Wealthy people wanting to polish their legacy while still directing the use of their wealth from beyond the grave by establishing endowments and non-profit foundations etc. isn't really a new phenomenon, though there is much less emphasis on monumental architecture these days.
I'm not sure if anyone has studied whether such foundations and endowments are particularly efficient allocations of those resources compared to the government (either is in principle less efficient than the market, but the government steps in where society in general judges that markets have failed, and non-profits generally step in where donors, specifically, perceive the government has failed as well, but I'm unsure whether that implies more or less relative efficiency in allocation).
In 2007, 33% didn't kick in until around $200K (married filing jointly) so not bad pay for Omaha.
>> But in reality he's just deflecting from other potential sources of taxes, such as taxing people on wealth vs on income (which someone in his wealth bracket can easily live without).
Given that he has pledged to give away 99% of his wealth either while he is still alive or when he dies, why do you think he is doing that?