In the past when Warren Buffett has spoken out the "super rich" needing to pay a higher tax rate, the media have hung on his every word. But, now that he has spoken out against a windfall profits tax on oil, will they notice?
Buffett said he disapproved of the windfall profits taxes in an interview with CNBC's Becky Quick on "Power Lunch" on June 25.
"I think it is very hard to have windfall taxes," Buffett said. "Steel has doubled in price. Is that a windfall for the steel producers? Sure. Corn is $7 a bushel; soybeans are at $15 a bushel. I don't think any candidate in his right mind with the number of electoral votes in farm states would say you ought to tax farms specially because they are getting a windfall."
Obama, who Buffett has pledged his support to, said on June 9 he would impose a windfall profits tax on oil companies.
"I'll make oil companies like Exxon pay a tax on their windfall profits, and we'll use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills," Obama said according to a June 9 Reuters story.
Buffett compared oil to other companies making money off of high commodity prices and disagreed with the principle of higher tax rates that are a result of market fluctuations.
"But they [farms] are getting a windfall from commodity prices," Buffett said. "Maybe they deserve it because commodities have been under priced, but to pick out one commodity - with copper at $3.60 a pound, you could say that the copper producers are getting a windfall. The networks are getting a windfall because of the Olympics. So, I don't think that picking anybody that's had a commodity that's increased in price a lot and saying that there's a special tax because of that makes any sense.
Buffett also told Quick he disagreed with Obama's decision to reject public funding of $84.1 million in federal money by opting out. Obama had pledged to participate on prior occasions, but now he won't be restricted to spending $84.1 million in the two months between the nominating convention and Election Day.
"I don't agree with that," Buffett said. "I don't think he should have."
The world's richest man was interviewed in New York prior to eating lunch with investors Mohnish Pabrai and Guy Spier, who paid $650,100 for the invitations, proceeds which go to the Glide Foundation charity.
The media have held the "Oracle of Omaha" in high regard for his prior populist views. CNN's Kyra Phillips called Buffett "fascinating" in a story about his pro-tax policies on May 20. "NBC Nightly News" featured Buffett railing against the American tax structure in an interview with former "Nightly News" anchor Tom Brokaw on Oct. 30, 2007.















Editor at Large

Comments Policy
Asking for consistency from
June 25, 2008 - 17:01 ET by Troika37Asking for consistency from Obama (or the left, for that matter) is like trying to get the sun to shine on the same place for 24 consecutive hours.
~
June 25, 2008 - 17:03 ET by kch50428"Oracle of Omaha" dissing the Great Savior....Is Lucifer's lair now capable of supporting an NHL game?
Color me shocked! I can't
June 25, 2008 - 17:17 ET by bigtimerColor me shocked!
I can't believe Buffett said this..wow...who knew?
By the way...of course the msm will be mighty mum about this...they are working for Obama after-all.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
The Buffet Brain
June 25, 2008 - 20:38 ET by allanfYou have to understand Buffett to translate his pronouncements. Buffett believes that a Corporation and its leaders have an obligation to shareholders. His self esteem is wrapped up in the returns he generates for his shareholders.
In his mind, the returns he generated are such a difficult feat that his children or other mortals could not duplicate it. So they are not entitled to share in the bounty. Ony he and his shareholders are entitled.
I for one think Nebraska should pass a Buffett Tax. Anyone with net worth over 50 billion loses it all when the go. That should make Warren happy.
This is not the Warren
June 25, 2008 - 22:47 ET by mulerider24This is not the Warren Buffett I knew three months ago...
All the "windfalls" he cited
June 25, 2008 - 17:17 ET by robert108All the "windfalls" he cited are a result of govt interference in the market. Instead of creating the windfall and then taxing it, why not just get the govt the hell out of the market!
Never mind.
June 25, 2008 - 17:30 ET by landsharkObama has claimed that Buffett is "one of those people I listen to". I wonder if that means he'll reconsider his position based on Buffett's point, or if he'll merely shrug it off after doing his duty and "listening" to it.
Another one under the bus
June 25, 2008 - 17:39 ET by VonuGood bye Warren!
How about a windfall profit tax on investors, lets make this one retroactive to say 1960.
Wow, I like being a socialist leader, its easier than one might think.
Warren, what's keeping you from paying down your guilt?
June 25, 2008 - 17:47 ET by CrashSure Warren, you philanthropic fake, it's only a tax on the "super rich" ... until congress decides it wants to spend more of OUR money without checks or balances.
Now, taxing windfalls screws up your retirement funds doesn't it old boy!
Al "Windfall" Gore
June 25, 2008 - 18:01 ET by DanoIf the idiots on the Left want to and are able to issue a windfall profits tax, I suggest the first to get taxed is Al Gore ........because of his his windfall profits on his global warming hoax. ( He has so far made over $100,000,000.00 on his charade.)
Wait a second.....
June 25, 2008 - 18:27 ET by TheCitizenI'm confused. Buffett is clearly a populist and a subscriber to the concept of "redistributing" wealth, so where is this sudden divide coming from? His logic is sound: that terrorizing one industry that experiences high profits but ignoring others is patently unfair and will result in a possible industry collapse. However, you would think, given his philisophical leanings, that any opportunity to overtax would be both welcomed and siezed upon. Is he effectively saying "either ruin them all or don't ruin any"?
Does anyone understand this, or am I alone?
Of course
June 25, 2008 - 19:17 ET by oregon_jiimOf course he is against a windfall profits tax. 100% of his 62 Billion could be considered a windfall.
"an endorsement of communism is an endorsement of slavery"