along the principles I wrote about in "Crunchy Cons." And I think it'd be fun to have something I'd call the Newspaper Fund, which would exist to cut checks to people you read about in the newspaper who have suffered some sort of catastrophe, or at least a big setback, and whose lives would be improved for the better by a significan financial gift. You know, the single mother you read about inside the Metro section whose apartment burned down, and now she's got nowhere to live with her three kids. Buy her a new apartment, anonymously. Things like that.

How would you give away your billions, if you were Warren Buffett?
Advertisement
Comments
Joe
June 28, 2006 1:13 AM

Seldom if ever are estates who wish to continue operating the family business subject to estate tax. The business merely transfers ownership to the next generation during lifetime of the older generation taking 60%+ discounts on the FMV (Fair Market Value) of the sliver gifts transferred so that at date of death the origninal owner possesses less than a 50% ownership. Thus minority and marketability discounts are liberally granted relieving the business of any tax. Any operating entity wishing to remain operational whose owners pay estate tax should sue their financial planners. The notion that operating entities have to pay estate tax is ludicrious.>

Anonymous
June 28, 2006 1:30 AM

Regarding Joe's comment: Does it make sense that our tax code is written this way? Of course not. It's a waste of intellectual capital to have smart people (estate lawyers, CPAs, etc.) working to avoid these taxes. The fact that most people escape the estate tax (except for the poor few like in the Hyde farm example) is meaningless.>

M.Z. Forrest
June 28, 2006 4:11 AM
http://discalcedyooper.blogspot.com

There is nothing confiscatory about 11% tax rates. $500,000 is not a huge mortgage on a $3.7 million dollar estate. You can argue the morality if you wish, but your rhetoric is just plain sloppy.>

M.Z. Forrest
June 28, 2006 5:57 PM
http://discalcedyooper.blogspot.com

13.5% tax. $500K/3,700K is 13.5%. The marginal rate is 46% of which less than 1/3 of this estate is eligible. ($500K/.46) For any estate to approach a 46% tax rate it would have to be valued at over $200,000,000. ( [200M-2M)*46%/200M = 45.5% ) You may not find $3,700,000 to be an exceptinal estate although statistically it is, but at some point there is a number you would agree is exceptional. All Gates and Buffet are arguing is that there has to be a number there somewhere.>

Anonymous
June 29, 2006 1:57 AM

Apparently you don't understand the difference between average and marginal tax rates. 46% is the marginal rate that applies after the $2 million exemption. So, it applies to estates valued at anything more than $2 million, not $200 million. You probably understand that, but are intentional confusing the issue.

But, since you bring up average rates, isn't ironic that Buffet's average tax for his estate - given his tax exempt donation - will likely be much less than lots of far less rich people?

Don't you see the entire estate tax system is silly? Most aren't impacted, the super-rich avoid most of it and it's the unlucky few who get hammered. Plus, it doesn't prevent dynastic wealth or raise lots of revenue for the government. And, it diverts resources to tax avoidance and not more productive pursuits.

Tell me again why you support it.>

Read All Comments

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Please type the text you see in the box below to verify your post and help us prevent spam. You have a limited time to type - you may wish to compose your comment in a separate document and paste it here upon completion.

Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Advertisement

Search This Blog

About Crunchy Con

Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.

feed icon Subscribe

RSS Feed

Receive updates from Crunchy Con

Advertisement

Advertisement


About Beliefnet

Our mission is to help people like you find, and walk, a spiritual path that will bring comfort, hope, clarity, strength, and happiness. More about Beliefnet.

Legal

Copyright © Beliefnet, Inc. and/or its licensors. All rights reserved. Use of this site is subject to Terms of Service and to our Privacy Policy. Constructed by Beliefnet.

Advertisement

Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.