or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Obama's "Buffett Rule" Rules OK!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Obama's "Buffett Rule" Rules OK! - Page 4

post #121 of 140
Republicans Unveil their Buffet Rule.

Quote:
“If individuals like Warren Buffett or President Obama are inclined to donate their own personal money toward paying down the federal government’s debt, they ought to have that right to do so voluntarily,” Thune said. “This bill would make it easier for those wealthy individuals who feel they are currently under-taxed to pay more to the U.S. Treasury above and beyond their current obligations, without raising taxes on America’s job creators.”

NICE!

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #122 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Republicans Unveil their Buffet Rule.



NICE!

Lame. Seriously.

I don't oppose such ideas. But they are not replacements for fair tax regulation like the Buffett Rule.

I also agree that those who create jobs should get a tax break -- AFTER they successfully create and retain the fucking jobs. Don't give them a tax break because they MIGHT do it. Give them a tax break if and only if they actually do it.

How about tying tax breaks to the income tax paid by the lowest 25% of a company's employees?
post #123 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Lame. Seriously.

I don't oppose such ideas. But they are not replacements for fair tax regulation like the Buffett Rule.

I also agree that those who create jobs should get a tax break -- AFTER they successfully create and retain the fucking jobs. Don't give them a tax break because they MIGHT do it. Give them a tax break if and only if they actually do it.

How about tying tax breaks to the income tax paid by the lowest 25% of a company's employees?

Well this thread has clearly addressed the legislation and how unproductive it would be as well. E# went into it at length.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #124 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Well this thread has clearly addressed the legislation and how unproductive it would be as well. E# went into it at length.

It may be unproductive on one side and productive on another. There are clearly kinks to be ironed out. It doesn't make the idea of fair taxation a bad idea. We need to close the loopholes. If we need to phase out TFM Bonds, rather than cut them off immediately, then so be it.
post #125 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

It may be unproductive on one side and productive on another. There are clearly kinks to be ironed out. It doesn't make the idea of fair taxation a bad idea. We need to close the loopholes. If we need to phase out TFM Bonds, rather than cut them off immediately, then so be it.

tonton, do you seriously think sometimes before you post about economic matters? You're becoming JImmac where you just aren't a serious poster anymore.

Phase out tax free municipal bonds..... basically make it harder and more expensive for state and local governments to borrow money from private investors and institutions. How will they meet these higher costs to borrow, how about higher taxes.

It's just outrageous. Folks of your political persuasion just don't think and do nothing but rage all the time. You can't get blood from a stone and there is no free lunch. If you wanted to get tax revenue up, put all the people Bush knocked off the tax rolls back on. You can't use words like "FAIR" and have it apply in a disproportionate manner. The word has a definition.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #126 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Lame. Seriously.

I don't oppose such ideas. But they are not replacements for fair tax regulation like the Buffett Rule.

I also agree that those who create jobs should get a tax break -- AFTER they successfully create and retain the fucking jobs. Don't give them a tax break because they MIGHT do it. Give them a tax break if and only if they actually do it.

How about tying tax breaks to the income tax paid by the lowest 25% of a company's employees?

<sigh>

tonton, businesses don't hire because they get a tax "break" for creating jobs. They hire because they need people due to expansion. They expand when conditions are created to allow growth. This is the fundamental misunderstanding of this administration and Democrats in Congress. It's also part of the schizophrenia I'm talking about. We want to create jobs, but we also want to punish the rich for hoarding all of their money. This thinking results in the disastrous policies we have right now.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #127 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

<sigh>

tonton, businesses don't hire because they get a tax "break" for creating jobs. They hire because they need people due to expansion.

Exactly! And they don't expand when they don't have any reason to, even if they have additional funds available.
Quote:
They expand when conditions are created to allow growth.

Does having more money mean such conditions exist? Does having less money mean that they don't? This is the fallacy you gullible people always fall for.
Quote:
This is the fundamental misunderstanding of this administration and Democrats in Congress. It's also part of the schizophrenia I'm talking about. We want to create jobs, but we also want to punish the rich for hoarding all of their money. This thinking results in the disastrous policies we have right now.

The policy positions that are actually in place are the reason we're screwed, and these are positions that are continuations and carbon copy clones of what the Republicans did, and what they promoted.

Double sigh. I do actually think, which is why I see how fucking lame the mistaken correlation between cash on hand and hiring is.
post #128 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

It's just outrageous. Folks of your political persuasion just don't think and do nothing but rage all the time. You can't get blood from a stone and there is no free lunch. If you wanted to get tax revenue up, put all the people Bush knocked off the tax rolls back on. You can't use words like "FAIR" and have it apply in a disproportionate manner. The word has a definition.

Fair also includes standard of living.

50% tax, 50k standard deduction. That's fair.
post #129 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Phase out tax free municipal bonds..... basically make it harder and more expensive for state and local governments to borrow money from private investors and institutions. How will they meet these higher costs to borrow, how about higher taxes.

Sure. As long as that taxation is fair. How about tax free status of bonds is linked to hiring as well?
post #130 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Exactly! And they don't expand when they don't have any reason to, even if they have additional funds available.

The problem is that you apparently don't know what those reasons for expansion are. Neither does our President.

Quote:

Does having more money mean such conditions exist? Does having less money mean that they don't? This is the fallacy you gullible people always fall for.

Strawman. No, of course not. It's not about "having more money." It's about stability and certainty. They don't have that right now.

Quote:

The policy positions that are actually in place are the reason we're screwed, and these are positions that are continuations and carbon copy clones of what the Republicans did, and what they promoted.

This is the fallacy you always fall for. Businesses are scared shitless of this administration. The Obamacare law has already had a depressive effect on hiring, as have a myriad of new regulations put forth through unaccountable administrative agencies. But the economic environment is the real problem right now. It's something Obama has utterly failed to address.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #131 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

If you wanted to get tax revenue up, put all the people Bush knocked off the tax rolls back on.

Oh, I've got an idea. How about if you want to get more people on the tax rolls, you encourage higher incomes for the working class instead of for the CEOs?
post #132 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Oh, I've got an idea. How about if you want to get more people on the tax rolls, you encourage higher incomes for the working class instead of for the CEOs?

How do we do that, tonton?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #133 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

How do we do that, tonton?

I'm sure you'll think of something.
post #134 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

This is the fallacy you always fall for. Businesses are scared shitless of this administration. The Obamacare law has already had a depressive effect on hiring, as have a myriad of new regulations put forth through unaccountable administrative agencies. But the economic environment is the real problem right now. It's something Obama has utterly failed to address.

So hiring is caused not by healthy policy, but by perception? No wonder we're fucked. You can only pull the wool over companies' eyes and pretend things will be better down the road for so long before it all collapses, which is what we see happening as a result of the voodoo economics you subscribe to.

Let's say you cut taxes this year. Then there's a temporary bounce. Then companies start to get antsy about things again, and while taxes are still lower, soon enough, the Refucklicans (who themselves stand to benefit the most, of course) demand tax cuts again. And so on and so forth. You can't just keep cutting taxes, or sooner or later you are not receiving enough taxes to pay for the budget. Oh. Gee. That's exactly what happened already.

Responsible policy my ass.
post #135 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Fair also includes standard of living.

50% tax, 50k standard deduction. That's fair.

Per person? So a family of 5 would have a 250k deduction? That won't pay the bills even with 100% tax.

Remember that there is also state and municipal tax - so a person in New York city would end up with 65% income tax (+ sales tax) in your system.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #136 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Oh, I've got an idea. How about if you want to get more people on the tax rolls, you encourage higher incomes for the working class instead of for the CEOs?

How about you simply put them back on the tax rolls. They would be there now if Obama and the Democrats hadn't renewed the Bush, now Obama Tax Cuts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Fair also includes standard of living.

50% tax, 50k standard deduction. That's fair.

Sorry, you don't get to redefine words.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Sure. As long as that taxation is fair. How about tax free status of bonds is linked to hiring as well?

MUNICIPAL, you are talking about governments. Are you claiming city, state and federal governments are somehow holding back their hiring and hoarding money? Are you claiming that one should not be allowed to buy government debt without strings attached? Both are ridiculous on their face. Imagine telling your bank that you want a loan but you also want them to undertake several aspects of their business practice as a reward for actually giving you the money you need.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

So hiring is caused not by healthy policy, but by perception? No wonder we're fucked. You can only pull the wool over companies' eyes and pretend things will be better down the road for so long before it all collapses, which is what we see happening as a result of the voodoo economics you subscribe to.

Let's say you cut taxes this year. Then there's a temporary bounce. Then companies start to get antsy about things again, and while taxes are still lower, soon enough, the Refucklicans (who themselves stand to benefit the most, of course) demand tax cuts again. And so on and so forth. You can't just keep cutting taxes, or sooner or later you are not receiving enough taxes to pay for the budget. Oh. Gee. That's exactly what happened already.

Responsible policy my ass.

Businesses need to be able to predict future activity to commit yourself to certain actions. This is easy to understand on a micro and macro level. I've got money parked right now that could easily buy and put into place a couple duplexes to start renting out. I won't do it because government keeps screwing with housing and there's simply no telling what they will do next.

Think about it on a small scale. Suppose you and your wife were planning a vacation that requires buying the tickets several months in advance. If she were acting crazy though and talking about leaving the marriage every other weekend, you'd be hesitant to purchase an expensive vacation package and dent your savings knowing a divorce court or apartment security deposit and rent might be in the future as well. You might decide on something that doesn't put you close to the financial edge.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #137 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I'm sure you'll think of something.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

So hiring is caused not by healthy policy, but by perception? No wonder we're fucked. You can only pull the wool over companies' eyes and pretend things will be better down the road for so long before it all collapses, which is what we see happening as a result of the voodoo economics you subscribe to.

Dude, please stop with the strawman arguments. I never claimed it was all perception, and you know it. Don't be obtuse.

Quote:

Let's say you cut taxes this year. Then there's a temporary bounce.

For a permanent cut? It would be more than temporary.

Quote:
Then companies start to get antsy about things again, and while taxes are still lower, soon enough, the Refucklicans (who themselves stand to benefit the most, of course) demand tax cuts again. And so on and so forth. You can't just keep cutting taxes, or sooner or later you are not receiving enough taxes to pay for the budget. Oh. Gee. That's exactly what happened already.

Responsible policy my ass.

You clearly have very little understanding of the economy and government revenue work.

First, companies aren't going to get "antsy" if there is nothing to get antsy about. Right now, this administration has business waiting for the other show to drop. Secondly, I don't see why Republicans would "benefit" the most from tax cuts. I'd love you to explain that one.

Last: Are you actually arguing that cutting taxes too much has resulted in us not having enough revenue to run the government? This claim is actually laughable. I suggest you reexamine it.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #138 of 140
Thread Starter 
Free Pizza giveaway to Warren Buffett-

"Warren Buffett might want to pay more taxes, but if Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain gets elected, Buffett might not pay any taxes at all.

If implemented, Cain's "999" tax plan would eliminate taxes on capital gains, significantly reducing Buffett's tax rate because his ordinary income, outside of capital gains, comes to about $4.9 million. Cain's plan would cap corporate, income and sales tax at 9 percent. According to an analysis prepared for Yahoo's Lookout by the American Institute of Certified Public accountants, the 999 plan would leave Buffett paying around $440,000 in income tax, or 1.1 percent of his approximate $40 million in currently taxable income.

As ThinkProgress notes, after deducting charitable deductions, which Cain plans to preserve in his tax plan, Buffett would likely pay no income taxes at all under 999.

~ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1016141.html

That just leaves him with the sales tax.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #139 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Free Pizza giveaway to Warren Buffett-

"Warren Buffett might want to pay more taxes, but if Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain gets elected, Buffett might not pay any taxes at all.

If implemented, Cain's "999" tax plan would eliminate taxes on capital gains, significantly reducing Buffett's tax rate because his ordinary income, outside of capital gains, comes to about $4.9 million. Cain's plan would cap corporate, income and sales tax at 9 percent. According to an analysis prepared for Yahoo's Lookout by the American Institute of Certified Public accountants, the 999 plan would leave Buffett paying around $440,000 in income tax, or 1.1 percent of his approximate $40 million in currently taxable income.

As ThinkProgress notes, after deducting charitable deductions, which Cain plans to preserve in his tax plan, Buffett would likely pay no income taxes at all under 999.

~ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1016141.html

That just leaves him with the sales tax.

Question:

Who really f*cking cares?


Answer:

People who are obsessed with wealth redistribution. People that think it's just not "fair" that Buffett makes $40 million a year and that he needs to contribute his "fair share", whatever that is. People that don't understand that taxes should exist to fund essential and desirable government operations, not to make things "fair." Personally, I'd love for Buffett to pay 1.1% of income in taxes if 9-9-9 created superb economic growth.

It's just more economic schizophrenia on your part.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #140 of 140
No surprises there. Liberals are so obsessed with punishing a tiny number of wealth inheritors (like Paris Hilton) and big companies (like Walmart), they are willing to damage their own economic interests to do it.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Obama's "Buffett Rule" Rules OK!