Unpleasant Truths: Reagan was for the Buffet Rule

2456712

Comments

  • brbr Posts: 8,255member
    He is fighting to change the law. Mitt Romney is not. There's a difference. Also, there is a matter of scale that you conveniently avoid.
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,218member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    He is fighting to change the law. Mitt Romney is not. There's a difference. Also, there is a matter of scale that you conveniently avoid.



    Changing the law doesn't accomplish anything. It brings a relatively small amount of money. It may also have a negative economic impact, because taxation affects behavior. As for scale, that's irrelevant when we're discussing hypocrisy.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    Trump explains it perfectly. Obama's a hypocrite because he's avoiding taxes by giving his children a large sum.



    Yes I think trumptman captures it well. I'd only add that there is plain hypocrisy in calling for higher taxes on other people while taking advantages of tax reduction tactics for yourself.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    He is fighting to change the law. Mitt Romney is not. There's a difference.



    Yes, and that's where the hypocrisy lies. Obama wants to eliminate "loopholes" and raise taxes but acts individually to use "loopholes" to pay less taxes himself.



    But there's a general problem among the left who love to talk of others not paying their "fair share" as determined by themselves of course while often taking advantage of all the "loopholes" (a.k.a. deductions) available to themselves to pay less taxes.



    The simplest way to end all of this silliness is to eliminate all deductions and tax all income at the same rate* (preferably a much lower rate)...probably 10-15%. But leftists/Democrats don't want to do this. They won't ever do it. They can't because their whole twisted and ambiguous notion of "fairness" has some people paying at different rates and people who've earned more keeping less for themselves to use at they individual see fit.



    In the leftist world of fairness, for example, runners of differing skills levels would be required to be weighted down because they run faster and perform better.



    The income tax at the very least needs to reformed to a single rate flat tax with almost no deductions. Maybe an exemption on the first $20K or $30K of income. At best it would be eliminated entirely.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    Also, there is a matter of scale that you conveniently avoid.



    That's a red herring.





    *Better yet, eliminate the income tax altogether. It is both a tax on productivity and success and a terrible invasion of privacy.
  • brbr Posts: 8,255member
    Are you claiming that Obama would disobey the law after it is changed? He fights to change the law. It changes. He obeys it. If anything, that demonstrates that he is acting on the interests of the American people at the expense of his own.



    Claiming something is a red herring doesn't actually make it one, by the way. Scale does matter, too. Putting some thousands away into a college fund is a lot different from millions in offshore accounts. Unless, of course, you give everyone the same prison sentence for crimes in the same family regardless of scale. That's a little too black & white for me.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    Are you claiming that Obama would disobey the law after it is changed?



    No, I'm saying he has the opportunity to personally practice what he preaches right now. He's not.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    He fights to change the law. It changes. He obeys it. If anything, that demonstrates that he is acting on the interests of the American people act the expense of his own.



    Assuming that higher taxes were in the interest of the American people.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    Claiming something is a red herring doesn't actually make it one, by the way.



    I know.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    Scale does matter, too. Putting some thousands away into a college fund is a lot different from millions in offshore accounts.



    Yes, I know these things are different. However this is a red herring.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    Unless, of course, you give everyone the same prison sentence for crimes in the same family regardless of scale.



    Oooh...now we have implications of criminal tax evasion. Goody. I'll wait for your evidence.
  • brbr Posts: 8,255member
    Again, you are making a mountain out of a very inconsequential molehill. You are manufacturing controversy where there is none. He is fighting to pass a law that will hurt him financially. Unless you think he's not going to comply with the law after it's passed, I don't see how it's hypocritical to follow the law as it currently stands but argue for change against his own interests.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    Again, you are making a mountain out of a very inconsequential molehill. You are manufacturing controversy where there is none.



    Actually...I'm not. I said above (a couple times in fact) that this was a minor example of Obama's hypocrisy. There are others which are worse.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    He is fighting to pass a law that will hurt him financially. Unless you think he's not going to comply with the law after it's passed, I don't see how it's hypocritical to follow the law as it currently stands but argue for change against his own interests.



    Well I've tried to explain it you. I'm sorry I've failed to help you see. It's not the first time and surely won't be the last.
  • brbr Posts: 8,255member
    Oh, I understand what you are saying. I just think it's ridiculous. I think your ability to reason is atrocious in this particular example.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    Oh, I understand what you are saying. I just think it's ridiculous. I think your ability to reason is atrocious in this particular example.



    Thanks for sharing your opinion about my reasoning abilities.
  • brbr Posts: 8,255member
    You're welcome.
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,218member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    Are you claiming that Obama would disobey the law after it is changed? He fights to change the law. It changes. He obeys it. If anything, that demonstrates that he is acting on the interests of the American people at the expense of his own.



    Claiming something is a red herring doesn't actually make it one, by the way. Scale does matter, too. Putting some thousands away into a college fund is a lot different from millions in offshore accounts. Unless, of course, you give everyone the same prison sentence for crimes in the same family regardless of scale. That's a little too black & white for me.



    Funny how that logic doesn't apply when it's Mitt Romney. He follows the law, too. The only difference is that he'd base tax policy on what actually makes sense economically as opposed to bullshit popularism and class warfare.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,271member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    He is fighting to change the law. Mitt Romney is not. There's a difference. Also, there is a matter of scale that you conveniently avoid.



    This is an outright lie. Barack Obama in no form or fashion has proposed elimination of tax credits with regard to saving for a child's college education. You are lying.



    President Obama has proposed raising the income tax rate for certain income levels, of course but when the loopholes, including the one he is using counteract those rates, then he undermines his own premise both logically and in actuality through his own hypocrisy.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    Yes I think trumptman captures it well. I'd only add that there is plain hypocrisy in calling for higher taxes on other people while taking advantages of tax reduction tactics for yourself.



    The second point to note is he in no form or fashion HAD to allocate his money this way. He could have treated it in any other manner that would have been subject to taxation. This was a conscious choice to gift the money and utilize the tax advantages.



    However that does bring up an additional point which I will bring up and BR will ignore below.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    Are you claiming that Obama would disobey the law after it is changed? He fights to change the law. It changes. He obeys it. If anything, that demonstrates that he is acting on the interests of the American people at the expense of his own.



    Claiming something is a red herring doesn't actually make it one, by the way. Scale does matter, too. Putting some thousands away into a college fund is a lot different from millions in offshore accounts. Unless, of course, you give everyone the same prison sentence for crimes in the same family regardless of scale. That's a little too black & white for me.



    No one is breaking the law in lowering their effective tax rate. Unless someone on either side of the political aisle is actually engaged in tax fraud then all they are doing is allocating their money exactly the way the government prefers they allocate it in order to obtain the tax breaks or credits. If Buffett or Romney or Obama are obtaining a tax credit for chartered jets, or mortgage interest or education savings accounts, it is because the government has deemed it proper they spend their money in that manner and rewarded them for doing so by not taking it.



    Saying scale matters is just some illogical nonsense you have conjured so you can attack one set of completely legal actions while ignoring another completely set of legal actions. The difference between those two legal actions though is one person endorses them and the other declares he despises his own actions while taking them. That is ridiculous, irrational and illogical but of course it makes decent politics when you are trying to be a populist when actually acting like an elitist.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    Again, you are making a mountain out of a very inconsequential molehill. You are manufacturing controversy where there is none. He is fighting to pass a law that will hurt him financially. Unless you think he's not going to comply with the law after it's passed, I don't see how it's hypocritical to follow the law as it currently stands but argue for change against his own interests.



    Again this is an outright lie. Obama has in no form or fashion attempted to eliminate the credit we are discussing here. There is no proof the law he is trying to pass will hurt him in any form or fashion. You are making this up and lying as well.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    Oh, I understand what you are saying. I just think it's ridiculous. I think your ability to reason is atrocious in this particular example.



    I think you are basically a very colorful troll at this stage of the game however given the Obama record and the complete inability of anyone to defend it, that is probably about all you can do. Obama fiddles while Rome burns and you talk about scale and how legal actions by one party are wrong and legal actions by another are right because of future intentions but no change in actions.



    It's the equivalent of claiming that we should just hope and pray for the future and that it will be better and coming from you that is the most laughable thing of all.



    If one really wanted to dig into this, they would note the law of unintended consequences. Obama will now be able to spend 35% more on his daughter's education. When he gives them that 35% more money which he saved in his elite position, Obama will declare that if anyone does not support the government giving those who cannot use such saving accounts a government student loan of 35% more, thus making them lifelong debt slaves to the federal government, that they are heartless, cruel, hate children and don't support education and the future.



    Thus the poor and middle class will be priced out of higher education because of tuition increases the government subsidized. The solution to that government subsidy will be a request for another subsidy by the government in the forms of either grants or loans. The government in all instances will be the entity that distorts the market while claiming in all instances to be the solution.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    No one is breaking the law in lowering their effective tax rate. Unless someone on either side of the political aisle is actually engaged in tax fraud then all they are doing is allocating their money exactly the way the government prefers they allocate it in order to obtain the tax breaks or credits. If Buffett or Romney or Obama are obtaining a tax credit for chartered jets, or mortgage interest or education savings accounts, it is because the government has deemed it proper they spend their money in that manner and rewarded them for doing so by not taking it.



    Wow! You friggin' hit this one out of the park!



    +1 this post!



    I would add that this is typical of Democrats and liberals and "progressives"...they setup a tax code and then are surprised when people's behavior changes in response to it. This flawed thinking is at the very core of the tax the rich proposals. They assume current behavior will be the same after the tax increase and, thus, they'll just get more money coming. Wrong. "Gee, let's increase taxes on capital gains!" ... "Wooaahhh! What happened? Capital gains didn't go up...it even went down! WTF?!"
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,218member
    Originally Posted by BR:



    Quote:

    He is fighting to pass a law that will hurt him financially.



    Liar. He wouldn't be affected because he doesn't make quite enough money. He's fighting to pass a law that won't hurt him, but others.
  • brbr Posts: 8,255member
    You call me a liar but it would be you who is truly the deceiver if Obama would earn any money whatsoever through capital gains.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,271member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    You call me a liar but it would be you who is truly the deceiver if Obama would earn any money whatsoever through capital gains.



  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,218member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    You call me a liar but it would be you who is truly the deceiver if Obama would earn any money whatsoever through capital gains.



    It has nothing to do with it. You said he was fighting to pass a law that would hurt him financially. You are wrong.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    It has nothing to do with it. You said he was fighting to pass a law that would hurt him financially. You are wrong.



    What's more though, even if he's right...there is nothing that is forcing Obama to take advantage of those tax "loopholes" himself. Nothing at all. If he's benefiting from "loopholes" that he's "fighting" to eliminate, he can stop taking advantage of them himself right now. He could even go on a campaign to convince others to the same thing.



    Buffett is in a similar situation. All of his wealth is deliberately structured to avoid taxes up to and including the inheritance structure for his heirs. He cold sell off everything and pay the taxes on the realized gains right now. He could donate the remainder to the U.S. Treasury. But doesn't and he won't. This is, was and will always be about having other people pay the majority of the bill (by force) for their grand plans because no one in their right mind would do it voluntarily.



    This is the problem with leftist and their plans though. No one ever wants to go along with them voluntarily, so they decide that people volunteer by force better.
  • brbr Posts: 8,255member
    Bullshit, SDW. Although he earned less than $1 million in 2011, he earned $1.72 million in 2010. Given that presidents typically write memoirs after they are out of office, it is likely he will again be affected by the Buffett rule in 2017.
Sign In or Register to comment.