(1) It is a phony issue, created for no purpose other than to stoke envy among a gullible public. If fully implemented for tax years 2012 and beyond, and adopting a “static” estimate of future tax revenues (that is, taxpayers DO NOTHING in reacting to this change), the total new revenues to the Federal government over the next ten (10) years would be around $50 Billion. Equal, metaphorically, to a wart on the nose of the Federal deficit. Not even worth talking about. The fact is that most people with millions in taxable income are already not only paying much higher percentages than “working people,” but they are paying many, many times more dollars in FIT than working people – 41% of whom pay NO FEDERAL INCOME TAXES AT ALL. Putting it succinctly, 10% of Buffett’s income is a thousand times greater than 15% of his secretary’s. She’s not the one getting “screwed” by the IRC.
(2) It promotes the “Free Government” myth: The idea that Federal Government teat-suckers can have everything they want, paid for by SOMEBODY ELSE, and that the only reason Federal finances are in their miserable, disgraceful state, is because some people (OTHER PEOPLE) are not paying their “fair share” into the Treasury, which is statistically and factually false.
(3) It distracts attention from the real Federal fiscal issue which is TOO MUCH SPENDING, not too little revenue. Even the most blind socialist Democrat knows – but will not admit – that the Federal budget cannot sustain anywhere near the current levels of spending (and including the increases that are baked into our generous entitlement programs), and the entitlement programs must be brought under fiscal control, or we are facing financial Armageddon within the relatively near future. The longer Barry can keep the public focused on “millionaires” not paying their “fair share,” the longer he can avoid having to address entitlement reform.
(4) It evades the real tax issues. Those people with millions in annual income who are paying, shall we say, less than 20% of their incomes in FIT are not doing so because they are cheating, or are evil, or are “evading” taxes. They are paying these percentages because of policy decisions made by both Democrat and Republican congresses, regarding the treatment of income from other than salary, wages, and bonus, and costs (real and constructive) that are appropriate for deduction from taxable income. If people such as our Beloved President believe that these policy decisions need to be revised, they should make the appropriate arguments to Congress and the American people, and see if they agree. If they want to tax investment income the same as earned income (which is essentially what Barry is proposing), then make the case and let’s vote on it. If they want to eliminate certain deductions, put them on the table for debate and vote on it. But don’t look at the bottom line and say, without any justification other than ENVY, “This ain’t fair!”
(5) It is financially stupid, and will likely worsen the Great and Interminable Recession. Like it or not, the “Buffet Tax” goes after the segment of our financial society that both potentially and actually can do the most to promote prosperity: small business owners and large private investors. If this segment gets pissed off and revises its investment strategies to go after tax-free or off-shore investment opportunities, the economy is, shall we say, “fucked.” These people don’t need to maximize their income every year like the middle class. They can defer or even forego income, or accept a lower return on investments if they feel like they are being exploited by the IRS. And Congress knows this, which is why the “Bush tax cuts” never seem to die.
Yesterday's lock-step vote by Democrat Senators on the Buffett Tax tells you all you need to know about their integrity - or the lack of it. It is a stupid and counterproductive initiative, and every one of those bastards knows it.
What’s Wrong with the “Buffett Tax”?
Re: What’s Wrong with the “Buffett Tax”?
A TRUELY fair and equitable tax system would be great.
I'll never see it.
I'll never see it.
Sometimes it seems as though one has to cross the line just to figger out where it is
-
Grim Reaper
- Posts: 944
- Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 1:21 pm
Re: What’s Wrong with the “Buffett Tax”?
1. It is not a phony issue. 72% of Americans believe the rich should pay more taxes. What happened to representative government? Because it's not working.
2. Nope, we're not going to magically balance the budget if we tax some people more. But we will be able to keep more important social service programs instead of dumping the poor people out on the street like you seem to want to do.
3. Too little revenue is a very real problem. And it's one the Republicans don't even want to think about. They'd rather gut even more income and pretend that they'll be able to ever balance the budget.
4. The majority of the American people do agree. It's the Republican party that wants to sink everything that President Obama puts forth that are holding things up.
5. Just more "trickle down" nonsense. Where's all the jobs now with the low taxes they have now? Why were there more jobs with higher taxes? They're not being made because the rich don't care about creating jobs. They care about making money. Which is an important distinction that has repeatedly lead to fewer American jobs.
2. Nope, we're not going to magically balance the budget if we tax some people more. But we will be able to keep more important social service programs instead of dumping the poor people out on the street like you seem to want to do.
3. Too little revenue is a very real problem. And it's one the Republicans don't even want to think about. They'd rather gut even more income and pretend that they'll be able to ever balance the budget.
4. The majority of the American people do agree. It's the Republican party that wants to sink everything that President Obama puts forth that are holding things up.
5. Just more "trickle down" nonsense. Where's all the jobs now with the low taxes they have now? Why were there more jobs with higher taxes? They're not being made because the rich don't care about creating jobs. They care about making money. Which is an important distinction that has repeatedly lead to fewer American jobs.
Re: What’s Wrong with the “Buffett Tax”?
Keld, please advise the characteristics of a "fair and equitable" tax system.
Inquiring minds want to know.
Inquiring minds want to know.
Re: What’s Wrong with the “Buffett Tax”?
For the record, 100% of Americans would favor taxing anyone but themselves to balance the budget.
As any idiot already knows.
Well, not every idiot, as demonstrated above.
As any idiot already knows.
Well, not every idiot, as demonstrated above.
-
Grim Reaper
- Posts: 944
- Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 1:21 pm
Re: What’s Wrong with the “Buffett Tax”?
How about showing this record? Oh, right. Because you pulled it out of thin air.
And nice of you to ignore my other points in your haste to make your silly remark. But then this is how you work. You make a bunch of points, they get rebutted, you make a silly remark, get called out on it, then the thread falls to the bottom as you crawl away to the next contentious topic you create.
And nice of you to ignore my other points in your haste to make your silly remark. But then this is how you work. You make a bunch of points, they get rebutted, you make a silly remark, get called out on it, then the thread falls to the bottom as you crawl away to the next contentious topic you create.
Re: What’s Wrong with the “Buffett Tax”?
Anyone who thinks the Buffett rule is anything more than an election year gimmick* is sadly mistaken. If the concept of the policy were part of an overall tax reform effort that made the tax system "fairer" by some definition, and actually was designed to raise more than sliver of additional revenue to limit the impending debt disaster, then it would be worth debating as serious policy. As is, it is just a misdirection ploy to distract distractable people from the current lousy economy and budget situation.
* It is reasonable to be excited about this as well if you like election year gimmicks or you think this one will help elect your guy (such gimmicks are a bipartisan sport). Just note, that the more Obama ignores the serious problems of the country in favor of "small ball" and "scoring points", the more he reinforces the growing view that he is mostly an empty suit.
* It is reasonable to be excited about this as well if you like election year gimmicks or you think this one will help elect your guy (such gimmicks are a bipartisan sport). Just note, that the more Obama ignores the serious problems of the country in favor of "small ball" and "scoring points", the more he reinforces the growing view that he is mostly an empty suit.
-
Sue U
- Posts: 9101
- Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
- Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)
Re: What’s Wrong with the “Buffett Tax”?
I agree that the "Buffett Rule" is more political stagecraft than actual policy, but it does raise the issue of tax equity. And that is something that is highly appropriate to consider.
Of course, even soaking the rich is not going to be a solution to the budget, deficit and debt problems. The biggest federal spending categories (in order) are defense, healthcare (Medicare & Medicaid) and social security. Defense spending just has to take a huge hit; we simply cannot afford decades-long military interventions or spending hundreds of billions each year on weapons development and procurement. For HHS, the only way to manage healthcare costs is through a national health insurance program that brings everyone into the same system, so that the half of the population that spends nothing each year on healthcare can effectively subsidize the 5 percent responsible for half of all healthcare expenditures. Scream all you want about a "government takeover of healthcare," but it is the only way to maintain the solvency of Medicare. As for social security, if cost savings in other areas are insufficient, it may be that benefits should be means-tested and/or eligibility age raised. It is a harsh measure and a last resort, but absent some significant change in economic prospects, one that may be ultimately necessary -- and one that the majority of the population could understand and accept, if phased in appropriately.
Of course, even soaking the rich is not going to be a solution to the budget, deficit and debt problems. The biggest federal spending categories (in order) are defense, healthcare (Medicare & Medicaid) and social security. Defense spending just has to take a huge hit; we simply cannot afford decades-long military interventions or spending hundreds of billions each year on weapons development and procurement. For HHS, the only way to manage healthcare costs is through a national health insurance program that brings everyone into the same system, so that the half of the population that spends nothing each year on healthcare can effectively subsidize the 5 percent responsible for half of all healthcare expenditures. Scream all you want about a "government takeover of healthcare," but it is the only way to maintain the solvency of Medicare. As for social security, if cost savings in other areas are insufficient, it may be that benefits should be means-tested and/or eligibility age raised. It is a harsh measure and a last resort, but absent some significant change in economic prospects, one that may be ultimately necessary -- and one that the majority of the population could understand and accept, if phased in appropriately.
GAH!
Re: What’s Wrong with the “Buffett Tax”?
I don't know Dave I've never really seen one, an example of what it ain't is what we have now...dgs49 wrote:Keld, please advise the characteristics of a "fair and equitable" tax system.
Inquiring minds want to know.
Sometimes it seems as though one has to cross the line just to figger out where it is
Re: What’s Wrong with the “Buffett Tax”?
Taxes on people making over $250,000 need to be raised overall. This would be a step in the right direction. It is not all of the solution but it is a part of it.
Speaking as someone who makes about $100,000 / yr in completely tax-free income. 2x 401ks maxed out $44,000, $36,000 deferred income, $20,000 + to employer matches to 401ks.
The tax code is written to screw the middle class and the aspiring upper-middle class.
yrs,
rubato
Speaking as someone who makes about $100,000 / yr in completely tax-free income. 2x 401ks maxed out $44,000, $36,000 deferred income, $20,000 + to employer matches to 401ks.
The tax code is written to screw the middle class and the aspiring upper-middle class.
yrs,
rubato
Re: What’s Wrong with the “Buffett Tax”?
Will the tax be applicable to both hot and cold buffets?
Why is it that when Miley Cyrus gets naked and licks a hammer it's 'art' and 'edgy' but when I do it I'm 'drunk' and 'banned from the hardware store'?
Re: What’s Wrong with the “Buffett Tax”?
I think that anyone who makes music that bad should be taxed heavily
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
Re: What’s Wrong with the “Buffett Tax”?
Jimmy and Warren make music together?
Who knew?
Who knew?
Sometimes it seems as though one has to cross the line just to figger out where it is
Re: What’s Wrong with the “Buffett Tax”?
rubato wrote:Taxes on people making over $250,000 need to be raised overall. This would be a step in the right direction. It is not all of the solution but it is a part of it.
yrs,
rubato
Your collective inability to acknowledge this obvious truth makes you all look like fools.
yrs,
rubato
Re: What’s Wrong with the “Buffett Tax”?
Of course this is nothing but a political gimmick; the amount of revenue it raises doesn't amount to a whiz in the ocean, and if this "fairness principle" were so important to Obama surely he would have proposed this early in his Presidency....
But as Grim pointed out with the poll he cited, it's a popular political gimmick, and it's hardly surprising that a politician as able as Obama, especially with so few tangible achievements in his record to point to, would seize on it. It's part of an effort on the part of the man who raised more money from Wall Street than any other Presidential candidate in history, to re-cast himself as a "populist" for the purposes of his re-election campaign. This effort, which is designed primarily to re-energize his base, (many of whom have been disappointed by his failure to be "liberal enough" as they see it.) seems transparently cynical to me, but I'm sure there are some folks who will buy it....
All that having been said, I think the GOP leaders on The Hill have mishandled this. Since the economic impact of this "Buffett Rule" is somewhere between negligible and non-existent, but the political value of the issue for Obama is large, I think the smart political move would have been to simply give it to him. (Or at least propose accepting it in a package with a Republican proposal that would also have wide popularity; like Santorum's proposal for cutting tax rates for US manufacturing businesses...it would be tough for the Dems to vote against a proposal that would help bring back state-side manufacturing jobs)
If they had done this, they could have denied Obama this diversionary but popular campaign issue, while at the same time scoring brownie points with independents by showing how willing they were to compromise....
But as Grim pointed out with the poll he cited, it's a popular political gimmick, and it's hardly surprising that a politician as able as Obama, especially with so few tangible achievements in his record to point to, would seize on it. It's part of an effort on the part of the man who raised more money from Wall Street than any other Presidential candidate in history, to re-cast himself as a "populist" for the purposes of his re-election campaign. This effort, which is designed primarily to re-energize his base, (many of whom have been disappointed by his failure to be "liberal enough" as they see it.) seems transparently cynical to me, but I'm sure there are some folks who will buy it....
All that having been said, I think the GOP leaders on The Hill have mishandled this. Since the economic impact of this "Buffett Rule" is somewhere between negligible and non-existent, but the political value of the issue for Obama is large, I think the smart political move would have been to simply give it to him. (Or at least propose accepting it in a package with a Republican proposal that would also have wide popularity; like Santorum's proposal for cutting tax rates for US manufacturing businesses...it would be tough for the Dems to vote against a proposal that would help bring back state-side manufacturing jobs)
If they had done this, they could have denied Obama this diversionary but popular campaign issue, while at the same time scoring brownie points with independents by showing how willing they were to compromise....
Re: What’s Wrong with the “Buffett Tax”?
..... but they're not and Mitt doen't want to pay any more taxes.
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
Re: What’s Wrong with the “Buffett Tax”?
I think this issue may fade as the campaign rolls on. Regardless of the results of the November election, taxes are going to increase, and the people at the top are going to be impacted disproportionately.
It is supremely ironic that the Government economists are now projecting that the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts will hurt the working class more than high earners. What? I thought the Bush Tax Cuts were a give-away to The Rich, and screwed The Working Man!!! If so, how could their expiration hurt the Working Man more than The Rich?
The Republicans have to acknowledge the inevitability of tax increases more clearly (elimination of certain deductions, luxury taxes on certain types of purchases, etc), while making the argument as strongly as possible that SPENDING is the real problem. Somehow, they have to counter the idea that just because some people have grown to rely on a stupid government handout, that does not prove that the handout should last in perpetuity. Ryan's budget scales back the foodstamp program to where it was three years ago, and Dems are whining about children starving in the streets. Yeah, like they were 2009, right?
It is supremely ironic that the Government economists are now projecting that the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts will hurt the working class more than high earners. What? I thought the Bush Tax Cuts were a give-away to The Rich, and screwed The Working Man!!! If so, how could their expiration hurt the Working Man more than The Rich?
The Republicans have to acknowledge the inevitability of tax increases more clearly (elimination of certain deductions, luxury taxes on certain types of purchases, etc), while making the argument as strongly as possible that SPENDING is the real problem. Somehow, they have to counter the idea that just because some people have grown to rely on a stupid government handout, that does not prove that the handout should last in perpetuity. Ryan's budget scales back the foodstamp program to where it was three years ago, and Dems are whining about children starving in the streets. Yeah, like they were 2009, right?
-
Sue U
- Posts: 9101
- Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
- Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)
Re: What’s Wrong with the “Buffett Tax”?
Total spending on welfare (other than unemployment benefits) amounts to about 4 percent of the amount spent on defense, healthcare and social security. Welfare spending is simply not the problem; it is just a convenient whipping boy for those who want to blame the poor. The real "welfare spending" is in defense contracts and corporate tax subsidies, which amount to many mutliples of TANF/AFDC.
GAH!
Re: What’s Wrong with the “Buffett Tax”?
Both of these were generated on Wiki so ya know how that goes...
More of the same I just added these cause they were purdy...
360 pages of the 2012 FY budget, good luck
Sometimes it seems as though one has to cross the line just to figger out where it is
-
Grim Reaper
- Posts: 944
- Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 1:21 pm
Re: What’s Wrong with the “Buffett Tax”?
You act like nothing has changed since 2009. Like there's the same number of children now as back then. Or that they really weren't starving back then.dgs49 wrote:Ryan's budget scales back the foodstamp program to where it was three years ago, and Dems are whining about children starving in the streets. Yeah, like they were 2009, right?
It's easy to maintain your pompous attitude if you don't care about reality.