• 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.
agreed, like pretending that earned income and investment income are the same or that FICA contributions/taxes are part of the income tax equation.

do you believe that Buffett is spewing this (he is a proclaimed dem) for altruistic reasons?

No one claimed they are the exact same, only that they are both income. No one claimed that FICA is figures as part of income tax. Why can't you argue against what people are actually saying instead of making **** up?

Neither you nor I know Buffett's motivations. The difference between you and I is that I am not claiming to know.
 
Its in my self interest. Just like cyberfellating the dems is in Buffett's best interest

and I am not engaged in any such worship or nonsense

So because you cyberfellate, you assume every one does? That is pretty piss poor logic.
 
You really have no room to talk given you bias. You whine about the right and yet I don't see the same thing when it comes from the factually challenged lefties. Or in your case, your claims about Buffett

You apparently missed where I called my own argument stupid. It was made entirely to show how stupid your argument is, since I formed it exactly on your own.
 
You really have no room to talk given your bias. You whine about the right and yet I don't see the same thing when it comes from the factually challenged lefties...

are you accusing Redress of having a double-standard against Conservatives?
 
No one claimed they are the exact same, only that they are both income. No one claimed that FICA is figures as part of income tax. Why can't you argue against what people are actually saying instead of making **** up?

Neither you nor I know Buffett's motivations. The difference between you and I is that I am not claiming to know.

Defend Buffett's dishonesty all you want

the facts are as follows

Buffett pays the highest rate of tax on like income

FICA is not part of the federal income tax program and should play no role in it nor should FICA payments be used to recalculate the FIT for some
 
are you accusing Redress of having a double-standard against Conservatives?

this discussion does not concern anyone else-especially you
 
Well Obama never said they all do, but the facts are that some do and some don't.

according to the IRS, out of the nearly 237,000 households that reported more than a million dollars income, less than a single percentage point pay less than the average middle class household. The President was either wrong, or lying.

You have to look to them as individuals and not a group

actually, since we are talking about tax policy, we are discussing income brackets - which are groups. Unless you would recommend a separate income tax rate for every individual in America?
 
Defend Buffett's dishonesty all you want

the facts are as follows

Buffett pays the highest rate of tax on like income

FICA is not part of the federal income tax program and should play no role in it nor should FICA payments be used to recalculate the FIT for some

His argument includes payroll taxes. It's really that simple. That last sentence is an acceptable argument against Warren Buffet. The first sentence is dishonest though. Is that irony? A sentence calling someone else dishonest that actually is dishonest in itself? I always have trouble with irony. If you compare the taxes the way he defines them his argument is absolutely correct. And since it's his argument, he can define things however he wants to define things. It's not dishonest for him to call a tax a tax. What your response should be is "Yes, Warren Buffet is correct. However, I don't feel that FICA should be included in the comparison, and if you don't include FICA the results are X".

I understand the argument that tax should be in relation to the benefit provided by said tax. I'm in favor of progressive tax systems so I don't want such a system, but I understand the logic behind it. It at least makes sense, it's more than rhetoric, you should stick with it.

In response, I might ask why social security is unique like that? Certainly I myself pay a lot more taxes than the welfare recipients, and I myself do not receive welfare. The tax I pay into the system going to welfare isn't based on my expected payout. Why should social security tax be different?
 
Defend Buffett's dishonesty all you want

the facts are as follows

Buffett pays the highest rate of tax on like income

FICA is not part of the federal income tax program and should play no role in it nor should FICA payments be used to recalculate the FIT for some


I would imagine that Buffet has his fica paid by late January wouldn’t you think? Unlike the working poor and middle-class, who have seen real wages shrink, pay fica all year.:2wave:
 
Defend Buffett's dishonesty all you want

the facts are as follows

Buffett pays the highest rate of tax on like income

FICA is not part of the federal income tax program and should play no role in it nor should FICA payments be used to recalculate the FIT for some

You have not shown that Buffett was dishonest.

According to Conservative, Buffett's salary is 100k, which would not put him in the highest marginal rate. Oops, one fact isn't a fact.(note: just checked, most recent year I could find, Buffett received "total compensation" of 175k, with 100k in salary)

FICA is a federal tax, and the rest is your opinion. So that is another fact that isn't actually a fact.

Care to try with some real facts? These phony facts are not doing you any good.
 
I would imagine that Buffet has his fica paid by late January wouldn’t you think? Unlike the working poor and middle-class, who have seen real wages shrink, pay fica all year.:2wave:

Not on a 100,000 a year salary. FICA isn't collected on investment income. What does FICA have to do with anything here, it is a retirement contribution. If someone pays it all year so what, they get a check back when they retire from that fund.
 
I would imagine that Buffet has his fica paid by late January wouldn’t you think? Unlike the working poor and middle-class, who have seen real wages shrink, pay fica all year.:2wave:

I would imagine that Buffett had his FICA paid up around noonish on January 1st.
 
according to the IRS, out of the nearly 237,000 households that reported more than a million dollars income, less than a single percentage point pay less than the average middle class household. The President was either wrong, or lying.

Obama did not say anything that your numbers dispute, so you are either lying or wrong.

actually, since we are talking about tax policy, we are discussing income brackets - which are groups. Unless you would recommend a separate income tax rate for every individual in America?

Every individual pays a different effective tax rate, which is what the whole discussion is about.
 
Not on a 100,000 a year salary. FICA isn't collected on investment income. What does FICA have to do with anything here, it is a retirement contribution. If someone pays it all year so what, they get a check back when they retire from that fund.

So you argue one the one hand that FICA is a farce and the money won't be there, and then you turn around and argue that it's like some kind of savings account? Interesting.
 
I would imagine that Buffett had his FICA paid up around noonish on January 1st.

Since you don't seem to understand SS not surprised at your statement. SS is a retirement supplement. Is it your contention that people shouldn't be paying into the SS fund and then get a check back from whom? SS payments were supposed to me that you were putting money aside for retirement, a foreign concept for many. Why you think differently is beyond me.
 
So you argue one the one hand that FICA is a farce and the money won't be there, and then you turn around and argue that it's like some kind of savings account? Interesting.

SS won't be there because "your" govt has taken your contribution and spent it on something other than SS or Medicare. This is just too easy and you don't seem to realize how foolish your argument is.
 
Since you don't seem to understand SS not surprised at your statement. SS is a retirement supplement. Is it your contention that people shouldn't be paying into the SS fund and then get a check back from whom? SS payments were supposed to me that you were putting money aside for retirement, a foreign concept for many. Why you think differently is beyond me.

I didn't say I think differently. I was simply pointing out your inconsistent arguments.
 
I didn't say I think differently. I was simply pointing out your inconsistent arguments.

It is only inconsistent if you aren't following the argument I am making. SS has been spent on everything other than SS and that is why there is a shortfall there. Politicians have used that money so what do you want to do? Send them more money by raising taxes? You don't see a problem with that argument?
 
It is only inconsistent if you aren't following the argument I am making. SS has been spent on everything other than SS and that is why there is a shortfall there. Politicians have used that money so what do you want to do? Send them more money by raising taxes? You don't see a problem with that argument?

Again, you can't square that statement with this statement: "What does FICA have to do with anything here, it is a retirement contribution. If someone pays it all year so what, they get a check back when they retire from that fund."
 
Again, you can't square that statement with this statement: "What does FICA have to do with anything here, it is a retirement contribution. If someone pays it all year so what, they get a check back when they retire from that fund."

Sorry, but I sure can, SS contributions directly come back to those that contributed, FIT never does
 
Sorry, but I sure can, SS contributions directly come back to those that contributed, FIT never does

You just said that SS contributions have been spent on other things. How are they then directly coming back to those that contributed?
 
Sorry, but I sure can, SS contributions directly come back to those that contributed, FIT never does

Except that they do not. The money goes into the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and used to pay for current retirees.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom