Page 2 of 36 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 358

Thread: Senate fails to advance Buffett rule

  1. #11
    Educator
    Chiefgator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Lake Jem, FL pop:35
    Last Seen
    05-08-15 @ 08:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,172

    Re: Senate fails to advance Buffett rule

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    Agree. I think we can also agree that the reverse is true as well, when it comes to increasing rates.
    Yep. It works both directions.

    Taxes too high stagnates reinvestment and encourages fraud.
    Taxes too low fails to generate revenue and shows no added gain from reinvestment.
    As a dreamer of dreams and a travellin' man, I have chalked up many a mile.
    Read dozens of books about heroes and crooks and I've learned much from both of their styles!

  2. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
    Last Seen
    09-14-14 @ 02:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,700

    Re: Senate fails to advance Buffett rule

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    Not to burst your bubble, Porch, but the actual empirical data on supply side tax policies is a hell of a lot less black and white than JFK is making it out to be. Even Reagan realized that he had to raise rates after lowering them temporarily.
    Ronald Reagan raised taxes on the top 1 percent, yes. From 1981 to 1988, their tax burdened climbed just over 10 percent. The top 10 percent of earners saw their tax burden increase a little over 9 percent.

    For the slightly rich, the tax rate fell from 22 percent to 20 percent. For the upper middle class, the tax rate fell from 13.2 percent to 12.4 percent. For the middle class, the tax rate fell from 6.9 percent to 6.4 percent. For the poor, 1.6 to 1.5 percent[s].

    So as we can see, Reagan lowered taxes where it would do the most good. Later legislation seemed to increase taxes, but it did no such thing. In 1984, Reagan enacted legislation which made it more difficult to evade the IRS. Loopholes were closed, and the Treasury Department took in more money.

    Reagan’s policies created millions and millions of new jobs and ‘whipped inflation’ big time. The ingredient? Lower taxes on the workers, on small-business, and on the majority of employers. The filthy rich saw a tax increase, and saw loopholes closed.

    It’s interesting that all the liberals who bellow that Reagan raised taxes – meaning, of course, that Obama should be allowed to raise taxes on everyone, including small-business – were jeering the ‘trickle down economics’ of the 1980s. See how the Left loves to rewrite history when it’s convenient?

  3. #13
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,561

    Re: Senate fails to advance Buffett rule

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    I can't envision a scenario where ANYONE, including those in the top 1%, is currently paying an effective federal income tax rate of 30%.
    The way that would happen is say a highly compensated athlete like A Rod. he is making earned income of many million a year meaning all but 388K is taxed at 35%. He could easily be hit with that.

    a lottery winner for a given year will take a big hit-even if its spread out over the years

    but for Obama to claim that middle class people are paying an EFFECTIVE rate of 30% is a bald faced lie

    he is comparing marginal rates which it around the levels I reported above and comparing that to effective rates

    what is amazing is how many people lap up that BS because they want to believe it

    anyone who claims someone in the middle class pays an effective rate of 30% is to be seen as a complete and total moron or liar-or both

  4. #14
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: Senate fails to advance Buffett rule

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    The way that would happen is say a highly compensated athlete like A Rod. he is making earned income of many million a year meaning all but 388K is taxed at 35%. He could easily be hit with that.

    a lottery winner for a given year will take a big hit-even if its spread out over the years

    but for Obama to claim that middle class people are paying an EFFECTIVE rate of 30% is a bald faced lie

    he is comparing marginal rates which it around the levels I reported above and comparing that to effective rates

    what is amazing is how many people lap up that BS because they want to believe it

    anyone who claims someone in the middle class pays an effective rate of 30% is to be seen as a complete and total moron or liar-or both
    I'm not a fan of the Buffett rule, but I don't recall him ever having made such a claim.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  5. #15
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: Senate fails to advance Buffett rule

    Quote Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon View Post
    Ronald Reagan raised taxes on the top 1 percent, yes. From 1981 to 1988, their tax burdened climbed just over 10 percent. The top 10 percent of earners saw their tax burden increase a little over 9 percent.

    For the slightly rich, the tax rate fell from 22 percent to 20 percent. For the upper middle class, the tax rate fell from 13.2 percent to 12.4 percent. For the middle class, the tax rate fell from 6.9 percent to 6.4 percent. For the poor, 1.6 to 1.5 percent[s].

    So as we can see, Reagan lowered taxes where it would do the most good. Later legislation seemed to increase taxes, but it did no such thing. In 1984, Reagan enacted legislation which made it more difficult to evade the IRS. Loopholes were closed, and the Treasury Department took in more money.
    Which means Reagan was engaging in class warfare, correct? Raising rates for the wealthiest, but lowering rates in the aggregate for everyone else? How is that substantively different from what Obama is saying when he talks about tax credits for small businesses, payroll tax cut, and the like, while raising rates for the wealthy?

    Reagan’s policies created millions and millions of new jobs and ‘whipped inflation’ big time. The ingredient? Lower taxes on the workers, on small-business, and on the majority of employers. The filthy rich saw a tax increase, and saw loopholes closed.
    What you've provided here is nothing more than a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. I'm not saying Reagan's policies weren't helpful, but the evidence that they had a rather significant impact on the 1980s recovery, as opposed to, say, a natural rebound, is murky at best. Meanwhile, the national debt tripled.

    It’s interesting that all the liberals who bellow that Reagan raised taxes – meaning, of course, that Obama should be allowed to raise taxes on everyone, including small-business – were jeering the ‘trickle down economics’ of the 1980s. See how the Left loves to rewrite history when it’s convenient?
    When has Obama argued that he should be allowed to raise taxes on everyone, including small businesses? Do you like to put words in other people's mouths when it's convenient? How about the fact that Reagan engaged in what today's conservatives would call "class warfare," as I mentioned above?
    Last edited by StillBallin75; 04-16-12 at 11:33 PM.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  6. #16
    Guru
    Porchev's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    GA
    Last Seen
    01-08-17 @ 12:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    3,092

    Re: Senate fails to advance Buffett rule

    Quote Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon View Post
    Ronald Reagan raised taxes on the top 1 percent, yes. From 1981 to 1988, their tax burdened climbed just over 10 percent. The top 10 percent of earners saw their tax burden increase a little over 9 percent.

    For the slightly rich, the tax rate fell from 22 percent to 20 percent. For the upper middle class, the tax rate fell from 13.2 percent to 12.4 percent. For the middle class, the tax rate fell from 6.9 percent to 6.4 percent. For the poor, 1.6 to 1.5 percent[s].

    So as we can see, Reagan lowered taxes where it would do the most good. Later legislation seemed to increase taxes, but it did no such thing. In 1984, Reagan enacted legislation which made it more difficult to evade the IRS. Loopholes were closed, and the Treasury Department took in more money.

    Reagan’s policies created millions and millions of new jobs and ‘whipped inflation’ big time. The ingredient? Lower taxes on the workers, on small-business, and on the majority of employers. The filthy rich saw a tax increase, and saw loopholes closed.

    It’s interesting that all the liberals who bellow that Reagan raised taxes – meaning, of course, that Obama should be allowed to raise taxes on everyone, including small-business – were jeering the ‘trickle down economics’ of the 1980s. See how the Left loves to rewrite history when it’s convenient?
    Reagan dropped tax rates across the board, to include reducing the top income tax rate from 70% to 28%. So where are you getting these numbers?

    EDIT: I found where you got all that:
    Ronald Reagan: His Actual Record « Sibboleth Nation
    Last edited by Porchev; 04-16-12 at 11:48 PM.

  7. #17
    Sage
    Kreton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Last Seen
    11-13-17 @ 08:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    6,118

    Re: Senate fails to advance Buffett rule

    Until they get rid of the billions of loopholes it doesnt matter what they make the tax rate. Everyone in America should be paying a flat tax rate, the exact same rate, with absolutely 0 loopholes. There are these people that makes millions but they loophole their way through and even if you raise the tax rate to 30% they wont pay that on what they make. They make 10 mil, on only pay taxes on 2 million. Then they pay the 30%. So intead of paying 3 million they are paying $600,000. But they pay 30% and make it look good. Its all bull****. Our tax laws are garbage and nothing will change until you eliminate the loopholes first.
    “Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.”
    Stephen R. Covey


  8. #18
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,561

    Re: Senate fails to advance Buffett rule

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    I'm not a fan of the Buffett rule, but I don't recall him ever having made such a claim.

    well he certainly implied it by saying millionaires need to pay an effective rate of 30% to be higher than the middle class. In reality its somewhere around 21% and those in the 1 million to 5 million range are generally paying 24$ or so effective tax rates
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnov...ower-tax-rate/


    Taxpayers earning $1 million to $5 million, who get more of their income from salary and other “ordinary” income taxed at a top 35% rate, paid an effective tax rate of 24%.
    Last edited by TurtleDude; 04-16-12 at 11:49 PM.

  9. #19
    Advisor Rapunzel52's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The Great Midwest
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 11:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    525

    Re: Senate fails to advance Buffett rule

    The senate isn't going to pass this since they are all millionaires....LMFAO!!!!!
    If it sounds like Marx and acts like Stalin...it must be Obama

  10. #20
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: Senate fails to advance Buffett rule

    Quote Originally Posted by Rapunzel52 View Post
    The senate isn't going to pass this since they are all millionaires....LMFAO!!!!!
    lol good point
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

Page 2 of 36 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •