I read this article before and it seemed like an article written by someone who has a grudge against Buffett.

Basically the author is trying to suggest that Buffett somehow benefits on taxes because we don’t tax an activity that he does not do. ( i.e. paying a dividend or selling a stock)

Even if an activity that is NOT done should be taxed, it is no way comparable to tax an activity that is clearly done more favorably to another activity that is also done. It is like me saying that let’s tax flu because his house appreciated 10K last year even if flu has not sold his house ..

So Buffett not selling a stock or not paying dividend is not even close in the “tax sin” list to Mitt Romney paying 15% on his income or benefiting from “carried interest”. if one would start equating an activity that is not done to an activity that is done then I am thinking that they really do not have any other argument to support their point!