• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White House Tax Plan Would Ask More of Millionaires

Status
Not open for further replies.
Catawba said:
I'm not sure where you got the idea that Obama is proposing an income tax rate increase, but that does not appear to be the case. It looks like he is proposing exactly what you suggested he should do:

"Rather than an increase in tax rates, President Obama is proposing to eliminate the loopholes and tax breaks."
"Buffett's Rule" Proposes New Taxes On Wealthy | Neon Tommy
Click to expand...

Lower CG tax is not a "loophole". It's tax policy. If he actually ever produces an actual policy we'll see what it addresses. If it addresses CG's then I'll support it. Odds are that we never actually see a bill to be voted on.
 
1Perry said:
Lower CG tax is not a "loophole". It's tax policy. If he actually ever produces an actual policy we'll see what it addresses. If it addresses CG's then I'll support it. Odds are that we never actually see a bill to be voted on.
Click to expand...

Obama said loopholes and tax breaks, not just loopholes. Funny you should leave that out. I would be willing to bet that we do see a bill, and that it is voted down by the GOP.
 
Catawba said:
Obama said loopholes and tax breaks, not just loopholes. Funny you should leave that out. I would be willing to bet that we do see a bill, and that it is voted down by the GOP.
Click to expand...

Again, it isn't a "tax break" either. It's tax policy.
 
1Perry said:
Poliical correctness is far more a trait of the left.
Click to expand...

But this is NOT about mere political correctness. It is about a very clear statement that the rich should fire anyone working for them who espouses ideas that are not in sync with their own. Such authoritarian tendencies would destroy ones freedoms under the Constitution.
 
If you take an unbiased look at history, simply looking at data, two things are evident:

1. There is simply no correlation one way or another between changes in the top tax rate and changes in unemployment - so the idea that the rich create jobs is hard to prove

2. There is a weak correlation, surpisingly, in the direction of economic growth between raising taxes on the rich and the economy growing. It's very possible, maybe likely that the reasons for the growth were unrelated to the taxes on the rich, but the point is that raising taxes on the rich certainly did not slow growth.
 
TurtleDude said:
he's lying. And 60K is not taxed at 30% that is a lie. (Unless she had massive other income)
Click to expand...

Tax Brackets 2011 | taxbrackets2011.com

you have to be up well over 100K to even hit a 28% top marginal rate which means an effective rate of well below 25%

if she is paying a marginal rate of 20% on her salary, she has income well over 150K

Why do people accept such obvious lies without checking

and Buffett sets his own salary at one hundredth to one thousand of what similary situated executives are paid
 
upsideguy said:
View attachment 67115863

I agree. I for one, see no reason for our government to spend 6x more than any other country on "defense". It seems to me the cost of our futile imperialism is about $500B per year too much.
Click to expand...

The defense budget is 700 billion out of the 3.7 trillion dollar govt. Comparing it to what other countries spend is irrelevant. Defense IS the role of the Federal govt. and less than 20% of the budget being spent on the military is hardly excessive. Your disdain for the military and defense is quite telling. Why do you believe reports on what other nations spend on the military?
 
furthermore, considering that the "return" on our DOD spending is a stable world order, trade, and basically the rest of our economy, I would call it cheap at the price we pay.
 
TurtleDude said:
he's lying. And 60K is not taxed at 30% that is a lie. (Unless she had massive other income)
Click to expand...

Ouch, such a response could only be the result of envy.
 
TurtleDude said:
Tax Brackets 2011 | taxbrackets2011.com

you have to be up well over 100K to even hit a 28% top marginal rate which means an effective rate of well below 25%

if she is paying a marginal rate of 20% on her salary, she has income well over 150K

Why do people accept such obvious lies without checking

and Buffett sets his own salary at one hundredth to one thousand of what similary situated executives are paid
Click to expand...

Sounds like he's talking about total tax burden, which would probably put her around 30%.
 
1Perry said:
Again, it isn't a "tax break" either. It's tax policy.
Click to expand...

That's just symantics. Loopholes and tax breaks are also tax policy.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
snip



The rest of the article can be found here

The effective tax rate is at least 3% less than it was during 2000, when we had a balanced budget. Conversely, tax revenue as a percentage of total income (using the income approach to national output) is at its lowest level since 1950, when tax revenues made up 14.4% of GDP (FWIW, they were 20.6% in 2000). No credible long term deficit reduction can occur without restoring a competent policy. The starve the beast mentality does not take into account fluctuations in the business cycle, and is now taking its toll on our politicians ability to not only fund itself (ala August 2nd), but to enact the necessary fiscal policy to combat the persistently high unemployment rate.
Click to expand...

More people were working and fewer jobs were being killed in 2000, too.

Why are the Libbos having such a hard time learning that more people working = more tax revenue.
 
apdst said:
More people were working and fewer jobs were being killed in 2000, too.

Why are the Libbos having such a hard time learning that more people working = more tax revenue.
Click to expand...

Rubio stated it best

Press Releases - Newsroom - U.S. Senator for Florida, Marco Rubio

“We don't need new taxes. We need new taxpayers, people that are gainfully employed, making money and paying into the tax system. Then we need a government that has the discipline to take that additional revenue and use it to pay down the debt and never grow it again. That's what we should be focused on, and that's what we're not focused on.

“You look at all these taxes being proposed, and here's what I say. I say we should analyze every single one of them through the lens of job creation, issue number one in America. I want to know which one of these taxes they're proposing will create jobs. I want to know how many jobs are going to be created by the plane tax. How many jobs are going to be created by the oil company tax I heard so much about. How many jobs are created by going after the millionaires and billionaires the president talks about? I want to know: How many jobs do they create?
Click to expand...
 
TurtleDude said:
he's lying. And 60K is not taxed at 30% that is a lie. (Unless she had massive other income)
Click to expand...

Your opinions have proved to be wrong way too many times to be accepted as fact.

sorry-charlie-rangel-tuna-commercial2.jpg
 
Last edited:
1Perry said:
Again, it isn't a "tax break" either. It's tax policy.
Click to expand...

Temporary tax breaks established during the Bush Administration. I am sure you are aware of the definition of temporary.
 
TurtleDude said:
he's lying. And 60K is not taxed at 30% that is a lie. (Unless she had massive other income)
Click to expand...

I am guess that Buffet has fudged his numbers a bit. My sense is that he is including all "taxes" including social security, unemployment INSURANCE, medicare etc. Not only that he counts both what the employee pays as well as what the employer pays as if that money would flow to the employee ( he knows that is a lie). Also he fails to point out that unlike most CEOs he makes only $100K that would be considered ordinary income.

Maybe he could be a bit more honest, quit his CEO job at Berkshire and just join the campaign in whatever capacity he wants. At least people would understand why he says the things he does.
 
Catawba said:
Temporary tax breaks established during the Bush Administration. I am sure you are aware of the definition of temporary.
Click to expand...

Since you are worried about how much money is going to the govt. how much more are you paying than you are required to pay?
 
TurtleDude said:
Tax Brackets 2011 | taxbrackets2011.com

you have to be up well over 100K to even hit a 28% top marginal rate which means an effective rate of well below 25%

if she is paying a marginal rate of 20% on her salary, she has income well over 150K

Why do people accept such obvious lies without checking

and Buffett sets his own salary at one hundredth to one thousand of what similary situated executives are paid
Click to expand...

Your link just relates to FIT, not the total taxes she paid. Again, your skewed view has resulted in a skewed answer.
 
Catawba said:
Your link just relates to FIT, not the total taxes she paid. Again, your skewed view has resulted in a skewed answer.
Click to expand...

No, you are the one that has a skewed view and don't seem to understand state, local, and federal taxes and what each funds. That is what liberals do to divert from the present. what you don't seem to understand is taht when Federal Taxes go up, people are going to move to lower tax states and that reduces state revenue thus promoting a bigger Federal Govt. as states cannot pay their bills.
 
Conservative said:
Since you are worried about how much money is going to the govt. how much more are you paying than you are required to pay?
Click to expand...

I pay a higher percentage of my total income in taxes than millionaires and billionaires do of their total income.
 
Catawba said:
I pay a higher percentage of my total income in taxes than millionaires and billionaires do of their total income.
Click to expand...

Other than Buffet, can you name a "millionaire or billionaire" that pays less taxes then you.
 
washunut said:
Other than Buffet, can you name a "millionaire or billionaire" that pays less taxes then you.
Click to expand...

Somehow I hear the old bad line........ "other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom