Just out of curiosity, is there anything Gates/Buffet could do that you wouldn't approach cynically, i.e. that you would assume they're really doing it for other peoples' benefits rather than their own?
I don't necessarily impute any of these motives upon Gates or Buffet per se. I just think it's important to be aware of how such actions align with their interests. The subjective judgment of each man's true motives is left to the reader.
I will say that if Gates and Buffet truly believed that 40% of the wealth they accrue each year could be put to better use by the USG than themselves, they could put their money where their mouth is and donate that portion of their assets to the U.S. Treasury. [0] Instead, they seem to keep that wealth within vehicles that they can control.
[0] https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsfaq/faq_gifts_to_govt.htm
One example: http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/04/news/economy/buffett-secreta...
I don't have any quotes in memory from Gates, but your position of "Buffett is just trying to get good PR by advocating tax changes that wouldn't effect him" doesn't mesh with his quotes to the effect of "It's unfair I pay less effective tax than my secretary."
What exactly do you seem him advocating that has an ulterior motive?
The fact of the matter is that any type of change to the tax status of a significant asset is going to have far-reaching implications and plenty of people sticking their hands in the pot to try to make the outcome favorable to themselves.
A puff piece that features one of the most-conspicuous richest men in the world suggesting a tax hike against himself is just throwing a bone to the dogs; it's fodder that keeps Berkshire Hathaway and Buffett in the news and it makes the Buffett/BH brand more recognizable, likable, and personable, which are very important qualities.
It also gives him an anchor to point to if he ever needs to negate bad press. He can say "Look, I have a track record of advocating for selfless causes. What kind of greedy billionaire would get on TV and ask for a tax hike? You wouldn't see Donald Trump do that! The things that are causing my bad publicity are not actually bad, they're just misunderstood."
When people hear "tax hike" they think about it in relation to themselves, i.e., a hike on wage taxes. Beyond PR interest, the ulterior motives would be a) increasing the tax rate on people who are having good years in their small businesses, so that the growth of their nascent empire is stymied, lest it someday pose a challenge to BH's interests; and b) many of BH's major holdings are closely linked to government activity, things like railroads and utility companies. More money to the government = more money to BH, and this good PR makes government employees more favorable to Buffett/BH since he is not demonizing the thing that pays their salaries (taxes).
It's convenient to assume that people are honest and straightforward as long as one remains naive enough to believe that. But with something as complex and interconnected as BH and Buffett, nothing occurs in a vacuum. Buffett's private thoughts remain private. He knows when he is on the public stage and he certainly knows to calculate the consequences of his actions there. To deny that this is significant is to deny the purpose and value of Public Relations completely.
> most-conspicuous richest men in the world
You mean the guy who still lives in a $600k house in Omaha [1] and briefly owned a $5.5M vacation house in California?
The guy who donates ~$2.8B [2] in Berkshire stock to charity annually? Who has said he does not plan to pass down an inordinate amount of wealth to his children?
These are facts. And they don't jive with a narrative of "He's doing all these things just to make more money."
A valid point becomes lesser when you have to perform gymnastics to make it fit to the person you've chosen. There's plenty of people who are better fits for your narrative: Larry Ellison, the Koch brothers, the Waltons, the Mars's, Soros, etc.
[1] http://www.today.com/slideshow/homes-warren-buffett-48385413
[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/chasewithorn/2016/07/14/warren-...
Call it "mental gymnastics" if you want; I just call it analysis. Every approach has pros and cons and I make no assertion about the true status of Buffett's motives. I just believe it is important to understand how these moves can work.
In competitive endeavors like business, it is wise to visualize the exercise as a game of chess. If I move to A5, that opens B4-C4 for my opponent, and opens to me D6-F6. My experience is that often, those who try to discourage such perspectives are merely trying to maintain the edge they get by having opponents that aren't aware a game is being played at all.
Enshrining placidity and complacency as social values only allows the sharks to operate more freely.
That's the "I'm not saying he's a rapist, I'm just asking the question" defense, and it's bullshit. Every single one of your posts in this thread is along the lines of "If Gates and Buffett were profiteering assholes, they would do {thing they do} for {evil reason you ascribe to it}."
So by duck typing, you're absolutely saying they're profiteering assholes.
And then you throw out strawmen like this to support your point:
> I will say that if Gates and Buffet truly believed that 40% of the wealth they accrue each year could be put to better use by the USG than themselves, they could put their money where their mouth is and donate that portion of their assets to the U.S. Treasury. [0] Instead, they seem to keep that wealth within vehicles that they can control.
IMO people are too quick to accept something at face value if it's politically or rhetorically convenient to do so, and I wanted to get more people thinking about the potential subtexts of statements made by the world's most conspicuously wealthy men, especially when these statements are oriented toward political matters.
It isn't safe to take someone at face value once they can buy a PR firm without blinking.
Well I agree with that. But it seems like you're saying that there's literally no evidence in the world that can convince you that your cynical view of them is wrong, which is a pretty hard position to hold IMO.