flymia
Topic Author
Posts: 6808
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 6:33 am

The "Buffet" Rule, New Poll

Tue Apr 17, 2012 4:29 am

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)
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7876
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: The "Buffet" Rule, New Poll

Tue Apr 17, 2012 5:01 am

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 avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 13438
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

RE: The "Buffet" Rule, New Poll

Tue Apr 17, 2012 7:09 am

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

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
Go3Team
Posts: 3156
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 1:19 am

RE: The "Buffet" Rule, New Poll

Tue Apr 17, 2012 7:20 am

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!
 
windy95
Posts: 2658
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:11 pm

RE: The "Buffet" Rule, New Poll

Tue Apr 17, 2012 12:44 pm

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
 
Mir
Posts: 19093
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: The "Buffet" Rule, New Poll

Tue Apr 17, 2012 12:49 pm

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
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: The "Buffet" Rule, New Poll

Tue Apr 17, 2012 1:09 pm

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
 
windy95
Posts: 2658
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:11 pm

RE: The "Buffet" Rule, New Poll

Tue Apr 17, 2012 1:10 pm

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.
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 5367
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

RE: The "Buffet" Rule, New Poll

Tue Apr 17, 2012 1:28 pm

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 avatar
moo
Posts: 4072
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: The "Buffet" Rule, New Poll

Tue Apr 17, 2012 1:34 pm

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.
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: The "Buffet" Rule, New Poll

Tue Apr 17, 2012 1:42 pm

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
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7876
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: The "Buffet" Rule, New Poll

Tue Apr 17, 2012 2:06 pm

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 avatar
casinterest
Posts: 5367
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

RE: The "Buffet" Rule, New Poll

Tue Apr 17, 2012 2:10 pm

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.
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: The "Buffet" Rule, New Poll

Tue Apr 17, 2012 2:36 pm

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
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: The "Buffet" Rule, New Poll

Tue Apr 17, 2012 2:37 pm

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
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: The "Buffet" Rule, New Poll

Tue Apr 17, 2012 2:38 pm

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
 
fr8mech
Posts: 6620
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:00 am

RE: The "Buffet" Rule, New Poll

Tue Apr 17, 2012 3:09 pm

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.
 
seb146
Posts: 13893
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: The "Buffet" Rule, New Poll

Tue Apr 17, 2012 3:10 pm

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.
 
Mir
Posts: 19093
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: The "Buffet" Rule, New Poll

Tue Apr 17, 2012 3:33 pm

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
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: The "Buffet" Rule, New Poll

Tue Apr 17, 2012 3:48 pm

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 avatar
moo
Posts: 4072
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: The "Buffet" Rule, New Poll

Tue Apr 17, 2012 3:49 pm

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?
 
windy95
Posts: 2658
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:11 pm

RE: The "Buffet" Rule, New Poll

Tue Apr 17, 2012 3:58 pm

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
 
flymia
Topic Author
Posts: 6808
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 6:33 am

RE: The "Buffet" Rule, New Poll

Tue Apr 17, 2012 4:12 pm

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)
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: The "Buffet" Rule, New Poll

Tue Apr 17, 2012 4:15 pm

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
 
slider
Posts: 6806
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:42 pm

RE: The "Buffet" Rule, New Poll

Tue Apr 17, 2012 4:35 pm

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.
 
seb146
Posts: 13893
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: The "Buffet" Rule, New Poll

Tue Apr 17, 2012 4:41 pm

Quoting flymia (Thread starter):
This makes me want to say 7 out of 10 people don't see a purely political, insignificant tax code change

Like the Bush tax cuts for millionares and billionares? Like corporate welfare?

Quoting flymia (Reply 22):
This adds such a small amount of income it is not even worth talking about.

So doing nothing is better than doing something?

Quoting windy95 (Reply 21):
Care to elaborate?

Many economists have already weighed in on the Paul Ryan budget and all have said it will balloon the deficit.
Life in the wall is a drag.
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: The "Buffet" Rule, New Poll

Tue Apr 17, 2012 4:43 pm

Quoting mt99 (Reply 23):
How do you think that the US gets its ability to "persuade" governments and people? By handing out money.

Wrong.
If that were true, then it would work but it doesn't.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 23):
The leader is the one that has the money.

So by your definition, we have no leader because we are $15 TRILLION in debt.  
As we can see, that visit to Colombia accomplished nothing but a few stupid Secret Service getting in trouble for not paying for their short-time babysitter.
Bring back the Concorde
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: The "Buffet" Rule, New Poll

Tue Apr 17, 2012 4:54 pm

Quoting Superfly (Reply 26):
Wrong.
If that were true, then it would work but it doesn't.

It has been true for decades. How can you say it doesn't work?

Quoting Superfly (Reply 26):
So by your definition, we have no leader because we are $15 TRILLION in debt.

No silly buns, As far as % goes, contrast that the the debt that Latin America has in debt, and let me know who is richest

Besides, the countries receiving $$ don't care where you get the money you give them. They only care that you give it to them.

The GOP want the aid to Israel to continue (with good reason). Are you going to convince them to stop it?

Quoting Superfly (Reply 26):
As we can see, that visit to Colombia accomplished nothing but a few stupid Secret Service getting in trouble for not paying for their short-time babysitter.

I bet he would have gotten a lot more if he had his wallet open!

[Edited 2012-04-17 10:02:03]
Step into my office, baby
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4072
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: The "Buffet" Rule, New Poll

Tue Apr 17, 2012 4:58 pm

Quoting flymia (Reply 22):
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.

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 investments - I would *love* to see what tax rates Buffet has paid in the past, because his money didn't just come into being magically, so its entirely possible that he has paid his fair share in the past on that money...
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: The "Buffet" Rule, New Poll

Tue Apr 17, 2012 5:03 pm

Quoting slider (Reply 24):
-unless they invest actively--are ignorant about.

Careful. you are calling GOP voters ignorant...
Step into my office, baby
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4072
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: The "Buffet" Rule, New Poll

Tue Apr 17, 2012 5:13 pm

Quoting mt99 (Reply 29):
Careful. you are calling GOP voters ignorant...

Would that be a step up or something?
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: The "Buffet" Rule, New Poll

Tue Apr 17, 2012 5:20 pm

Quoting mt99 (Reply 27):
They only care that you give it to them.

Well duh!  
Quoting mt99 (Reply 27):
The GOP want the aid to Israel to continue (with good reason). Are you going to convince them to stop it?

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
$550,000,000.00 to Ethiopia
$215,000,000.00 to Tanzania
$237,000,000.00 to Uganda
$642,000,000.00 to Columbia
$340,000,000.00 to Kenya

Our generous foreign aid may have been a good idea shortly after WW2 when we were 50% of the world's economy but that is not the case today. Congress doesn't even vote on which counties get aid. It's just a simple yes or no vote on all foreign aid.
And since you're so pro-foreign aid, can you explain to us why it was worth it for us to spend $800,000.00 of our tax dollars to teach tribal men in central Africa how to wash their scrotum sack after sex? Yes that is our tax dollars at work and the IRS rigorously goes after people for not paying or errors in their filings so Uncle Sam can spend our money on crap like this.
Bring back the Concorde
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4072
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: The "Buffet" Rule, New Poll

Tue Apr 17, 2012 5:31 pm

Quoting Superfly (Reply 31):
And since you're so pro-foreign aid, can you explain to us why it was worth it for us to spend $800,000.00 of our tax dollars to teach tribal men in central Africa how to wash their scrotum sack after sex?

I'd love to see a citation on that...

Quoting Superfly (Reply 31):
$237,000,000.00 to Uganda

I'm currently in the process of building a hospital in Uganda, and I have to say that thats a country that needs all the foreign aid it can get - yes, theres corruption, but a lot of the money does make its way out into the villages and its sorely needed.
 
fr8mech
Posts: 6620
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:00 am

RE: The "Buffet" Rule, New Poll

Tue Apr 17, 2012 5:32 pm

Quoting Mir (Reply 18):
They're equally important


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 thing you have to do is curb spending if you want to get your debt under control. If you don't figure out your spending, any increase in income will be sucked into the black hole of growing debt.

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


Sure we can. They are not dependant on each other.

Look, Buffett says he should pay the same rate as his secretary. I agree. His secretary should pay his rate. Buffett should give her stock, in lieu of salary. That way she will be charged the same rate as Buffett when she sells the stock or receives dividends.

As for foreign aid: we should use it as a diplomatic tool. Quite simply, you want our money, you need to play ball. Elect morons as leaders, no money. Allow moron dictators to remain, no money. Of course, this would be tempered by the security needs and diplomatic needs of the US. In other words, unless we (The People) have all the information (classified and not) we really can't make an informed decision.

Can we make cuts in foreign aid? Yes, but those cuts should be, rightly, left to the Executive and The Department of State. We don't like what they're doing, we make it known at the next election.
When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: The "Buffet" Rule, New Poll

Tue Apr 17, 2012 5:46 pm

Quoting moo (Reply 32):
I'd love to see a citation on that...

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-wash.html

Quoting moo (Reply 32):
I'm currently in the process of building a hospital in Uganda, and I have to say that thats a country that needs all the foreign aid it can get - yes, theres corruption, but a lot of the money does make its way out into the villages and its sorely needed.

Hey that's wonderful. I'm sure there is a sad story behind every nation we give money to. I'm glad to hear that some of the money going to Uganda gets trickled down to the right people. Are there any debt free countries chipping in on the effort? How about China? How much are they chipping in? They have zero debt and the world's largest military.
I'm just curious, that's all.

[Edited 2012-04-17 10:47:07]
Bring back the Concorde
 
Mir
Posts: 19093
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: The "Buffet" Rule, New Poll

Tue Apr 17, 2012 5:49 pm

Quoting moo (Reply 20):
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.

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 need to have both.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 21):
It is spending explosion that put us into this mess. Not lack of revenue

That's a pretty disingenuous way of looking at it. Broadly, the problem is that we're spending more money than we're taking in. That doesn't mean it's there aren't problems with how much you're taking in. The Bush era was one of tax cuts while spending a lot of money on wars, not cutting domestic services, etc. That's as much a revenue problem as it is a spending problem. And while it's not the sole factor in the mess the US is in, it's certainly a contributor.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 33):
You must curb spending. In your household budget, the first thing you have to do is curb spending if you want to get your debt under control.

And you look for a higher paying job (or you take more than one job) in order to bring more money in.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: The "Buffet" Rule, New Poll

Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:21 pm

Quoting Superfly (Reply 31):
And since you're so pro-foreign aid, can you explain to us why it was worth it for us to spend $800,000.00 of our tax dollars to teach tribal men in central Africa how to wash their scrotum sack after s

Maybe ask Sarah Palin about fruit fly research


http://www.salon.com/2008/10/27/sarah_palin_fruit_flies/

Quoting Superfly (Reply 31):
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
$550,000,000.00 to Ethiopia
$215,000,000.00 to Tanzania
$237,000,000.00 to Uganda
$642,000,000.00 to Columbia
$340,000,000.00 to Kenya

Note how did you not answer my question...
Step into my office, baby
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: The "Buffet" Rule, New Poll

Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:28 pm

Quoting mt99 (Reply 36):
Maybe ask Sarah Palin about fruit fly research

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 holding Obama to the same lofty standards as Sarah Palin.  
Notice how you didn't answered my question either. I had asked first.
What was the question that you wanted answered again?
Bring back the Concorde
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: The "Buffet" Rule, New Poll

Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:54 pm

Quoting Superfly (Reply 37):
Notice how you didn't answered my question either. I had asked first.

Ugh really?

No.. i asked first (reply 27)

Quoting mt99 (Reply 27):
The GOP want the aid to Israel to continue (with good reason). Are you going to convince them to stop it?
Step into my office, baby
 
fr8mech
Posts: 6620
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:00 am

RE: The "Buffet" Rule, New Poll

Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:56 pm

Quoting Mir (Reply 35):
And you look for a higher paying job (or you take more than one job) in order to bring more money in.


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. But you cut as much as you can before you go hunting for additional revenue.

You're not telling me we've cut as much as we can? All the waste is gone? The duplication of services? The inane subsidies? The complexity of the bureaucracy? All of it is gone?
When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6676
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: The "Buffet" Rule, New Poll

Tue Apr 17, 2012 7:03 pm

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.

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.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 13):
Make cuts like crazy and have a 10% flat-tax across the board with NO deductions.

A bit too simplistic, the tax code is so large that it has spawned its own industry. Someone once said to me, the Cancer Society is one of it not the largest charity and research entity, what would happen if a cure was found?

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.

Bigger issue was than when things were good all folks had on their minds was to spend the money since it was easy and cheap, so the circle started where folks expected something for nothing, and now that things are tight one cannot simply take away. In the current environment, a lot of folks want increased revenues to continue to allow the same or increased level of spending.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 19):
A nation that has a debt of $15,000,000,000,000.00 is in NO position to hand out money to other countries.

No one receiving US foreign aid will say that, my nation included, now if you don't give us we will call you cheap and broke, but pay us and we will call you rich, a generous step uncle, and whatever else  
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19750
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: The "Buffet" Rule, New Poll

Tue Apr 17, 2012 7:04 pm

Quoting Superfly (Reply 31):
$1,000,000,000.00 to Iran
$223,000,000.00 to Russia
$158,000,000.00 to Kazakhstan
$550,000,000.00 to Ethiopia
$215,000,000.00 to Tanzania
$237,000,000.00 to Uganda
$642,000,000.00 to Columbia
$340,000,000.00 to Kenya

You wanna total that up and tell me what percent of the budget it is?
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 5367
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

RE: The "Buffet" Rule, New Poll

Tue Apr 17, 2012 7:11 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 40):
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.

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 for their reelections.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: The "Buffet" Rule, New Poll

Tue Apr 17, 2012 7:16 pm

Quoting mt99 (Reply 38):
The GOP want the aid to Israel to continue (with good reason). Are you going to convince them to stop it?

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 dollar our government sends outside it's borders.

Quoting par13del (Reply 40):
A bit too simplistic, the tax code is so large that it has spawned its own industry.

It's time to cut that industry out.

Quoting par13del (Reply 40):
No one receiving US foreign aid will say that, my nation included, now if you don't give us we will call you cheap and broke, but pay us and we will call you rich, a generous step uncle, and whatever else  

Oh wow, Uncle Sam is shaking in his boots now!   

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 41):
You wanna total that up and tell me what percent of the budget it is?

No need to when we are in $15TRILLION in debt. It's just basic common sense. If you are broke and have to borrow money, would you spend that money on charity and give money to the bully down the street in the hopes that he may someday like you and be your friend?
Take another look at this link and just look at all of that money. If the President is going to scare seniors and the Republicans want to scare people on public assistance, then we better take a closer look at the amount of money we're pissing away abroad. Heck I see US government waste here in Thailand of all places.
Bring back the Concorde
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 13438
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

RE: The "Buffet" Rule, New Poll

Tue Apr 17, 2012 7:21 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 41):
Quoting Superfly (Reply 31):$1,000,000,000.00 to Iran
$223,000,000.00 to Russia
$158,000,000.00 to Kazakhstan
$550,000,000.00 to Ethiopia
$215,000,000.00 to Tanzania
$237,000,000.00 to Uganda
$642,000,000.00 to Columbia
$340,000,000.00 to Kenya
You wanna total that up and tell me what percent of the budget it is?

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 considering their overall status they have absolutely no business whatsoever in doing it.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
Mir
Posts: 19093
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: The "Buffet" Rule, New Poll

Tue Apr 17, 2012 7:22 pm

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 39):
You're not telling me we've cut as much as we can? All the waste is gone? The duplication of services? The inane subsidies? The complexity of the bureaucracy? All of it is gone?

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 as they are for a family of four. But they're not - those decisions can't be made overnight, or even over the course of a week or a month. They take a long time, you have to go through a whole lot of procedures, there are contracts that might present a problem, you have to get the approval of a bunch of different people, etc.

It would be one thing if we knew, for a certainty, that revenue would be raised if spending cuts did not achieve their desired targets. But that's not the case - even if the spending cuts didn't meet their targets, you can't seriously think that the GOP wouldn't try to stonewall any sort of revenue increases. That's why they have to happen simultaneously - you can't trust either side to compromise if it turns out that their original plan didn't go quite as well as they thought (and, let's face it, the likelihood of that is very high).

-Mir

[Edited 2012-04-17 12:23:18]
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: The "Buffet" Rule, New Poll

Tue Apr 17, 2012 7:33 pm

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 44):
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 considering their overall status they have absolutely no business whatsoever in doing it.

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?

Its all about the Paretto Principle: 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes.

There is plenty of low hanging fruit in terms of efficiencies that can make a huge impact on the bottom line.
Step into my office, baby
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4072
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: The "Buffet" Rule, New Poll

Tue Apr 17, 2012 8:07 pm

Quoting Superfly (Reply 34):

It will surprise you but China are *massive* in central Africa, building government facilities, roads, rail, schools, clinics, electrification and water sources etc etc etc all for free. China are doing a huge job of trying to win over these nations in alignment, and investing significantly in things that can't be siphoned off by corrupt officials (they bring in the top tier of the workforce and the machines, but then employ a huge local workforce to do the bulk of the work).

China are there on the ground.
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: The "Buffet" Rule, New Poll

Tue Apr 17, 2012 8:53 pm

Quoting moo (Reply 47):

Great.
I still think our foreign aid needs to be audited.
Bring back the Concorde
 
einsteinboricua
Posts: 4662
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

RE: The "Buffet" Rule, New Poll

Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:14 pm

Quoting Superfly (Reply 48):

Quoting moo (Reply 47):

Great.
I still think our foreign aid needs to be audited.

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 have the US on those nations' good side...but then, no one will have the nerve to recognize that they themselves wanted all foreing aid to be reduced/eliminated.

"Cut foreing aid, just don't let China be more influent in other countries"

"Cut down excessive spending, but leave the budget for the armed forces intact/raise their budget"

"$15 trillion in debt...don't raise taxes, they won't do good"

"A budget still hasn't passed. Compromise: do it my way or no way"
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: lewis and 20 guests