Warren Buffett for President, Part 2
There are a lot of serious reasons to draft Warren Buffett, the brains behind the
Berkshire Hathaway conglomerate, for president.
- He is unafraid of criticism: Buffett knows where the really harmful political correctness is in America, in the upper echelons of business. Any CEO willing to stand for Democratic ideals has a maverick streak.
- He is right on income taxes: He recently denounced the cupidity and myopia of Republican tax policy.
- He is right on estate taxes: In 2001, he compared elimination of the estate tax to "choosing the 2020 Olympic team by picking the eldest sons of the gold-medal winners in the 2000 Olympics."
- He hates greed: At the most recent Berkshire Hathaway stockholder meeting, he lambasted the greed of his fellow CEOs. (Buffett takes a $200,000 salary, peanuts compared to his nominal peers.)
- He wants campaign reform: He is on record for giving candidates free airtime to dilute the corrupting influence of money in politics.
- He knows the enemy: Almost two years ago, he predicted that the Bush presidency would feature a stagnant economy.
All of these are good reasons, but even the best candidates need intangibles, and Warren Buffett has those in spades.
- He has no money problems: John Kerry can claim to be rich enough to be incorruptible, but Warren Buffett is really rich enough to be incorruptible.
- He is geographically ideal: Buffett could claim residence in Nebraska, one of the most Republican states in recent presidential elections, and wreck the rural Republican majority from the inside.
- He has even better name recognition than you think: Millions of Parrot Heads might confuse Warren for Jimmy Buffett.
- He has his own stalking horse: Even without the confusion, Warren could buy Buffett for President paraphernalia on the cheap.
- He is accessible: At Berkshire Hathway stockholder meetings, Buffett actually takes questions from shareholders. At press conferences (which happen about as often), George Bush needs a script.
The Land Yacht Subsidy Act of 2003
When the Senate voted for the $350 billion set of tax cuts on Friday
by the narrowest of margins, it barely touched the lowest tax rates but slashed the highest tax rate by about 10 percent. It dramatically cut taxes on dividends, the purview of the affluent. And it cut taxes on capital gains, half of which flow to millionaires, by 25 percent, even though capital gains already enjoyed ridiculously favorable treatment. You probably knew about all that.
What you may not have known was the subsidy that the Senate approved for manufacturers of
SUVs, but not just any SUVs. Only vehicles categorized as trucks, with a gross vehicle weight of 6,000 pounds or more qualify. In general, business can depreciate, or deduct over time, the full value of the equipment that they buy. But depreciation is limited on cars and and few other classes of property, like video equipment. For most vehicles,
depreciation is limited to the depreciation on a car costing $15,300. Under the law through Thursday, a business buying a $50,000 luxury sedan could write off no more than $7,660 in the first year (30% up-front depreciation, based on a $15,300 cap, with another 20% on the remainder, based on a new $15,300 cap). But a $50,000 SUV would qualify for a $22,000 write-off ($15,000 up front, plus another $7,000 for first-year depreciation). If the business has not used up its annual allowance of $25,000, it could do even better and get a $36,000 write-off ($25,000 expensing, $7,500 up-front depreciation, plus another $3,500).
Of course, no single-person "business" has ever, ever, allowed its luxury SUV to be used for anything other than business use. That's why those ads for the Hummer and Suburban and Yukon and Expedition SUVs always show their drivers going to and from client meetings.
The Senate could have closed the 6,000-pound loophole, designed to prevent farm and construction trucks from being treated as luxury vehicles. But it never closed it in any version of the tax cut bill that it considered; instead, it opened the loophole wider. The 30% up-front depreciation gets increased to 50%; and the $25,000 expensing limitation becomes $100,000. It's good, I suppose, that at least one iota of this gormless tax cut bill will actually encourage spending. Couldn't the government at least find a more beneficial beneficiary of its largesse?
Attention K-Marx Shoppers!
Welcome to the newest experiment from Bear Left, this weblog, which will serve two beneficial purposes. First, it will let us keep publishing while our web-compliant editor (Tim) endures the rigors of fatherhood for a second time. Second, it will let us dash off quick pieces on the news or short editorials outside of our normal publishing schedule.
We are not abandoning the weekly format of Bear Left beyond a brief paternity leave; this weblog is an adjunct, not a replacement.
