“Now we know why CEOs didn’t want this data released,”

[Canard DuJour]

Why? The subject is exorbitant CEO pay. Talking about CEOs who aren't paid exorbitantly would be changing the subject.

I'm having difficulty viewing this as something other than cherry picking. Especially since you're taking the very highest paid CEOs and then broad-brushing the conclusion gleaned from an outlier sample and presenting it as if it's representative of the mean.Can you explain why you think it's appropriate in this case?

The comment to which you ostensibly respond stands in response.

If wages don't grow apace with productivity

Why would you expect wages to grow at the same rate as productivity?

I don't.

We're becoming increasingly automated, with increasingly sophisticated machinery. There are many jobs that can now be done with fewer workers, or where lower-skilled workers can leverage computer programs and automation to do the work that previously required a skilled technician or someone with years of experience. Employers still invest a large amount of money in production... but that production isn't all being done by people. And the people who are still engaged in that production are neither skilled or limited in supply. There seems no reason to expect that wages would keep apace of productivity.

Yep. It ain't me you need to tell.

 

[Emily Lake]

The comment to which you ostensibly respond stands in response.

If wages don't grow apace with productivity

Why would you expect wages to grow at the same rate as productivity?

I don't.

We're becoming increasingly automated, with increasingly sophisticated machinery. There are many jobs that can now be done with fewer workers, or where lower-skilled workers can leverage computer programs and automation to do the work that previously required a skilled technician or someone with years of experience. Employers still invest a large amount of money in production... but that production isn't all being done by people. And the people who are still engaged in that production are neither skilled or limited in supply. There seems no reason to expect that wages would keep apace of productivity.

Yep. It ain't me you need to tell.

I am confused. Are we in agreement and I'm just not catching on?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Well, if you'd read the article you would have seen that the suggestion was NOT to provide them with options, but to provide them with actual stock. That way they have a direct tie to company performance, as opposed to allowing them to cash in options when things are going well, and sit tight when things are going poorly.

1. Options and stock move in tandem.

2. Replace "options" in my original post with "stock". Same question...

1) In the money options move in tandem with the stock, but the sort of options we are talking about are far from the money when issued.

2) The real problem with options is the lack of a downside. Lets say ABC corp is trading at $100. The CEO is considering change to how the company operates. If it does well (45% chance) the share price will go up to $120. If it goes badly (55% chance) the share price will drop to $80.

2A) He's got options at $100. Do nothing: Expected value $0. Make the change: Expected value: 45% * $20 = $9 per option.

2B) He's got stock at $100. Do nothing: Expected value $0. Make the change: Expected value: 45% * $20 + 55% * -$20 = -$2 per share.

Note that in the first case his best choice personally is different than his duty as CEO. In the second case his personal interest aligns with the corporate interest. Isn't it obvious that you're going to get better decisions in this case? Options favor risk-taking, share ownership does not.

 

[DBT]

I still don't understand why anyone other than a CEO who has overblown income with generous bonuses, would argue in defense of this state of affairs.

Including wealth distribution, capital and resources concentrating into the hands of a small percentage of extremely rich people, something that appears to be indefensible, immoral and unethical.

 

[Canard DuJour]

The comment to which you ostensibly respond stands in response.

I don't.

We're becoming increasingly automated, with increasingly sophisticated machinery. There are many jobs that can now be done with fewer workers, or where lower-skilled workers can leverage computer programs and automation to do the work that previously required a skilled technician or someone with years of experience. Employers still invest a large amount of money in production... but that production isn't all being done by people. And the people who are still engaged in that production are neither skilled or limited in supply. There seems no reason to expect that wages would keep apace of productivity.

Yep. It ain't me you need to tell.

I am confused. Are we in agreement and I'm just not catching on?

That automation factors in the shift in bargaining power which has seen stagnant wages and exorbitant CEO pay? Certainly, though it's far from the main factor. It needn't have been that way in a different political climate.

That exorbitantly paid CEOs are worth it? Demonstrably not.

That more moderately paid CEOs somehow mitigate the excesses? No, that's just changing the subject.

 

[laughing dog]

You're not addressing my point at all.

Your "point" was to evade the issue by concocting rationales for a minor point. The issue is income disparity, not how one can have $1 million + and pay no US federal income tax on it.

I was responding to a specific claim about having $1 million and paying no income tax.

Thank you for admitting the obvious - that you focused on a mnor point that had nothing to do with the actual discussion topic by concocting unsupported rationales.

 

[Emily Lake]

That exorbitantly paid CEOs are worth it? Demonstrably not.

That more moderately paid CEOs somehow mitigate the excesses? No, that's just changing the subject.

Meh. When the blanket message provided is that CEOs are horrible and make way too much money, and provides a reference to support that position... I think it's perfectly on topic to point out that the blanekt message is innacurate and is based on highly cherry picked information.

Some few CEOs are paid exorbitant amounts in compensation, and I find that to be unacceptable. But the vast majority of CEOs are pretty fairly compensated for the amount of risk and responsibility that they bear.

 

[DBT]

How few? And isn't this a part of the very problem of wealth and power being concentrated in the hands of the few extremely rich families and individuals?...oh, yes, indeed, there is ''only a few'' that fall into this category, except this ''only a few'' happen to own a sizable percentage of the worlds wealth and resources.

That's what makes it an obscenity.

 

[Canard DuJour]

That exorbitantly paid CEOs are worth it? Demonstrably not.

That more moderately paid CEOs somehow mitigate the excesses? No, that's just changing the subject.

Meh. When the blanket message provided is that CEOs are horrible and make way too much money, and provides a reference to support that position... I think it's perfectly on topic to point out that the blanekt message is innacurate and is based on highly cherry picked information.

I don't think there was any such blanket message. If the subject were obese people, would you repeatedly point out that not all people are obese?

Some few CEOs are paid exorbitant amounts in compensation, and I find that to be unacceptable. But the vast majority of CEOs are pretty fairly compensated for the amount of risk and responsibility that they bear.

And how would you know that? Have you worked at the vast majority of firms? The disconnect of economy-wide productivity growth with average pay ratios over time tells a different story.

Whatever... moderately paid CEOs are, by definition, not part of the tiny demographic that has so disproportionately gained while median wages have stagnated, and not the source of the outrage. So there's no need to keep jumping to their defence.

 

[Emily Lake]

I don't think there was any such blanket message. If the subject were obese people, would you repeatedly point out that not all people are obese?

If the subject were obese people, and everything referenced was talking about 500+ lb people, yeah, I would point out that the superobese aren't necessarily representative of all obese people.

Some few CEOs are paid exorbitant amounts in compensation, and I find that to be unacceptable. But the vast majority of CEOs are pretty fairly compensated for the amount of risk and responsibility that they bear.

And how would you know that? Have you worked at the vast majority of firms? The disconnect of economy-wide productivity growth with average pay ratios over time tells a different story.

Because I've already provided links to sources showing that the average income of CEOs is LESS THAN the average income of primary care doctors... And references showing that the absurdly high levels of pay being referenced are only looking at the top 500 (or 1500) highest paid CEOs out of a group that represents tens of thousands. The rest is simple math.

Whatever... moderately paid CEOs are, by definition, not part of the tiny demographic that has so disproportionately gained while median wages have stagnated, and not the source of the outrage. So there's no need to keep jumping to their defence.

Please make sure in the future to be explicit about how "Obscenely paid CEOs are obscenely paid".

 

[Canard DuJour]

If the subject were obese people, and everything referenced was talking about 500+ lb people, yeah, I would point out that the superobese aren't necessarily representative of all obese people.

Then we are indeed talking about the superobese. By that metric, people who weigh up to several hundred tons. The mistake would be to think they are therefore some irrelevant oddity. Unfortunately, they are anything but.

And how would you know that? Have you worked at the vast majority of firms? The disconnect of economy-wide productivity growth with average pay ratios over time tells a different story.

Because I've already provided links to sources showing that the average income of CEOs is LESS THAN the average income of primary care doctors... And references showing that the absurdly high levels of pay being referenced are only looking at the top 500 (or 1500) highest paid CEOs out of a group that represents tens of thousands. The rest is simple math.

Again, just reiterating that CEOs aren't all exorbitantly paid, which was never under dispute.

Whatever... moderately paid CEOs are, by definition, not part of the tiny demographic that has so disproportionately gained while median wages have stagnated, and not the source of the outrage. So there's no need to keep jumping to their defence.

Please make sure in the future to be explicit about how "Obscenely paid CEOs are obscenely paid".

OK. Let it be known henceforth that by "obscenely paid CEOs", I mean obscenely paid CEOs and not moderately paid CEOs. That should, once and for all, absolve you from having to defend moderately paid CEOs from the charge of being obscenely paid CEOs.

 

[Bomb#20]

Well, if you ever get around to explaining why income inequality is a large-scale problem and not just something you want to enrage people over, after we thrash that out we can move on to wealth inequality. Or if you'd rather, you can admit you were wrong about income inequality but claim you're right about wealth inequality and we can change the subject to wealth inequality now.

As I pointed out, this income disparity is a part the larger problem of wealth distribution, namely, that the bulk of the worlds wealth is either owned or controlled by a small percentage of the worlds population.

Why do you call it "the worlds wealth"? Do you mean to imply the world owns it?

Wealth accumulation at the top being the central problem, the excessive incomes of CEO's who fall into that bracket is a 'visible' symptom of this situation.

As there is ample evidence to show that wealth is indeed accumulating at the top, and that this is indeed a problem, both social and economical...what is your point?

What ample evidence that it's indeed a problem? Why is it a problem for people to accumulate wealth? Wealth is a good thing. More is better. If you consume too much instead of accumulating it you increase the risk of something bad happening to you that you can't recover from. Saving for the future is prudent. Profligately neglecting to accumulate when you have the opportunity, and consequently becoming a burden on others when you have a run of bad luck, is antisocial behavior.

Are you defending the situation of excessive wealth accumulation for a small percentage of the population?

Certainly not! You misunderstand me, sir! I would never defend anything that's excessive! "excessive -- adjective: too much". The word by definition means one is against it.

First, you prove that the wealth accumulation is excessive. Show that the people you have in mind have too much wealth. Then I'll be against it. You don't get to just take it for granted that it's excessive, as a premise of the discussion. That's not how discussion works.

Are you defending the high salaries and bonuses of some executives?

Of course I am. I'm defending it for exactly the same reason I defend the equally obscene and outrageous sodomy of some sinners against the old religion. You know, the one your new religion is in the process of replacing. Why the devil should I give an iota more respect to the mindless taboos of your stupid new religion than I give to the mindless taboos of that stupid old religion? Who the heck died and left you in charge of determining what some passel of stockholders spend their own money on? Which part of "consenting adults" do you not understand?

If it's up to you to say "You can't give that guy more than $1,000,000 of your own money, because we Progressives say so.", how is that an iota different from Pat Robertson's "You can't give that guy's dick access to your ass, because we Christians say so."? What, Western Civilization has just spent the last 400 years in an often bloody struggle to free ourselves from religious whackos ruling our lives with their arbitrary religious dogma, culminating in 2015 with our Supreme Court recognizing gay marriage is a Constitutional right, and then you expect us to just throw away our hard-won autonomy, and cry out "Oh, yes, please, new religion, become our new master. We've tried it for three years and we just can't live without our decisions all being made for us by our self-appointed betters!"? No bargain. I vote for giving personal autonomy a little more time before we collectively write it off. Why the heck should I regard being governed by your arbitrary rage as more acceptable than being governed by Pat Robertson's arbitrary rage?

And yes, poverty rates have fallen in nations such as China, India, etc, but this does not change the fact that wages for ordinary workers in Australia have been stagnant for decades, going backwards in buying power, while management salaries have been increasing, so improvement for some, while others languish.

But that is not the full story.

''Australia’s union movement is in a period of soul-searching. After three decades of labour market “reforms”, the workforce has fractured and wage inequality has deepened.

Part-time and casual jobs have increased as a proportion of the economy, along with the number of people who say they want to work more hours. Household income is lower in real terms than it was in 2011.

And you have a problem with all that? So explain why you think any of that is a problem. You have indicated you think inequality is bad and you want rich people to have less wealth. Well, Australia is a rich country. Ordinary workers in Australia are fabulously wealthy by the standards of ordinary Chinese workers. So if Australian household income is dropping, why don't you think that's a good thing? It's making people more equal. It's bringing the rich down closer to the level of the ordinary -- going by the numbers, Chinese workers are a lot more ordinary than Australian workers. It's solving the problem of 0.3% of the people in the world having seven times higher income than ordinary people. So why aren't you in favor of it?

Why is it a moral imperative to reduce inequality between the 99th percentile and the 90th percentile, but not a moral imperative to reduce inequality between the 90th percentile and the 10th percentile? If you think poorer Australians are justified in confiscating the earnings of richer Australians, do you also think the Chinese would be similarly justified in confiscating the earnings of the Australians?

The problem is, your selective objections tend to miss a lot of these factors.

The problem is, Progressives' moral principles don't make any sense except as an expression of tribalism.

 

[Bomb#20]

I still don't understand why anyone other than a CEO who has overblown income with generous bonuses, would argue in defense of this state of affairs.

Why not? Do you understand why anyone other than a gay man would argue in defense of anal sex?

Do you understand the concepts of in-group and out-group? Do you understand that not everyone restricts recognition of rights to his own in-group? Do you understand that if it makes sense to you that a straight person would defend gays, but it doesn't make sense to you that a non-CEO would defend CEOs, that's a problem with you, not a problem with the CEO defender. All it means is gays are in your in-group and CEOs are in your out-group, and you're a tribal thinker so you can't grok the concept of your out-group having rights.

If you still don't understand, try it this way. Let's say I somehow survive the revolution. When the counterrevolution comes and we heretics are set free from your religion's re-education camps, I won't be one of the people everybody has to listen to saying "First they came for the CEOs, and I said nothing, because I was not a CEO."

Including wealth distribution, capital and resources concentrating into the hands of a small percentage of extremely rich people, something that appears to be indefensible, immoral and unethical.

"Concentrating wealth" is a metaphor for what we do when we bring together the U-235 in natural uranium, resulting in some "enriched uranium" that has more U-235 than before, and some "depleted uranium" that has less U-235 than before, because the total number of U-235 and U-238 atoms remain unchanged. Concentration is a zero-sum process. People who talk of "concentrating wealth" are implicitly treating economics as a zero-sum game, and they are subliminally inviting their listeners to picture it as a zero-sum game. But economics is not a zero-sum game.

 

[barbos]

Bomb#20, you make it sound as if CEOs were somehow persecuted here.

 

[DBT]

I still don't understand why anyone other than a CEO who has overblown income with generous bonuses, would argue in defense of this state of affairs.

Why not? Do you understand why anyone other than a gay man would argue in defense of anal sex?

Do you understand the concepts of in-group and out-group? Do you understand that not everyone restricts recognition of rights to his own in-group? Do you understand that if it makes sense to you that a straight person would defend gays, but it doesn't make sense to you that a non-CEO would defend CEOs, that's a problem with you, not a problem with the CEO defender. All it means is gays are in your in-group and CEOs are in your out-group, and you're a tribal thinker so you can't grok the concept of your out-group having rights.

If you still don't understand, try it this way. Let's say I somehow survive the revolution. When the counterrevolution comes and we heretics are set free from your religion's re-education camps, I won't be one of the people everybody has to listen to saying "First they came for the CEOs, and I said nothing, because I was not a CEO."

Including wealth distribution, capital and resources concentrating into the hands of a small percentage of extremely rich people, something that appears to be indefensible, immoral and unethical.

"Concentrating wealth" is a metaphor for what we do when we bring together the U-235 in natural uranium, resulting in some "enriched uranium" that has more U-235 than before, and some "depleted uranium" that has less U-235 than before, because the total number of U-235 and U-238 atoms remain unchanged. Concentration is a zero-sum process. People who talk of "concentrating wealth" are implicitly treating economics as a zero-sum game, and they are subliminally inviting their listeners to picture it as a zero-sum game. But economics is not a zero-sum game.

You know very well what I meant by ''capital and resources concentrating into the hands of a small percentage of extremely rich people'' so there was no need for a pedantic response.

It is a real problem;


Key Facts

The richest 1% of Americans own 35% of the nation's wealth. The bottom 80% own just 11% of the nation's wealth.
In the 1950s and 1960s, when the economy was booming, the wealthiest Americans paid a top income tax rate of 91%. Today, the top rate is 43.4%.

The richest 1% pay an effective federal income tax rate of 24.7% in 2014; someone making an average of $75,000 is paying a 19.7% rate.

The average federal income tax rate of the richest 400 Americans was just 20 percent in 2009.

Taxing investment income at a much lower rate than salaries and wages are taxed loses $1.3 trillion over 10 years. 1,470 households reported income of more than $1 million in 2009 but paid zero federal income taxes on it.

CEOs of major corporations earn nearly 300 times more than an average worker. 30 percent of income inequality is due to unfair taxes and budget cuts to services and benefits.

The largest contributor to increasing income inequality has been changes in income from capital gains and dividends.

Talking points

It's time for the wealthiest Americans and big corporations to pay their fair share of taxes. When they take unfair advantage of the many loopholes in the tax code the rest of us pick up the tab.

Instead of cutting education funding for our children, we should ask millionaires to pay a tax rate at least as high their secretary's.

Instead of cutting Social Security and Medicare, we should ask the wealthy to give up a few tax loopholes so that we can make sure everyone has a secure retirement.

 

[Bomb#20]

You know very well what I meant by ''capital and resources concentrating into the hands of a small percentage of extremely rich people'' so there was no need for a pedantic response.

Yes, I know very well what you meant. You meant to express your intuition that wealth is a zero-sum game and people getting rich is what causes other people to get poor. It's an intuition you share with much of the human race. It's an intuition born of millions of years of hunting and gathering. That is why people insist that inequality is a problem and dispossessing the rich is the solution. A great fraction of the human race subconsciously has not caught up with the fact that we live by farming now, and wealth is no longer a zero-sum game, and you growing more produce on your farm does not cause your neighbor to grow less on his.

If that were not what you meant, then you would not have told me over and over that the difference between some minority's numbers and their ownership percentage was a problem while doggedly resisting every invitation to tell me why it's a problem.

It is a real problem;


Key Facts

The richest 1% of Americans own 35% of the nation's wealth. The bottom 80% own just 11% of the nation's wealth.
In the 1950s and 1960s, when the economy was booming, the wealthiest Americans paid a top income tax rate of 91%. Today, the top rate is 43.4%.

The richest 1% pay an effective federal income tax rate of 24.7% in 2014; someone making an average of $75,000 is paying a 19.7% rate.

The average federal income tax rate of the richest 400 Americans was just 20 percent in 2009.

Taxing investment income at a much lower rate than salaries and wages are taxed loses $1.3 trillion over 10 years. 1,470 households reported income of more than $1 million in 2009 but paid zero federal income taxes on it.

CEOs of major corporations earn nearly 300 times more than an average worker. 30 percent of income inequality is due to unfair taxes and budget cuts to services and benefits.

The largest contributor to increasing income inequality has been changes in income from capital gains and dividends.

You already cut-and-pasted those so-called "Key Facts" in post #116. And I already told you what was wrong with them in post #122. And you already blew me off in post #123 without even trying to point out errors in my counterarguments. And here you are cut-and-pasting the exact same propaganda. Hey, why don't you post it a third time? That will prove you're right, in Lewis Carroll logic. You are not arguing. You are preaching.

Talking points

It's time for the wealthiest Americans and big corporations to pay their fair share of taxes.

There are inevitable exceptions due to the absurd complexity of the tax law, but by-and-large, on average, the wealthiest Americans are already paying their fair share and part of your fair share too. It is asinine for somebody who has to give N% of his productive life to the government to accuse somebody who has to give 2N% of her productive life to the government of not paying her fair share.

When they take unfair advantage of the many loopholes in the tax code the rest of us pick up the tab.

What is it that makes whichever tax laws you call "loopholes" more deserving of the term "loophole" than the tax law that says if you earn $100,000 you have to pay $3700 less than half of what somebody earning $200,000 has to pay? That's by a large margin the biggest loophole of all. What, it's "taking unfair advantage" when Congress enacts a law giving a break to somebody you don't like, but it's "fair share" when Congress enacts a law giving a break to somebody you like? What makes it okay in your book for the middle class to take advantage of its $3700 "tax benefit" and make the rich pick up the tab?

Instead of cutting education funding for our children, we should ask millionaires to pay a tax rate at least as high their secretary's.

Most millionaires do pay a higher tax rate than their secretaries. The reason Buffett doesn't is because he's so spectacularly good at recognizing and funding future winners that he's able to make a return on investment far in excess of the inflation rate. So the fact that the government refuses to index "cost basis" to inflation and insists on measuring purchase price and sales price in different-sized dollars, and thereby is able to tax investors on fictional imputed income, is of little consequence to Buffett. But a typical millionaire making an average return on investment is being taxed on his real investment income at a higher rate than his secretary's wages are taxed. If the government were honest, and indexed basis to inflation, and taxed the real gain as ordinary income, Buffett would get a massive tax hike and the average millionaire would get a tax cut.

Instead of cutting Social Security and Medicare, we should ask the wealthy to give up a few tax loopholes so that we can make sure everyone has a secure retirement.

I.e., the tax code should discriminate against a minority group even more than it already does. I.e., the majority should vote more services to ourselves and vote the bill to somebody else. There used to be a popular principle that when the people want government services we tax ourselves to pay for them. It was a more naive time.

 

[Bomb#20]

Bomb#20, you make it sound as if CEOs were somehow persecuted here.

That's an artifact of your moral psychology; it's not anything I'm implying. A great many people have a peculiar sort of moral blindness: they're incapable of separating moral judgments from feelings of pity. It's as though they imagine their tear ducts are better judges of right and wrong than their brains. And they project this limitation onto everyone else. Consequently, when they hear an argument for fairness to someone, they imagine they're being told they should feel sorry for him.

No, CEOs are not being persecuted, for the most part*. However it's plain that a lot of people in this thread are drooling over the idea of being allowed to persecute them. So I'm arguing against those people. If a Muslim came here and told us that taxes should be higher on Christians than on Muslims, because the Holy Quran says so, and I pointed out that that would be unfair to Christians, would you say I was making it sound as if Christians are being persecuted?

(* Of course there are a few CEOs who've been charged with violating ex post facto laws by overzealous prosecutors.)

 

[DBT]

Yes, I know very well what you meant. You meant to express your intuition that wealth is a zero-sum game and people getting rich is what causes other people to get poor. It's an intuition you share with much of the human race. It's an intuition born of millions of years of hunting and gathering. .

Hardy an ''intuition'' when the stats are there to support the proposition, that the super rich hold a quite sizable percentage of the worlds wealth and resources....stats that I have cited, stats that do not appear to be disputed (within reason).


Just 8 men own same wealth as half the world
Published:
16 January 2017

Eight men own the same wealth as the 3.6 billion people who make up the poorest half of humanity, according to a new report published by Oxfam today to mark the annual meeting of political and business leaders in Davos.

Oxfam’s report, ‘An economy for the 99 percent’, shows that the gap between rich and poor is far greater than had been feared. It details how big business and the super-rich are fuelling the inequality crisis by dodging taxes, driving down wages and using their power to influence politics. It calls for a fundamental change in the way we manage our economies so that they work for all people, and not just a fortunate few.

New and better data on the distribution of global wealth – particularly in India and China – indicates that the poorest half of the world has less wealth than had been previously thought. Had this new data been available last year, it would have shown that nine billionaires owned the same wealth as the poorest half of the planet, and not 62, as Oxfam calculated at the time.''

 

[RVonse]

So, a question for Loren or Dismal (or anyone else who might be able to answer).

What would be the result if CEO pay (including stock options) were taxed at 90% above the $750k threshold? Would all the best of the best, like Steve Jobs or the Google founders start saying, "Hell I'm going to quit because this is too much stress and I want to do something a lot easier like picking cotton or flipping hamburgers?" Or would they simply ask their companies to give them stock (that had to be held 10 or more years) instead of compensation? And if that happened, would this be a bad thing for the shareholders?

And while were at it. What would be the result of taxing capital gains at standard labor income rates? Would the world fall apart? Or would people like Carl Ichan or Buffet simply become a little less rich? Lets say Buffet was only worth $20 billion instead of $50 billion. How would that hurt most of the rest of society?

 

[ZiprHead]

Most millionaires do pay a higher tax rate than their secretaries. The reason Buffett doesn't is because he's so spectacularly good at recognizing and funding future winners that he's able to make a return on investment far in excess of the inflation rate. So the fact that the government refuses to index "cost basis" to inflation and insists on measuring purchase price and sales price in different-sized dollars, and thereby is able to tax investors on fictional imputed income, is of little consequence to Buffett. But a typical millionaire making an average return on investment is being taxed on his real investment income at a higher rate than his secretary's wages are taxed. If the government were honest, and indexed basis to inflation, and taxed the real gain as ordinary income, Buffett would get a massive tax hike and the average millionaire would get a tax cut.

Don't you think though that those tax rates are by design? They didn't happen in a vacuum. They were sought after by the investor class who bribed politicians with lots of huge donations to enact those tax rate schemes who then sold them as "trickle down" (Believe me. This time it will really work.).

This is not good for society and I can't understand how anyone can defend it the way you seem to be doing.