Page 31 of 36 FirstFirst ... 212930313233 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 310 of 358

Thread: Senate fails to advance Buffett rule

  1. #301
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Senate fails to advance Buffett rule

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    well I give you credit for that. lots of people stick it out despite hating it because they figure they have to. I plan on retiring soon and coaching full time. thankfully I don't need the money. I went straight from college to law and grad school. I'd been better off waiting a few years.
    Yeah, I'd say that a majority of the attorneys that I know are fairly miserable. The exception to the rule seems to be government attorneys. They make less money but generally have more responsibility and more interesting work.

    I took a pay cut to do what I enjoy doing, but at the end of the day it's not that much less. I have time to do a lot of the stuff that I was paying other folks to do, in addition to doing my work (and wasting countless hours yammering here ).
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  2. #302
    onomatopoeic
    mbig's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    04-20-17 @ 08:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,350

    Re: Senate fails to advance Buffett rule

    Some points without reading everything previous...

    The Congressional Joint committee on Taxation has the B-R collecting only $4.7 Billion per year more.
    While I trust them and have used their numbers in the past, I'm certain this is Wrong.
    Other respected institutions put it MUCH higher.

    Quote Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffett_Rule
    Possible effects

    If enacted, the rule change would result in $36.7 billion per year in additional tax revenue, according to a January 2012 analysis by the Tax Foundation, a pro-business think tank.[12] An alternative study released that same month by the Citizens for Tax Justice, a liberal think tank which favors the change, stated that the change would add $50 billion per year in tax revenue.[7]

    The non-partisan United States Congress Joint Committee on Taxation released a letter in March 2012 estimating that the Buffett Rule would raise $4.67 billion per year over the next 10 years.[13] The estimated $47 billion would reduce by 0.7 percent the $6.4 trillion increase in spending over the next 10 years estimated by the Congressional Budget Office, based on President Obama's 2013 budget plan.[14] The 2013 budget proposed by the Obama administration stated that the Buffett Rule is intended to replace the Alternative Minimum Tax. The Joint Committee on Taxation calculated that the Buffett Rule plus the repeal of the Alternative Minimum Tax would increase the deficit by $793.3 billion in the next 10 years.[15]

    Part of the reason for the inequality in taxation is, that revenue from long-term capital gains is taxed at a maximum rate of 15 percent, in an attempt to encourage investment. However, individuals subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax (those with adjusted gross incomes in the area of $75,000 or higher) are required to pay capital gains tax at 26% or 28%; not at 15% as is widely mis-reported.[16] It's not entirely clear how many individuals would be affected by the change. An October 2011 study by the Congressional Research Service found that a 30% minimum tax rate rule would mean up to 200,000 taxpayers paying more.[12]
    So you have Two respected institutions, one from either side of the political spectrum, saying it would collect near 10x as much. Now THAT is a dent.

    Why is the Joint Committe wrong? Is it?

    In 2007 the top 25 Hedge Fund managers Averaged income of $877,000,000 EACH.
    That's $22 billion income for just those 25!
    They pay 15% as Romney.

    So if Just they payed 15% more, that's $3.3 Billion for those 25 people ALONE.
    And there are plenty of very rich who make well over a million (or 10 mil or 100 mil).
    So I think the higher numbers make much more sense.

    The tax isn't really aimed at Turtle-Duders who make near or about a million, most of it paycheck salary who already pay a high rate on that check.
    It's aimed at those who have a Billion, or at least a few hundred million and make money on their money. 15% money.
    Last edited by mbig; 04-18-12 at 01:33 AM.
    I'm personally sick of not being able to dunk a basketball because of racism.
    anon

  3. #303
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Senate fails to advance Buffett rule

    Quote Originally Posted by muciti View Post
    And yet Obama is pushing that the middle class does. Are you saying he is full of ****?
    I could be mistaken but I don't think Obama has ever claimed that middle class people pay 30%. Do you have a link?
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  4. #304
    Sage
    Gimmesometruth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    US Southwest
    Last Seen
    09-13-17 @ 10:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,405

    Re: Senate fails to advance Buffett rule

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    It is taxed at a proper rate. the only authority for the current rates on investment or earned income is the current law.

    a proper rate would be ZERO with a consumption tax. then the envious wouldn't spend so much time pissing and moaning about earned income vs investment income and why the rich ought to pay more even though they don't get any additional services
    O'really, like having regulated markets where they "earn" their wealth, safe regulated banks where they keep their wealth, a vast state and federal court system that legally protects their wealth, the various military branches that physically protects that wealth, a state and federal govt that they bought to create laws which allows them to keep more of their wealth since the '80s. All of these things the wealthy use to a much greater extent than the average citizen does.
    It should be like an insurance policy, the more you have to protect, the more it should cost you.

    Beyond that, as I said from the start here, the greater the wealth inequality, the greater the number of ills a modern society suffers. But then, some people never learn.
    Last edited by Gimmesometruth; 04-18-12 at 02:28 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by trouble13 View Post
    If you wanna know why Trumpsters are ignoring you its for the same reason you ignored the KKKs complaints about Obama.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    When it comes down to it, all facts are cherry picked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    He didn't say it didn't make sense. He said it is complete nonsense.

  5. #305
    #NeverTrump
    a351's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Space Coast
    Last Seen
    09-09-17 @ 08:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    6,902

    Re: Senate fails to advance Buffett rule

    Quote Originally Posted by Rapunzel52 View Post
    What error is that?


    Quote Originally Posted by Rapunzel52 View Post
    The Buffett rule would fund that government for about 11 hours. For Ubama it is not a fix it is a step to take all the money from the top 10% and then on down the line. The Marxist at work.
    The Buffet rule would fund the government for much longer than 11 hours, it doesn't affect the top 10% of income earners, and the president isn't a Marxist. Your post was an error in its entirety.
    Last edited by a351; 04-18-12 at 06:52 AM.

  6. #306
    Professor
    Billy the Kid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 02:29 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,449

    Re: Senate fails to advance Buffett rule

    Quote Originally Posted by Rapunzel52 View Post
    Oh and by the way, speaking of Ol' Warren...you know he'll benefit if the Keystone pipeline is denied, because the oil will still come to America, only instead of by pipeline, it will come by...................Choo Choo train....Oh and who owns the Choo Choo train....................Ol' Warren.


    Buffett didn't get all his wealth by being stupid.

  7. #307
    Professor
    Billy the Kid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 02:29 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,449

    Re: Senate fails to advance Buffett rule

    Quote Originally Posted by muciti View Post
    Yes. Yes I would have to pay more. As would EVERYONE else. Our country is in massive debt and I am willing to pay my share. I will always put the interests of the United States ahead of my own. I am not that selfish. I have no problem admitting that.

    I'd be all for trying to get the debt under control and if paying more in taxes would do it then I'm in.

    But . . . . . and this is a big BUT . . there would have to be a total ban on any and all new expenditurs/programs. All "earmarks" gone.

    Every gov't agency takes a 10-15% cut in program spending and personel. These agencies would have to do without. . . . no hiring contractors to pick up the slack. Seems to me if agency, i.e., GSA, has time for costly taxpayer funded 'conferences', then they have excess money and time.

    Put Social Security/Medicare monies in a lock box, no dipping into it for any reason.

    Time for the govt' to tighen up their "shot group" and cut spending. The taxpayers are not cash cows and they are cutting back and doing without. JMO

  8. #308
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 06:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,740

    Re: Senate fails to advance Buffett rule

    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    I suppose because he isn't as nuts as others here. Besides, he gives away a lot and pushes for tax increases showing how the system is rigged.

    Again, he's suing the IRS.... if he's really "pushing" as you say, why is he suing the IRS?
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  9. #309
    Guru
    Samhain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Northern Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:34 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,888

    Re: Senate fails to advance Buffett rule

    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    O'really, like having regulated markets where they "earn" their wealth, safe regulated banks where they keep their wealth, a vast state and federal court system that legally protects their wealth, the various military branches that physically protects that wealth, a state and federal govt that they bought to create laws which allows them to keep more of their wealth since the '80s. All of these things the wealthy use to a much greater extent than the average citizen does.
    It should be like an insurance policy, the more you have to protect, the more it should cost you.

    Beyond that, as I said from the start here, the greater the wealth inequality, the greater the number of ills a modern society suffers. But then, some people never learn.
    Everyone gets that. Even the poor gets all the benefits you just mentioned.

    But please, keep arguing that the rich need to pay more for excessive federal spending.

  10. #310
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    12-29-15 @ 10:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,747

    Re: Senate fails to advance Buffett rule

    Quote Originally Posted by Hare View Post
    The Buffet rule would fund the government for much longer than 11 hours, it doesn't affect the top 10% of income earners, and the president isn't a Marxist. Your post was an error in its entirety.
    The Buffet Rule is a complete joke. Obama is aiming to foment class envy and whatever other political BS he can so as to advance his idiot self. And the scumbag is a Marxist.

Page 31 of 36 FirstFirst ... 212930313233 ... 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
  •