Unpleasant Truths: Reagan was for the Buffet Rule  

Mmm...buffet...

Hilarious how you think that Reagan would have supported Obama's "plan" based on that clip. They are not even describing the same situation.

Republicans c. 1980s/1990s = Democrats c. 2000s (see: health reform, taxes, immigration, global warming, transportation)

Republicans c. 2000s? I dunno. Unprecedented. Off the deep end.

I'm becoming increasingly confused. If Republicans were actually Democrats, and if Republicans like Reagan were actually a wealth re-distributing, open borders, global warming, universal health (mandate) care loving incredible centrists at a minimum, then why the heck didn't the Democrats jump on board the centrist train and pass all these wonderful measures that were supported by so many Republicans?

If Republicans were basically centrist Democrats, then what the hell were the Democrats to not climb on board and pass all this stuff decades earlier at a minimum or with measures that would not require these evil milllenium version of Republicans address it later?

I'm pretty sure it can't always have been about Republicans and whether they are more or less evil this decade or last decade. I think a few of those Democrats were elected and maybe even held high office.

In other words, if Republicans were for mandates, then why didn't Democrats pass mandates when they held the House up until 1994, held the Senate at various times and held the presidency for 8 years?

If they were for immigration reform, then how come it hasn't been touched since Reagan? Why is it that Republicans can get Democrats can co-author and even assist in the passage of extremist bills as George W. Bush did with Ted Kennedy helping with No Child Left Behind or with Hillary Clinton, Biden and Kerry all voting for the Iraq War, but nice centrist Democrats like Obama cannot find a single vote for his measures which are all reasonable per the claims.

I'm sorry but the labels don't match the actions. Clearly it is DLC Democrats and also largely Catholics that have been tossed from the Democratic Party. There are no more Blue Dog Democrats. The Democrats may have grabbed labels but the bills themselves clearly carry poison pills that make them untenable. For example Republicans did support cap and trade but with companies trading pollution credits instead of the government taking the revenues and using them to help put said companies out of business.

What's that you always say? Creating a false reality or narrative? Yeah...you're doing it now.

Since a very large proportion of Warren Buffett's income is from dividends, his tax rate is less than that of the janitors who clean the toilets in his office block. In his own words...

As Buffett says, this is generally true across the board.... the very rich to super rich economic brackets, on average, pay something between 0% and 15% (often towards the lower end). For the super wealthy, its easy to employ teams of skilled specialist tax accountants and lawyers to set up obtuse and complex schemes, just within the law, to avoid paying taxes... as opposed to evading tax... a subtle but legally significant difference.

Should the richest 1% pay so little compared to the 99%? What we have happening is an inverted form of scaled taxation rates... where even Forbes' flat tax' concept seems relatively fair (!). Who would have ever thought that!

Is it right and proper that the middle and working class do the nation's heavy lifting in terms of tax revenue? Is it possible for anyone to invent a "justification" for such a topsy turvy state of injustice?

As Warren Buffett undoubtedly (and hypocritically) does.

Frankly, I'm tired of a guy who's almost dead and who's got his talking about raising taxes that will have negative effects long after he's dead.






What needs to happen first is for spending to be reduced. Period. Spending is the problem not tax rates. The second problem is tax rates...that they should be lowered or even eliminated (at least for income).

It needs to be said: The governments (federal, state and local) of this country about about 5-10 times bigger and better funded than they should be. Period. Spending and taxes need to be cut significantly.

It isn't just in his own words. This is well understood by anyone who seeks out investment income instead of just earning salary.


It isn't just true of the rich. It is true of everyone who invests. If you own a single share of any stock that pays a dividend, then you will pay that tax on it. You'll also pay tax on interest from savings accounts, maturing bonds, etc.

Likewise it isn't just the super rich who use tax accountants. It is anyone with a business, anyone who has numerous investments and pretty much anyone who doesn't have the time to dig into the ever more complex tax code.

Flat tax proposals with rebates back for certain levels of income have been proposed and would dramatically simplify all this but Democrats hate them because they'd rather declare that paying double but having a team of specialists help you pay less than double is "fair" while everyone paying the same rate isn't "fair."



Regardless of rhetoric, most taxes are paid almost exclusively by upper income earners. Most of our problems are related to spending and needing to stop paying credits to people who haven't earned them while also dramatically broadening the tax base. The biggest favor Obama could do himself would be to simply let the Bush tax cuts expire. He won't though because he'd rather mess with gimmicks and engage in class warfare.

Actually it might be the best favor he could do for the Republicans also because when everyone realizes that their tax bills are higher and that the Bush tax cuts were not just for the rich and that the Democrats have been lying to them to all this time they might get a little pissed off.

It's been awhile since I've read the " Free Bacon... er......Beacon ".

You've gotta admire a site that has a catagory like " Hypocrtical Democrat Donors "

But I can see why with such good news sources ( that give such a balanced view ) allowing you to come to the conclusions that you ( and few of the rest of us ) do.

Nothing biased about that site. Nah!

This is unsurprising of course. Democrats are some of the best tax avoiders and even tax cheats.

I mean the fucking Treasury Secretary is a known tax cheat for goodness sake.

Obama's hypocrisy in this regard is minor in comparison to his appointees and as compared to his other hypocrisies.

Not evil. He's evil for other reasons. Merely hypocritical. This is the problem with leftists...you always want someone else to pay more taxes.

But of course he's more hypocritical for other reasons.

Of course it is, because you disagree with it.

MJ, I'm a little slow so I have to ask you to explain this to me: How does the posted story show hypocrisy by Obama?

It shows hypocrisy because it is a tax loophole used by the rich and well off to have the state "subsidize" their child's education per Obama's rhetoric and would not be available to Warren Buffett's secretary, Obama's secretary or anyone who doesn't hire a tax professional (or often an army of them per the rhetoric.)

Thus Obama is using the same type of tax deductions that he claims to loath, calls loopholes and claims are used by others to "not pay their fair share."

Since the average salary of most American households is around $50k, can they give $48k to their children tax free?

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

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.

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.

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.



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.

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



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



I know.



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



Oooh...now we have implications of criminal tax evasion. Goody. I'll wait for your evidence.

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.



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.

Thanks for sharing your opinion about my reasoning abilities.

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.

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.


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.


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.


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.


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.

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?!"

Originally Posted by BR:


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.

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.