Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The "Buffet" Rule, New Poll  
User currently offlineflymia From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 7123 posts, RR: 9
Posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2674 times:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...10-support-buffett-rule/?hpt=hp_t2

So according to this poll 7 out of 10 people are in favor of the Buffet rule. This makes me want to say 7 out of 10 people don't see a purely political, insignificant tax code change if it hit them on head. Or makes me want to say 7 out of 10 people do not understand finance.

Anyway I think it would be interesting to get the view points of not only US anet members but members all over the world.

My opinion on the rule is obvious. I just see it as a pure political move. People have done the math and the amount of money the government would see an increase from tax revenue from the Buffet rule would be minuscule at best. The affects of it on the other hand would not be know. Sure it sounds good but is it really a good idea? My fear is Americans might become obsessed with the pure numbers. How it is unfair a millionaire is only paying 15% of their income compared to their 25 or 30%. Never mind the fact in how they made that income or that they are signing checks for hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars to the government.

Comments, thoughts?


"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
160 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8942 posts, RR: 40
Reply 1, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2652 times:

There is already a "millionaires tax" - it's called the Alternative Minimum tax.

It was designed to hit the top 100-200 or so, can't remember. But now it's hitting millions of people it was never supposed to hit.

Aside from the fact that those pushing the Buffett rule are taking advantage of the ignorance of most people about how the tax code works for their own political gains. That's corrupt and offensive.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13517 posts, RR: 62
Reply 2, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2615 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 1):
those pushing the Buffett rule are taking advantage of the ignorance of most people about how the tax code works for their own political gains. That's corrupt and offensive.

  

Well-said.

The "Buffett Rule" was projected to have raised only $4.7B a year, or about 1/2 of 1 percent of President Obama's current annual budget deficit. This was purely political, as that number was not going to make any meaningful dent in the out-of-control spending of the President and Congress.

"The rich" already pay far more than their fair share of taxes, particularly when you consider that nearly half of all Americans effectively pay zero in taxes to begin with. Also, history has shown that when you target taxes at "the rich" they change their spending and investing habits to avoid those excessive taxes, ultimately bringing in less tax revenue overall.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlinego3team From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3267 posts, RR: 16
Reply 3, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2609 times:

As I understand it, that tax rate is for investments. What happens if they do raise the tax, and the people that do make large investments decide that the tax rate is too much?


Yay Pudding!
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2713 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2534 times:

Quoting flymia (Thread starter):
So according to this poll 7 out of 10 people are in favor of the Buffet rule.

Of course they are because they are not paying it. Just like 50% of the country that pays no federal taxes is happy with the other 50% paying for their share. What a joke



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21526 posts, RR: 55
Reply 5, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2530 times:

Quoting flymia (Thread starter):
People have done the math and the amount of money the government would see an increase from tax revenue from the Buffet rule would be minuscule at best.The affects of it on the other hand would not be know.

That financial impact would be miniscule at best has never stopped the GOP from wanting to eliminate government programs with unknown consequences.

Quoting go3team (Reply 3):
What happens if they do raise the tax, and the people that do make large investments decide that the tax rate is too much?

They'll still be better off investing it than not investing it.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39703 posts, RR: 75
Reply 6, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2520 times:

More election year, feel good politics that accomplishes nothing.
Our government is out of control and needs to CONTROL SPENDING! ! ! !

Quoting flymia (Thread starter):
So according to this poll 7 out of 10 people are in favor of the Buffet rule.
Quoting PPVRA (Reply 1):
It was designed to hit the top 100-200 or so, can't remember. But now it's hitting millions of people it was never supposed to hit.

Won't be 7 out of 10 people when the government starts stepping on their toes. They'll realize that they'll be considered top wage earners even though they earn less than $60,000.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 2):
The "Buffett Rule" was projected to have raised only $4.7B a year,

That only covers the amount of money we give to Pakistan.   

I am now considered a rich fat cat for simply having a non-US bank account. Thanks to the new FATCA law that was slipped in to Obama's jobs bill. This new law claims to go after rich fat cats with large bank accounts in Switzerland and The Cayman Islands. So now, anyone with a non-US bank account that has more than $10,000 in or transferred throughout the year is now considered a rich fat cat.
Now the IRS can after US citizens private banking transactions in other countries.
Since when is having $10,000 a year considered rich?!??!  Wow!
Quoting Mir (Reply 5):
That financial impact would be miniscule at best has never stopped the GOP from wanting to eliminate government programs with unknown consequences.

Well we certainly know the consequences of pissing money away in to foreign countries that hate us, routinely vote against us at the U.N., funds warlords, terrorist that have no interest in having any diplomacy or peace with us.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2713 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2520 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 5):
from wanting to eliminate government programs with unknown consequences.

Most should of never been started in the first place. Most federal programs need to be eliminated before any taxes are raised.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4475 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2512 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 7):
Most federal programs

Yeah, lets get rid of defense, social security and Medicaid. It would end the deficit.  

More dumb rhetoric about cutting programs is just as stupid as only pushing tax raises or cuts.


There needs to be a blanced solution.

We currently have a Progressive Tax Structure in the USA. All of us are part of it. To not make the next logical step and have a higher tax bracket for those in the higher income is not logical. Especially since they have more Disposable income. IE income that is not needed for basic survival. Also once out of the 100 K range, they no longer have to pay Social Security. that is an extra 6% right there.

The other reason we need this, is that we need to pay off the deficit.
That's a 15 trillion dollar debt hanging out there. We need more taxes, and we need to soundly reduce revenue.

The buffet rule makes sense since it hits the highest incomes, and if someone looses their income/job, then their income goes down and they don't pay as many taxes.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3874 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2509 times:

This line, and it's wording, is why I view such acts with disdain - "The bill is intended to prevent the wealthy from paying a lower actual tax rate than most middle class workers."

Specifically the "prevent the wealthy", not "high income earners", just "wealthy"...

Taxing income is fine, but taxing wealth? No, that's over the line for me.

Why does Buffet pay less than his secretary? Does he actually earn less or is he paid in other ways? If its just because he's earning less, then there is actually no issue here despite the fact that he's a very wealthy man. If he's being paid in other ways then that needs to reassessed as income.


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39703 posts, RR: 75
Reply 10, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2507 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 8):
Yeah, lets get rid of defense, social security and Medi....

  
Slow down my friend.  

Don't fall for the hook-line about cutting government spending would end essential services. People who want to cut spending want to cut the wasteful spending.
Why did we spend $800,000.00 to teach tribal men in central Africa how to was their scrotum sack after having sex? Yes our tax dollars supported a program to do just that.
Why are we giving money to North Korea? Cuba? Venezuela? Russia? Iran?
We're giving money to nations that don't even like us and never will!



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8942 posts, RR: 40
Reply 11, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2495 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 9):
Why does Buffet pay less than his secretary? Does he actually earn less or is he paid in other ways?

People like Buffett who own companies pay taxes on income twice: once on the corporate income level, and once when income is distributed to owners. This has been termed double taxation.

When Buffett files his personal tax return, only the income distribution tax portion is included in his personal income form. And because the income distribution tax is lower than regular income taxes, you have this appearance that Mr. Buffett actually pays a lower effective income tax on his earnings than his secretary, who of course earns much less.

If you eliminated this unfair double taxation, it would appear to make him pay an even lower effective tax rate compared to his secretary.

But this is just an illusion because of how the tax code is structured because it does not include all of Mr. Buffett's income nor all of his taxes paid.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4475 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2494 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 10):
Slow down my friend.

I was only talking about wild calls for cutting "most federal programs"

There is plenty of bloat. I still believe a 5-10% across the board federal funding reduction would help prioritize funding within most federal programs as a start. There is far too much bloat, especally as the recent GSA issues highlight.

But to just highlight spending cuts is still missing the point. We need to pay off a massive debt.
Revenues need to increase to service and pay down that debt. At this point, we just need revenue and spending cuts to even break even.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39703 posts, RR: 75
Reply 13, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2472 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 12):
But to just highlight spending cuts is still missing the point. We need to pay off a massive debt.
Revenues need to increase to service and pay down that debt. At this point, we just need revenue and spending cuts to even break even.

Make cuts like crazy and have a 10% flat-tax across the board with NO deductions.
Yes I know a few people are going to be unhappy about that but so be it. The benefits would outweigh the negatives. We'd be able to downsized the IRS by 95% and doing your taxes would be as simple as mailing a post card.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6573 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2473 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting windy95 (Reply 4):
Of course they are because they are not paying it. Just like 50% of the country that pays no federal taxes is happy with the other 50% paying for their share. What a joke

And that is why there are some thing that are not left to will of voters (cough..gay marriage.. cough)



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6573 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2470 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flymia (Thread starter):

My opinion on the rule is obvious. I just see it as a pure political move.

Of course its political. Just like the Ryan Budget.



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5358 posts, RR: 14
Reply 16, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2456 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 1):
There is already a "millionaires tax" - it's called the Alternative Minimum tax.


We've been hit by the AMT for the last 4 years and I can assure you, we are not even close to millionaires.

Quoting moo (Reply 9):
Specifically the "prevent the wealthy", not "high income earners", just "wealthy"...


I think you've hit on it. In this country, we tax income, not wealth (at least, not directly). The big government types would love to be able to get at people's wealth. It would allow for...bigger government.

You know, it's been said and said and written about and blogged about, but we don't really have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem. Until we (Left, Right and everyone else) stops spending, we will not get out of this.

Quoting Mir (Reply 5):
That financial impact would be miniscule at best has never stopped the GOP from wanting to eliminate government programs with unknown consequences.


Because, cutting spending is, at this point, more important than raising revenue. Cutting a billion has more impact that raising a billion.

It goes back to the adage of something expanding to fill a void. If we raise revenue (and I don't accept the premise that an increase in the cap. gains tax will automatically do that due to investor behaviour), spending will just increase to absorb the gain.

Control spending first and then, look to revenue increases, if necessary.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 17, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2454 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 4):
Just like 50% of the country that pays no federal taxes

And that is why half the workers in the country never ever have to file federal income tax.

uh-huh.

Instead of cut, cut, cut which will INCREASE the deficit, the Democrats are actually talking about adding income and cuts.

Let's put this in real world terms: A person recieves $100 a month and spends every penny on food and rent and has credit cards. That person decides to slash their income by half and buy a car. What the Democrats want to do is, at the very least, buy a scooter and increase income up to $125. Bad, but not as bad as increase spending with no further income.

And, let the Bush cuts expire.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21526 posts, RR: 55
Reply 18, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2443 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 16):

Because, cutting spending is, at this point, more important than raising revenue. Cutting a billion has more impact that raising a billion.

They're equally important.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 16):
Control spending first and then, look to revenue increases, if necessary.

You can't do one without the other. Nobody likes decreased government services, and nobody likes tax increases, even though both are necessary. Do only one of them, and you're likely not going to have the political will to get the necessary revenue increases at a later date. And then you're left with a solution that hits at one group disproportionately (the poor if it's spending cuts, the rich if it's revenue increases), which shouldn't be an acceptable solution.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39703 posts, RR: 75
Reply 19, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2437 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 18):
Nobody likes decreased government services
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 16):
Because, cutting spending is, at this point, more important than raising revenue. Cutting a billion has more impact that raising a billion.



*** F O R E I G N - A I D ***

Hello?!?!
We piss away $82,733,000,000.00 annually in foreign aid.
There is a good place to start cuts right there!
The last place to make cuts is in domestic services. We need to cut the billions we piss away each year.
A nation that has a debt of $15,000,000,000,000.00 is in NO position to hand out money to other countries. Especially countries that hate us.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...eign_commerce_aid/foreign_aid.html

[Edited 2012-04-17 08:52:00]


Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3874 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2435 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 18):
You can't do one without the other. Nobody likes decreased government services, and nobody likes tax increases, even though both are necessary. Do only one of them, and you're likely not going to have the political will to get the necessary revenue increases at a later date. And then you're left with a solution that hits at one group disproportionately (the poor if it's spending cuts, the rich if it's revenue increases), which shouldn't be an acceptable solution.

I disagree here - if you increase revenue, you don't need to decrease spending, and equally if you decrease spending you don't need to increase revenue. There is no correlative link between the two - the link is in the minds of those doing the spending, they want to increase both at the same time.

And that is where we arrive at the current problem - spending that is out of control, backed by the perception that the only solution is to increase revenue...

Something that might be relevant in this thread, excuse me if it isn't, is the current situation in the UK with regard to public pensions - the pension plans held by government workers who pay into a government owned pension fund.

My wife is a doctor, everyone thinks that that is a glamorous, well payed job - it isn't.

However, one of the things it has going for it is that the final salary pension fund that NHS doctors are part of is revenue generating.

Its in the black.

It generates profits. Of £10.5Billion a year. A year.

Thats profits after the fund has generated enough increase in value that year to support the estimated pay outs in the future for those paying in now. This fund is seriously paid up.

The Government "borrows" that £10.5Billion excess profit a year from the fund and uses it for general spending. They gain that money, because they ain't ever going to pay it back (legally they don't have to, because the fund doesn't technically need it).

And yet the Government are trying to force NHS doctors to pay more in, take less out, and retire later. Because they want *more* money each year from this fund, more money for general spending.

Ridiculous! What sort of thinking makes that sound acceptable to anyone?


User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2713 posts, RR: 8
Reply 21, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2423 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 12):
I was only talking about wild calls for cutting "most federal programs"

Dept of Energy, Dept of Education, Dept of Agriculture and allowing citizens to opt out of the Ponzi schemes that are Social Security and Medicare would be a start. Cancelling the JSF and stopping all future military projects like it would be another. So yes we could make massive military cuts if we controlled the waste and stopped the pork barrel spending done in districts and states becasue of items added to budgets by congress.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 12):
Revenues need to increase to service and pay down that debt.

By an improved economy not by taking more from it's citizens.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 14):
Quoting windy95 (Reply 4):Of course they are because they are not paying it. Just like 50% of the country that pays no federal taxes is happy with the other 50% paying for their share. What a joke

And that is why there are some thing that are not left to will of voters (cough..gay marriage.. cough)

Agree. Nothing should be passed by the people with a 50% winner. Any public vote or refurendum should be passed with a 2/3rds amjority.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 15):
Of course its political. Just like the Ryan Budget

Yes cutting the deficit is so political.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 17):
Instead of cut, cut, cut which will INCREASE the deficit,

Care to elaborate?

Quoting Mir (Reply 18):
You can't do one without the other

Why not. It is spending explosion that put us into this mess. Not lack of revenue



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineflymia From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 7123 posts, RR: 9
Reply 22, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2412 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 8):
Especially since they have more Disposable income. IE income that is not needed for basic survival

Basic survival? So lets just tax them 70%?

Quoting casinterest (Reply 8):
We currently have a Progressive Tax Structure in the USA. All of us are part of it. To not make the next logical step and have a higher tax bracket for those in the higher income is not logical

But the people with high wealth already pay most of the taxes to begin with. This is about investment income money that has already been taxed at the worlds highest corporate tax rate.

Quoting moo (Reply 9):
Why does Buffet pay less than his secretary? Does he actually earn less or is he paid in other ways?

He does not "pay" less. He pays much much more in actual money, millions of dollars. But because the vast majority of his income is from investments he pays a lower rate.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 15):
Of course its political. Just like the Ryan Budget.

At least the Ryan Budget is a budget, not saying it is great or it will get paseed but it is an actual budget. Not some change that will create zero change of the system.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 17):
Instead of cut, cut, cut which will INCREASE the deficit, the Democrats are actually talking about adding income and cuts.

This adds such a small amount of income it is not even worth talking about. Obama is going to run this saying he wants it to be "fair" to the average American.



"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6573 posts, RR: 6
Reply 23, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2410 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Superfly (Reply 19):

*** F O R E I G N - A I D ***

Hello?!?!
We piss away $82,733,000,000.00 annually in foreign aid.

In another thread, you criticize Obama for not "leading:" in the Colombia when it came to Cuba, How do you think that the US gets its ability to "persuade" governments and people? By handing out money.

So, you want the US to be a leader, but you want to cut the money which makes it a leader.

The leader is the one that has the money.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 21):
Quoting mt99 (Reply 15):
Of course its political. Just like the Ryan Budget

Yes cutting the deficit is so political.

I am glad you finally accept it.



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineslider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6785 posts, RR: 34
Reply 24, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2389 times:

Quoting flymia (Thread starter):
Or makes me want to say 7 out of 10 people do not understand finance.

True!!

Quoting Superfly (Reply 6):
More election year, feel good politics that accomplishes nothing.
Our government is out of control and needs to CONTROL SPENDING! ! ! !

Amen brother---it's just window dressing crap and another equivalent of bread & circuses.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 11):
People like Buffett who own companies pay taxes on income twice: once on the corporate income level, and once when income is distributed to owners. This has been termed double taxation.

When Buffett files his personal tax return, only the income distribution tax portion is included in his personal income form. And because the income distribution tax is lower than regular income taxes, you have this appearance that Mr. Buffett actually pays a lower effective income tax on his earnings than his secretary, who of course earns much less.

If you eliminated this unfair double taxation, it would appear to make him pay an even lower effective tax rate compared to his secretary.

But this is just an illusion because of how the tax code is structured because it does not include all of Mr. Buffett's income nor all of his taxes paid.

Now, you just naile dthe crux of the issue essentially, and yet NO WHERE on TV or in the news is this being conveyed. Fundamental tax policy that many Americans--unless they invest actively--are ignorant about. And the thronging masses MOST likely to be duped by this scam are the ones who fall for the class envy card being played because they're exactly the ones who don't invest (but should, frankly!)

Quoting mt99 (Reply 15):
Of course its political. Just like the Ryan Budget.

You besmirch Paul Ryan's Roadmap at your own ignorance, respectully.

The US Senate hasn't passed a budget in about 1,100 days. No one has a clue. The POTUS is calling for MORE spending, punitive tax policy (as if it isn't already a disproportional shaper of class economics and social policy), and NO ONE in DC has offered a SINGLE budget proposal that balances the budget, reduces spending and cuts the size and scope of the governemnt leviathan. No one.

Ryan is the only guy in DC with his head screwed on straight, the only grown-up in the room who is having these mature, calm discussions about the very solvency of our nation and future as a viable republic.


25 seb146 : Like the Bush tax cuts for millionares and billionares? Like corporate welfare? So doing nothing is better than doing something? Many economists have
26 Post contains images Superfly : Wrong. If that were true, then it would work but it doesn't. So by your definition, we have no leader because we are $15 TRILLION in debt. As we can
27 mt99 : It has been true for decades. How can you say it doesn't work? No silly buns, As far as % goes, contrast that the the debt that Latin America has in
28 moo : So the figures given in the media are really just his income as an employee of the company? If thats correct, then I see no issue. As for the investm
29 mt99 : Careful. you are calling GOP voters ignorant...
30 moo : Would that be a step up or something?
31 Post contains images Superfly : Well duh! Nice try but can you explain to us why we give; $1,000,000,000.00 to Iran $223,000,000.00 to Russia $158,000,000.00 to Kazakhstan $550,000,
32 moo : I'd love to see a citation on that... I'm currently in the process of building a hospital in Uganda, and I have to say that thats a country that need
33 fr8mech : No, they aren't. If you don't curb spending, then any increase in revenue is wasted. You must curb spending. In your household budget, the first thin
34 Post contains links Superfly : Here you go. It was part of Obama's 'stimulus package'. http://cnsnews.com/node/75198 http://dailybail.com/home/obama-stim...s-to-african-hiv-genital
35 Mir : In theory, you're correct. But the country is in such a hole that doing only one will impose too much of a hardship on a particular group. So you nee
36 Post contains links mt99 : Maybe ask Sarah Palin about fruit fly research http://www.salon.com/2008/10/27/sarah_palin_fruit_flies/ Note how did you not answer my question...
37 Post contains images Superfly : Both parties are guilty of waste so no point in playing Micky Mouse games about 'the other party' is doing it too non-sense. Sounds like you're holdi
38 mt99 : Ugh really? No.. i asked first (reply 27)
39 fr8mech : You look for the higher paying job (assuming there is one to be had) or cut into your leisure time (get the 2nd or 3rd job) if you can't cut anymore.
40 Post contains images par13del : Good luck trying to get any party to tie tax or revenue increases to paying down debt, earmarks do not apply in paying off debt. A bit too simplistic
41 DocLightning : You wanna total that up and tell me what percent of the budget it is?
42 casinterest : That's the biggest problem with our elected officials. They can't stand to pay down debt, when they would rather spend more to bring in more support
43 Post contains images Superfly : Never said stop all foreign aid but I'm not a fan of giving money to Israel & Palestine either. There needs to be a review and audit of every dol
44 EA CO AS : Does it matter? It's just as inappropriate as someone on food stamps trying to use a few bucks to buy some beer; it may not break the bank, but consi
45 Mir : Of course not. But you're making it seem like discussions on how to cut spending (or raise revenue for that matter) are as simple for the government
46 mt99 : Agreed.. But you have to look for the best "bang for buck",... Are you really going to police beer purchases while leaving gaping holes elsewhere? It
47 moo : It will surprise you but China are *massive* in central Africa, building government facilities, roads, rail, schools, clinics, electrification and wa
48 Superfly : Great. I still think our foreign aid needs to be audited.
49 einsteinboricua : What I find funny in this comment is that if we lose our footing to China or Russia or Iran, then it'll be Obama's fault because he was supposed to h
50 N537FX : The main problem with the Buffet rule is the theme of fair share. What is fair share? It is an abstract term and every one has their own definition or
51 fr8mech : or, "let's be smart about our foreign aid and demand some return for it, whether that return be diplomatic or economic." or, "let's streamline our mi
52 Mir : 30% is the number that keeps being talked about. I don't think it should go much higher than that. Because you'll still get to keep a good portion of
53 par13del : Difference with the US is that China is finding work for its citizens, other than military and police personnel the US simply sends / spends money wi
54 seb146 : Why, then, is our unemployment rate over 8%? That's when you do the patriotic thing and put all that extra money off-shore. That way, you only pay 15
55 Post contains images Superfly : As I stated in reply #6, it is just election year, feel good politics and Obama needs to find something new to campaign on. It's not like he can run
56 NorthstarBoy : Sure, and so would alot of mega mansion builders, mega yacht builders, sports car builders, high end luxury car makers. All in all you're talking abo
57 windy95 : Obama’s huge deficit is due not to declining revenues, but to runaway spending. The Bush tax cuts did not cause tax revenues to fall, but to rise.
58 seb146 : That money is not able to be invested in the United States. It is being invested in the country where it is sitting: Switzerland, Cayman Islands, Bar
59 Superfly : So? Some of us live in another country and need to have a local bank. This new law which claims to go after the 'rich fat cats' with overseas bank ac
60 Mir : Inflation distorts those numbers. Revenue as a percentage of GDP was about 21% prior to the Bush tax cuts. The highest it ever got after that was abo
61 fr8mech : I don't know? Forward deployment? Show the flag? Treaty commitments? Because we can? That's why I said we need to do a review of our deployments, our
62 windy95 : Do you have a point here? What do property taxes have to due with Federal revenue? What does getting a 2nd or 3rd job have to due with tax cuts and t
63 seb146 : How? Be telling everyone what happend? Shipping all those jobs overseas, getting tax breaks and corporate welfare under Bush? Like that? All those jo
64 slider : Ignorance is universal. it's why we have an uninformed, apathetic, emotionally-driven electorate that votes one way or the other. Never questioning w
65 fr8mech : Getting away from topic, but.... Do you know who drove those jobs overseas? How about you and me? Our demand for inexpensive products drove them over
66 casinterest : This would be the downfall of society. Not everyone or their earnings is equal. The reason for a progressive tax rate is simple. People that make mor
67 windy95 : Almost 50% of wage earners pay no income tax so this is BS. The point was that revenues have risen since the Bush tax cuts and the middle class and p
68 Mir : Yet they will be paying a lower percentage of their disposable income. That's not a penalty, that's an advantage. -Mir
69 NorthstarBoy : When you consider the tax to income ratio, they really aren't paying more. Under a flat tax scenario the wealthy person would be paying much less of
70 Post contains images EA CO AS : So when I vacation in Switzerland, the Caymans or Barbados am I being "unpatriotic" by spending money there? Come on... Tell me this; how is it UNFAI
71 Mir : Let's assume for the sake of argument that the minimum amount of money you need to live is $20,000 (including rent/mortage, food, clothing, transport
72 EA CO AS : I understand. But again, how is that unfair to the "poor" person, then? Yes, I understand that "inherent regressive nature" argument, but I still don
73 Mir : What, leaving them with a lower percentage of their income isn't shortchanging them? Why is it okay to do that, but taxing the wealthy at a higher pe
74 EA CO AS : They're coming away with the same percentage of income; it's the buying power of what's left of their income after taxes that's lower, but that's jus
75 Superfly : I had proposed a 10% flat tax. The "hurting the poor" argument is weak when you compare that with the obvious advantage of eliminating 95% of the IRS
76 seb146 : I have a job. Every week, my pay check has federal and state income tax deductions. How do I pay no income tax when I can see I am paying income tax?
77 EA CO AS : You said it all right here. Full-stop.
78 Mir : I don't disagree. There is going to be some inequality in the system - that in itself is not inherently bad. Doesn't mean we should accept the level
79 Post contains images Superfly : Thanks. When I was making minimum wage or just above it, I still remember being taxed a lot and it was more than the 10% that I proposed. Taxes were
80 LMP737 : Here's the mistake the President is making, calling it the Buffet rule. What he should have done was back a plan that returned income and captial gain
81 Post contains images Superfly : Agreed because the first thing I think is all you can eat honey baked ham, prime rib, salad, roasted chicken, dumplings, mashed potatoes with gravy,
82 EA CO AS : It also doesn't mean that combating that "level of inequality" should be done by levying higher, more confiscatory rates against those who earn more
83 Superfly : The changes in the amount a poor person pays is so small compared to the advantage of reducing the size of the IRS. There are 106,000 IRS employees. C
84 casinterest : That is just nuts. Get rid of the Mortgage deduction , and thier is NO incentive for home ownership. Get rid of the Child deduction, and their is mor
85 Superfly : Nope. Nope. With a 10% flat tax that comes out of your income, there would be no need for such a large department to deal with all of the loopholes,
86 Mir : I'm not so concerned with combating that inequality as I am with having a tax structure that encourages it. There's a reason that you don't see many
87 Superfly : They have to pay for living expenses already. Your living expense argument isn't relevant because people earning less pay the exact same price as the
88 homsaR : That might be one of the best twists of logic I've ever seen. You falsely equate the 23% of their income that Mir calculates to the 90% of their inco
89 casinterest : then you apparently didn't know how to fill out a W-4 or file your taxes correctly. Your standard excemption would have given just about all of it ba
90 moo : Other than owning your own home...? I don't need a taxable deduction to see the benefits of owning my own home here in the UK, I can't imagine its an
91 Mir : On the contrary - that's exactly why it's relevant. -Mir
92 casinterest : The benefits of owning a home vs renting can be debated, especially when infrastucture expenses are made . The tax benefits of a mortgage make it mor
93 Post contains images Superfly : I don't agree with that either. Who started Southwest Airlines in the first place? It wasn't some country-bumkin in a trailer park. I takes a lot of
94 fr8mech : So, go to a consumption tax after setting a 'standard of living' floor. I'll disagree that the tax deductibility is the incentive for any of these ac
95 mt99 : And Romney is going to do that?
96 casinterest : The new law goes against higher earners by using a higher progressive tax rate. It is nothing different than what existed during reagon. Please expla
97 fr8mech : Didn't know we were talking about Mr. Romney. But, I don't know, maybe he would go for it. I was just thinking a loud (or a print). Set the 'standard
98 mt99 : Just highlight the choices coming up in Nov. Love to criticize Obama's plan - and you guys counter with a hypothetical plan - which will not be a cho
99 Post contains links Superfly : Every bank in the world that has any US passport holder's account that has any banking activity totaling more than $10,000 in a single year will be r
100 fr8mech : Read carefully...I say federal government. We all benefit (rich and poor and everyone else, alike) from the essential functions of government. I argu
101 Post contains images casinterest : So you are advocating a progressive structure for tax reporting and exemption here I see your point on this tax, but it highlights the reason why fla
102 casinterest : We don't have just a spending problem, we have a revenue and debt problem as well. We can't keep putting off the other problems to soley focus on a s
103 slider : totally disagree. When you look at the deficit and rampant out of control spending, we could curb the debt and deficits by eliminating govt waste alo
104 Post contains images Dreadnought : Do you recognize that implementing the Buffet Rule will increase revenue by only $4 billion a year? When federal expenditures are a thousand times th
105 windy95 : The left always refuses this argument about putting control of things back to the states that belongs to them. They want their one size fits all visi
106 LMP737 : When you read the section on defense spending it's obvious that Paul Ryan really is not serious either. He talks about how the US is engaged in comba
107 casinterest : Look at what happens anytime our Congressional leaders get near anything worth cutting. The only way to do anything is slowly and incrementally, and
108 Dreadnought : No it hasn't. It got a hell of a lot worse when the Bush tax cuts went into effect a decade ago, which, in spite of all the propaganda, dropped every
109 mt99 : In that time frame you have 8 years of GWB .. just wanted to point that out.,..[Edited 2012-04-20 14:35:58]
110 casinterest : The CEO of Home Depot has to compete against big boxes that didn't exist xyz years ago, It is a different market, Yes it absolutley crushed facebook,
111 Post contains images Dreadnought : No question, GWB did not improve things, but he was never a fiscal conservative. He ran as a "compassionate conservative", aka a progressive Republic
112 casinterest : Yeah, well CEO's are not known for thier complete honesty in evaluating conditions. Has become? It has always been beaurocratic. The higher up in my
113 FlyPNS1 : No, because it's a total lie being put forward by someone with a political axe to grind. And most of that bureaucracy was created by PRIVATE corporat
114 Dreadnought : You are thinking about politicians. A CEO who cannot evaluate the market effectively and manage his company accordingly does not keep his job for ver
115 mt99 : Can you share some concrete examples? So were you complaining back then? was this guy?
116 Post contains images Superfly : That's the damn truth and I was surprised to find out that I was caught in his net of 'rich fat cats' for simply having a non-US bank account. Privat
117 mt99 : Is that the reason why Thailand is the beacon of progress, technology and riches that it is today?
118 Dreadnought : Cheap shot. Surely you aren't saying that our 150,000 federal regulations plus a similar number of state and local regs are the reason for our succes
119 Post contains images Superfly : They're certainly on the right track to success. Compare that to the track the US is on.... I can't wait to hear the answer to that one.
120 mt99 : Success? Hmm ok.. tell me when Thailand has a standard of living on par with the US. I wish them the best, i truly do.. they are wonderful people I a
121 Superfly : Of course not, it's still a developing nation. Same for Brasil, Argentina, Malaysia, South Korea and other developing nations. However that may chang
122 mt99 : Tell me which ones and we can start a talking.. Are you saying that the, Argentina, Malaysia, South Korea and other developing nations will not be de
123 Superfly : Dude, you're the one boasting about how great our regulations are and justifying why the government needs to go after more people to get more money.
124 mt99 : A crappy comparison at that... You brought it up first.. See- you are changing topic Because the US is a nation of laws. laws get codified as regulat
125 Post contains images Superfly : You have zero authority to make that assessment. If you would at least prove him wrong and/or cite examples as to why his comparison is "crappy", the
126 mt99 : Overblown baseless claims like the one below sways your opinion? Why is that a crappy comparison: 1 - No concrete examples listed 3- No concrete exam
127 Post contains links LMP737 : This relates to post 106. It would appear that once again the GOP really is not that serious about the deficit. Mitt seems to think that all you need
128 PPVRA : LOL that's utterly pathetic. It's beyond any doubt that the closer to a market economy you have, with fewer economic regulations, the better your eco
129 mt99 : Show me. I beg to differ. I can have 1 regulation, that is extremely oppressive, compared to 100,000 that in concert are less oppressive than a singl
130 Post contains links PPVRA : http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking The freer, the less regulations. The very definition of regulations implies a restriction on freedom. Sure, it's
131 mt99 : Thats my point. Please help me explain to Dreadnaught and Superfly But you need regulations to protect this knowledge! Patents ect Look Superfly. loo
132 PPVRA : Sometimes, it maybe easier in those countries because you may be able to "grease the wheels" by slipping some money under the table. Not to mention,
133 Mir : Just so I've got this straight: you're not actually advocating for corruption, right? -Mir
134 Post contains images Superfly : Ummm, the entire world is well aware of the growth in India. You need examples for this? India as well as many other developing nations are growing b
135 Post contains links mt99 : [/quote] No, that was not the claim i am looking for proof. This is: You still have to prove this, Yes i do . You must be incredibly knowledgeable to
136 Post contains links and images Superfly : Didn't realize I was given a homework assignment. That is insane. Obamacare alone is 2700 pages. The other 150,000 rules & regulations are also h
137 Superfly : Having problems problems on my end. Here is the article online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203863204574346610120524166 online wsj article SB1000
138 FlyPNS1 : The funny thing about this link is that it clearly proves most conservatives on this thread wrong. The U.S. is rated as one of the freest economies i
139 casinterest : Most CEO's don't last as long as a senator or President. Especially in the big companies. Not disagreeing here. We need more revenue. Tax Rates are t
140 PPVRA : Of course not. Just saying how certain things get done in these places, unfortunately.
141 Mir : So, basically, the way things get done in those places make things easier for some businesses (those that are well-connected or can afford to act lik
142 Post contains links mt99 : If you asked Wal Mart. would they say Mexico is more business friendly than than the US? http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfi...e-shows-the-risk-of-i
143 Post contains images Dreadnought : The trend is falling fast.
144 casinterest : Did you even read the article? or do you just sigh because you realize you fell for another online Glen Beck lie?
145 FlyPNS1 : From 81 to 76....and I might note the score of 76 is the same score given in 2000. And most of that fall is purely debt related and not driven by reg
146 Flighty : Rather than a Buffet tax, I'd much rather see taxes reduced on people making 100k-1m per year. If capital gains is 15% or 20%, so should be the tax on
147 mt99 : I doubt the whole lower tax=cheaper prices link. Look what happened when congress failed to extent the FAA so those taxes could not be collected for
148 Post contains images Superfly : Yep and I have no idea nor care what Glen Beck has to say. I trust the Wall Street Journal as a reliable source. Read the link in the following post.
149 Post contains links casinterest : [/quote] you do realize that this link of yours is from the opinion section. Looks like another person fell for the lies and misinformation of conserv
150 Flighty : It depends if you pay taxes. If you pay a lot, you'd have more money if taxes were cut down to 15% or 20%. No ambiguity there. That is one way to obe
151 FlyPNS1 : But what are all the inept programs that help nobody? The four biggest line items in the budget are Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and Defense.
152 Flighty : Money helps people too. There is a cost for these things. That cost is paid by real people, often children. When determining whether benefits program
153 Superfly : Doesn't change the fact that the government needs to cut spending.
154 casinterest : and the sky is blue, and the grass is green. However if you think that the deficit needs to go down, then you can reduce spending. However there is c
155 Post contains images Superfly : No argument there. Cut spending + a flat tax with NO deductions where everyone pays is a quick & easy way to bring in revenue. Yes your taxes wou
156 casinterest : That would be fine, but I wouldn't want a flat tax, as it would unequivalcally give a bigger break to the rich while putting more of a burde on the p
157 Superfly : True. It isn't fair but the benefits outweighs the negative. No need for a huge bureaucratic system and need to hire lawyers just to handle taxes. It
158 casinterest : That was for 2009 when the mortgage crisis decimated their financing unit. THey do have agressive strategies for avoiding taxes, but that is a Corpor
159 Superfly : With a CEO who is also the President's jobs czar that exported jobs to China. Do you see corruption in any of this? Wouldn't you agree that they need
160 Flighty : Supe, one first point is that GE is one of the finest employers in the US today. They also invented a ton of things (as you know) that made the US re
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
The Final Destination (New Movie) posted Thu Aug 13 2009 13:20:19 by BMIFlyer
Running Of The Bulls In New Orleans '09 posted Sun Jul 12 2009 10:27:40 by MSYtristar
Why All The Fuss About New England Storm? posted Sat Apr 14 2007 21:24:49 by AsstChiefMark
In the Market For A New Computer posted Wed Dec 27 2006 21:09:17 by JAGflyer
The Hunt For A New Horse posted Wed Aug 30 2006 17:11:37 by Jap
New Poll/Survey: More Bad News For Democrats posted Mon Oct 18 2004 13:14:32 by L-188
Straight Plan For The Gay Man: New Reality Show posted Thu Feb 12 2004 16:03:55 by ConcordeBoy
Does The US Need A New CIA Director? posted Fri Jan 30 2004 03:14:12 by MD-90
New Poll: Bush's Popularity Slipping posted Fri Mar 7 2003 01:23:26 by PHX-LJU
"We Are The World" New Rock Group posted Sun Feb 16 2003 17:50:11 by Delta-flyer