Maybe those thoughts are valid, maybe not, I don't have opinions on many of them.

But I don't think any of them could be seen as a motivation either way to bother repeating the statement that he still doesn't plan ever to sell any his stock in Berkshire. I presume it was for the benefit of the observers who didn't know that or had come to doubt it, so avoid any nonsensical panic.

To your first comment--
I do think it's fair to point out that, true, he won't ever be paying a dime on the huge increase in the value of his shares, but that is a natural and fair consequence of never having received any benefit from that share price appreciation. There is rarely a good reason to advocate someone paying income tax on income they didn't make. I have been in that situation with Revenue Canada (as it was then called), getting a big bill for money I never made, and thankfully won the argument. They actually have an ombudsmen you can appeal to in cases of "that just doesn't make sense".

Jim