I just came across this post by Paul Graham called, "modeling a wealth tax." It's from last year, but it recently resurfaced. In it, he paints a scenario. Let's say you're a successful entrepreneur in your twenties (i.e. you make some money) and then you live for another 60 years. How much of your stock would the government take with various wealth taxes?

With a 1% wealth tax, it means that you would get to keep 99% of your stock each year. But assuming the wealth tax gets applied every year, you would be left with 0.99^60, which equals 0.547. Put more simply, a 1% wealth tax would mean that over the course of the 60 years after you built your company, you would be giving the government 45% of your stock.

How did this number get so big?

The reason wealth taxes have such dramatic effects is that they're applied over and over to the same money. Income tax happens every year, but only to that year's income. Whereas if you live for 60 years after acquiring some asset, a wealth tax will tax that same asset 60 times. A wealth tax compounds.

Of course, Paul also points out that giving away a portion of your assets each year doesn't necessarily mean that you're becoming net poorer, so long as your assets are increasing in value by more than the wealth tax rate.

Still, these are massive numbers. A 2% wealth tax would translate, over this same 60 year time period, into the government taking 70% of your stock. A 5% wealth tax works out to 95%. For more on this, check out Paul Graham's post.

Warren Buffet's annual letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders was just published for 2020. It can be downloaded here. I have made a habit out of reading his letter every year and his overall approach has been instrumental in shaping the way I think about investing.

What is clear to me when I look at the first page of each letter -- which contains a comparison of Berkshire's performance to that of the S&P 500 -- is that he and Charlie Munger have got to be the most successful stock market investors of the last century.

They have consistently outperformed the market. And they have done that by focusing on fundamentals, doing what others are not (i.e. being contrarians), and being incredibly patient, among other things. All of this isn't rocket science. It's simple, understandable, and repeatable.

The other thing we can learn from his widely read letters is that clear and concise writing is a powerful tool. I have said this many times before, but to explain something clearly it means you need to really understand it. Things tend to get complicated when you don't know what you're taking about.

And with that, here's an excerpt from this year's annual letter:

In 1958, Phil Fisher wrote a superb book on investing. In it, he analogized running a public company to managing a restaurant. If you are seeking diners, he said, you can attract a clientele and prosper featuring either hamburgers served with a Coke or a French cuisine accompanied by exotic wines. But you must not, Fisher warned, capriciously switch from one to the other: Your message to potential customers must be consistent with what they will find upon entering your premises.

At Berkshire, we have been serving hamburgers and Coke for 56 years. We cherish the clientele this fare has attracted.

The tens of millions of other investors and speculators in the United States and elsewhere have a wide variety of equity choices to fit their tastes. They will find CEOs and market gurus with enticing ideas. If they want price targets, managed earnings and “stories,” they will not lack suitors. “Technicians” will confidently instruct them as to what some wiggles on a chart portend for a stock’s next move. The calls for action will never stop.

Many of those investors, I should add, will do quite well. After all, ownership of stocks is very much a “positive-sum” game. Indeed, a patient and level-headed monkey, who constructs a portfolio by throwing 50 darts at a board listing all of the S&P 500, will – over time – enjoy dividends and capital gains, just as long as it never gets tempted to make changes in its original “selections.”

Productive assets such as farms, real estate and, yes, business ownership produce wealth – lots of it. Most owners of such properties will be rewarded. All that’s required is the passage of time, an inner calm, ample diversification and a minimization of transactions and fees. Still, investors must never forget that their expenses are Wall Street’s income. And, unlike my monkey, Wall Streeters do not work for peanuts.

When seats open up at Berkshire – and we hope they are few – we want them to be occupied by newcomers who understand and desire what we offer. After decades of management, Charlie and I remain unable to promise results. We can and do, however, pledge to treat you as partners.

And so, too, will our successors.

I just came across this post by Paul Graham called, "modeling a wealth tax." It's from last year, but it recently resurfaced. In it, he paints a scenario. Let's say you're a successful entrepreneur in your twenties (i.e. you make some money) and then you live for another 60 years. How much of your stock would the government take with various wealth taxes?

With a 1% wealth tax, it means that you would get to keep 99% of your stock each year. But assuming the wealth tax gets applied every year, you would be left with 0.99^60, which equals 0.547. Put more simply, a 1% wealth tax would mean that over the course of the 60 years after you built your company, you would be giving the government 45% of your stock.

How did this number get so big?

The reason wealth taxes have such dramatic effects is that they're applied over and over to the same money. Income tax happens every year, but only to that year's income. Whereas if you live for 60 years after acquiring some asset, a wealth tax will tax that same asset 60 times. A wealth tax compounds.

Of course, Paul also points out that giving away a portion of your assets each year doesn't necessarily mean that you're becoming net poorer, so long as your assets are increasing in value by more than the wealth tax rate.

Still, these are massive numbers. A 2% wealth tax would translate, over this same 60 year time period, into the government taking 70% of your stock. A 5% wealth tax works out to 95%. For more on this, check out Paul Graham's post.

Warren Buffet's annual letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders was just published for 2020. It can be downloaded here. I have made a habit out of reading his letter every year and his overall approach has been instrumental in shaping the way I think about investing.

What is clear to me when I look at the first page of each letter -- which contains a comparison of Berkshire's performance to that of the S&P 500 -- is that he and Charlie Munger have got to be the most successful stock market investors of the last century.

They have consistently outperformed the market. And they have done that by focusing on fundamentals, doing what others are not (i.e. being contrarians), and being incredibly patient, among other things. All of this isn't rocket science. It's simple, understandable, and repeatable.

The other thing we can learn from his widely read letters is that clear and concise writing is a powerful tool. I have said this many times before, but to explain something clearly it means you need to really understand it. Things tend to get complicated when you don't know what you're taking about.

And with that, here's an excerpt from this year's annual letter:

In 1958, Phil Fisher wrote a superb book on investing. In it, he analogized running a public company to managing a restaurant. If you are seeking diners, he said, you can attract a clientele and prosper featuring either hamburgers served with a Coke or a French cuisine accompanied by exotic wines. But you must not, Fisher warned, capriciously switch from one to the other: Your message to potential customers must be consistent with what they will find upon entering your premises.

At Berkshire, we have been serving hamburgers and Coke for 56 years. We cherish the clientele this fare has attracted.

The tens of millions of other investors and speculators in the United States and elsewhere have a wide variety of equity choices to fit their tastes. They will find CEOs and market gurus with enticing ideas. If they want price targets, managed earnings and “stories,” they will not lack suitors. “Technicians” will confidently instruct them as to what some wiggles on a chart portend for a stock’s next move. The calls for action will never stop.

Many of those investors, I should add, will do quite well. After all, ownership of stocks is very much a “positive-sum” game. Indeed, a patient and level-headed monkey, who constructs a portfolio by throwing 50 darts at a board listing all of the S&P 500, will – over time – enjoy dividends and capital gains, just as long as it never gets tempted to make changes in its original “selections.”

Productive assets such as farms, real estate and, yes, business ownership produce wealth – lots of it. Most owners of such properties will be rewarded. All that’s required is the passage of time, an inner calm, ample diversification and a minimization of transactions and fees. Still, investors must never forget that their expenses are Wall Street’s income. And, unlike my monkey, Wall Streeters do not work for peanuts.

When seats open up at Berkshire – and we hope they are few – we want them to be occupied by newcomers who understand and desire what we offer. After decades of management, Charlie and I remain unable to promise results. We can and do, however, pledge to treat you as partners.

And so, too, will our successors.