Our verbal sparring was all over the place, from foreign policy to economic plans. It took me a while to convince him not to base his vote on the rhetoric he hears from either campaign, the major TV and print media, but rather to see things objectively and argue logically and not emotionally. He agreed. Thus I proceeded to break down Obama's flawed economic and social policies and related them to socialist ones. I also agreed that McCain had made a mistake by voting for the bailout plan, but we conceded that for both candidates their vote was driven by necessary politics. Nor do I think that McCain's economic plan is great, but at least he won't be increasing taxes on my wife and I.
I was doing fine until he asked me a question that stumped me: "If McCain's tax policies favor the middle class, businesses, investors, and the rich, why is it that Warren Buffet has endorsed Barack Obama?" I had to be honest and I told him that I had no idea why, but there must be a simple explanation, which as it turn out it was rather simple, void of any complex economic theory and logic. So I looked it up.
All I had to do was perform a simple Google search with the search terms: "rich vote obama". Apparently the rich are divided into two categories: those who are rich with a net worth of $1 million to $10 million, and the ultra- or super-rich, with net worths greater than $30 million. During the 2004 presidential race Elite Traveler Magazine contracted a survey firm to poll a sample of the rich and the ultra-rich to determine how the rich vote. According to that survey, those who were considered rich ($1 million - $10 million) largely said they would vote with their wallets, and agreed that Bush would be better for their finances. However, 90.7% of those who were considered super-rich (> $10 million) agreed that Bush would be better for the economy and their finances, but nevertheless they chose to vote for Kerry. The surveyor's conclusion was:
"The findings clearly demonstrate that the Elite Affluent are so wealthy, other issues are more important to them in selecting their country's leader then their personal financial situations," Prince said. "At the same time, the majority of the Upper Affluent, who are rich but still have financial constraints, are principally voting with their pocketbooks."
Fast forward to 2008 and the current presidential election. Will the rich and the super-rich voting patterns change or remain the same as 2004? A Wall Street Journal post explores the same issue citing the same surveying firm as in the 2004 example to determine if there is a difference in voting pattern in the rich and super-rich voters. Out of a sample of 493 families, the survey found yet again that 66% of those with a net worth of greater than $30 million would vote for Obama, while only 15% of those with net worth of $1 million to $10 million would support Obama. According to the opinion piece, the major reason given for the voting trends was taxes. Those who were only considered rich (< $10 million) cited taxes as the primary reason why they would support John McCain, with social issues and the environment being secondary and tertiary reasons. Among the super-rich, tax policy came last in their consideration for supporting either candidate and placed social and environmental issues at the top of their decision to support Obama.
The super-rich are very indifferent to taxes simply because of the size of their net worth where taxes do not make a big enough of a dent. Also, they are more likely to employ tax attorneys, structure their assets in tax-deferred, trusts, or other tax burden reduction mechanisms. Because either candidates tax policy does not affect the super-rich financially, they are free to chose a candidate based on other policies, such as social reform and the environment. In other words, Warren Buffet could care less about how the government taxes him.
What does this tell us? Well, it goes to show that although an individual is wealthy, he or she does not necessarily make better decisions than the rest of us. They are just as conflicted as the rest of us. Unfortunately, we look up to them because we want to be as successful as them, and since they represent a small percentage of the population but hold the largest amount of wealth, their political support of a candidate counts. With the tax burden inconsequential to him, Warren Buffet supports Obama because of the perception that Obama's economic policies are more favorable to the poor and lower middle class. My guess is this is another form of charity on the part of the super-rich.
I like what the author of the Op-Ed piece in the WSJ had to say:
But the survey offers an important insight into the effect of wealth on personal politics. Perhaps the old saying should be changed to: If you’re ultrawealthy and conservative you have no heart; if you’re wealthy and liberal, you have no brain.
In other words, social and environmental issues are a hobby of the super-rich, and the public be damned.
Personally, I also think that the super-rich in the United States have found ways to link with our politicians for mutual profit from the taxpayers. They give large donations and parties and their businesses profit from earmarks given by our Congressmen. Look who the people who ran Freddie, Fannie, and AIG donated to and also look how those companies benefited from Congressional protection. We as citizens are being sold out.
Because he probably stands to make millions, in not billions, from an Obama presidency.
The “Upper Richistanis,” as this article names them, live off the interest of their investments. They do not have an “earned” income, therefore they aren’t taxed.
And so, they don’t care if taxes are raised on the upper middle class to “Lower Richistanis” who do pay taxes.
Therefore, the Upper Richistanis can vote Obama without a conscience.
It is not the people who are rich who should be afraid of Obama, it is the people who want to become rich. Obama’s tax destroyes the American dream, but it does not take anything away from the people who already have it.
He doesn't think his children or grandchildren should get anything but a education.
Follow the money? How can the rich get richer? Buying low selling high. If they want Obama, there must be something there that applies to their future investments.
Why?
Because the corporate partners of Fascist Dictators always prosper.
Clarification:
Rich capitalists vote Republican.
Rich fascists vote Democratic.
Buffett made huge money with an insurance tax loophole that provides that life insurance proceeds are not taxable and (if paid directly to someone, instead of an estate) AVOID DEATH TAXES.
Standard procedure would be (oversimplified): old Sonic Drive in owner about to die, buys $1,000,000 life insurance policy for $1,050,000, beneficiaries are heirs.
The estate avoid death tax this way.
The repeal of the Death Tax has greatly hurt his bottom line.
I agree that he can afford better/more lawyers, can lease (or purchase) Congresscritters to do his bidding, and can use the power of his wealth to make the world go away. His apparent conservatism (driving an old car, living modestly, etc.) is either a dodge or denial.
I'm not saying he or any of the others shouldn't be rich, but they should support everybody's right to be rich, and not attempt to slam the door on others.
I think a good case can be made that Warren Buffet has made a lot of decisions better than the rest of us.
Many wealthy people are economic illiterates, at least in areas outside those directly involved with the source of their wealth. In this they are no different that the population in general.
They look around them, at the luxuries they enjoy, the travel, the huge homes on large amounts of land, the high rate of consumption they can buy, and they think "what if everyone were as rich as I?" This worries them; they conclude that if everyone, or even a sizable minority, of the population, were to consume at the rate they do, there would result an unsustainable burden on the natural resources of the world.
This leads them to conclude that the best way to ensure their lifestyle into the future is to make sure that the number of future wealthy people is limited, and the only way to accomplish this is to see to it that the capitalist system is curtailed. Except, of course, those elements of it that keep them living in style.
Buffet owns part of Dairy Queen........Why???? Because, due to the Death Tax, the family that owned Dairy Queen had to sell it. THAT is why Buffet is a Democrat, he is a vulture that swoops down on businesses that the Government screws people out of.
Actually, I think they are cowards and say liberal things to keep the MSM off their asses. It’s easy to pretend to be liberal, especially if you’ve got the bucks, the gated communities, security guards, and private schools.
Let them get out there and mix it up with the real world and see how “liberal” they truly are.
There’s a difference between the rich and the wealthy.
The rich are still earning their big bucks. Therefore, they are subject to tax policies, business cycles, health care mandates and so on.
The wealthy are living off their assets and, therefore, are relatively insulated from changes in financial and political policies. Since they no longer are working to support their lifestyles, they feel the need to “give back” by participating in Robin Hood schemes of those who are fortunate, but less fortunate than they are.
Dementia. Alzheimers.
The problem with these stooges is they think they and their families will be exempt and given exalted status in the end if the commies get their way and get their revolution, so they really don't care about any of that.
They are what is known as the “I'm special” wing of the useful idiots who will be the first to be shot in the revolution, along with the leftist political whores and toadies in Washington DC and the complete morons in Hollywierd.