Buffett's grand and generous idea may spread
By Marshall Loeb, MarketWatch
Last Update: 1:22 PM ET Jun 27, 2006
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- Warren Buffett's grand gesture of turning over the bulk of his celebrated estate to philanthropy, his magnificent giveaway of Berkshire Hathaway shares with a value today of $37 billion, mostly to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, drew plaudits from many Americans.
But his generosity may well be sending chills down the collective spines of the baby boomers, that we-have-it-all coming generation aged about 42 to 60.
Many of these middle-aged folks have openly expected to be America's first generation of inheritors. They have been counting on collecting a juicy payout -- someday -- from the pneumatically growing estates of their parents, who are aged roughly 65 and up.
Now along comes the shrewdest, smartest individual investor in the country to declare that the wise and just action is not to pass on accumulated wealth to one's own flesh and blood, but instead to give it away -- to total strangers. With capitalists like that, who needs socialists?
The trouble is that such notions could catch on. In the wake of Buffett's passionate advocacy, it may become highly fashionable for the rich (or merely affluent) folks to become much more charitable.
As Buffet told Fortune magazine editor-at-large Carol Loomis last week, "Frankly, I have some small hopes that what I'm doing might encourage other very rich people thinking about philanthropy to decide that they didn't necessarily have to set up their own foundations but could look around for the best of these that were up and running and available to handle their money."
Not that this general idea is totally new or revolutionary. Since the dawn of the Republic, citizens have been debating the merits and perils of leaving outsize fortunes to one's offspring. As one of those heirs, William Vanderbilt, declared in 1885, "Inherited wealth is a big handicap to happiness. It is as certain death to ambition as cocaine is to morality."
Buffett, now 75, has been preaching of these dangers for decades.
Way back in 1986 in New York, I sat across a conference room table from the Sage of Omaha and heard him argue to a friendly group of Fortune magazine editors that it is just not wise to bequeath what he calls "dynastic mega-wealth" to one's progeny.
We journalists quickly seized upon this provocative idea and produced a story featuring Buffett on the cover of the magazine, titled "Should You Leave It All to the Children?"
In answering that question, the magazine quoted him, "My kids are going to carve out their own place in this world, and they know I'm for them whatever they want to do."
But he believed that setting up his heirs with "a lifetime supply of food stamps just because they came out of the right womb" can be "harmful for them and is an anti-social act."
As it happens, Buffett has three grown children -- two sons, one daughter -- and while they are comfortably provided for, they will not have huge fortunes like, say, retailer Sam Walton's billionaire children.
To Buffett, the perfect amount to leave one's children would be "enough money so that they would feel they could do anything, but not so much that they could do nothing."
This is well and good, but such philosophy could leave the expectant baby boomers high and dry when the time comes to collect from their parents' estates.
On top of that, their hopes for seeing the repeal of the onerous federal estate tax have recently been quashed in Congress. Buffett is a fierce opponent of tax repeal, and so are Bill and Melinda Gates. The next time this issue comes up for debate in Washington, we can expect them to speak up against repeal or even sharp reduction.
Meanwhile, let's give the last word to Buffett, who says, indisputably, "Love is the greatest advantage a parent can give."
Last Update: 1:22 PM ET Jun 27, 2006
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- Warren Buffett's grand gesture of turning over the bulk of his celebrated estate to philanthropy, his magnificent giveaway of Berkshire Hathaway shares with a value today of $37 billion, mostly to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, drew plaudits from many Americans.
But his generosity may well be sending chills down the collective spines of the baby boomers, that we-have-it-all coming generation aged about 42 to 60.
Many of these middle-aged folks have openly expected to be America's first generation of inheritors. They have been counting on collecting a juicy payout -- someday -- from the pneumatically growing estates of their parents, who are aged roughly 65 and up.
Now along comes the shrewdest, smartest individual investor in the country to declare that the wise and just action is not to pass on accumulated wealth to one's own flesh and blood, but instead to give it away -- to total strangers. With capitalists like that, who needs socialists?
The trouble is that such notions could catch on. In the wake of Buffett's passionate advocacy, it may become highly fashionable for the rich (or merely affluent) folks to become much more charitable.
As Buffet told Fortune magazine editor-at-large Carol Loomis last week, "Frankly, I have some small hopes that what I'm doing might encourage other very rich people thinking about philanthropy to decide that they didn't necessarily have to set up their own foundations but could look around for the best of these that were up and running and available to handle their money."
Not that this general idea is totally new or revolutionary. Since the dawn of the Republic, citizens have been debating the merits and perils of leaving outsize fortunes to one's offspring. As one of those heirs, William Vanderbilt, declared in 1885, "Inherited wealth is a big handicap to happiness. It is as certain death to ambition as cocaine is to morality."
Buffett, now 75, has been preaching of these dangers for decades.
Way back in 1986 in New York, I sat across a conference room table from the Sage of Omaha and heard him argue to a friendly group of Fortune magazine editors that it is just not wise to bequeath what he calls "dynastic mega-wealth" to one's progeny.
We journalists quickly seized upon this provocative idea and produced a story featuring Buffett on the cover of the magazine, titled "Should You Leave It All to the Children?"
In answering that question, the magazine quoted him, "My kids are going to carve out their own place in this world, and they know I'm for them whatever they want to do."
But he believed that setting up his heirs with "a lifetime supply of food stamps just because they came out of the right womb" can be "harmful for them and is an anti-social act."
As it happens, Buffett has three grown children -- two sons, one daughter -- and while they are comfortably provided for, they will not have huge fortunes like, say, retailer Sam Walton's billionaire children.
To Buffett, the perfect amount to leave one's children would be "enough money so that they would feel they could do anything, but not so much that they could do nothing."
This is well and good, but such philosophy could leave the expectant baby boomers high and dry when the time comes to collect from their parents' estates.
On top of that, their hopes for seeing the repeal of the onerous federal estate tax have recently been quashed in Congress. Buffett is a fierce opponent of tax repeal, and so are Bill and Melinda Gates. The next time this issue comes up for debate in Washington, we can expect them to speak up against repeal or even sharp reduction.
Meanwhile, let's give the last word to Buffett, who says, indisputably, "Love is the greatest advantage a parent can give."
posted by Ludovic Bodin at 3:04 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home