Page 6 of 36 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 358

Thread: Senate fails to advance Buffett rule

  1. #51
    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 mike2810 View Post
    I will agree to a point with your statement. You really don't think its that simple regarding the federal budget issues. Let me ask, if the Buffet rule was made law, what is in the law that would have the increased revenue brought in go towards the deficit and debt we have? The issue I have is not lowering the deficit but eliminate it and work towards reducing the debt.

    In your own words, "you will lower the deficit. OK, what does that really mean? Instead of borrowing .40 of every dollar spent, Congress will what, borrow .20 or .30 of every dollars. Doesn't that means the debt still increases? When is Congress and the President going to realize we must have a balanced budget which includes a lowering of the debt. If we don't do this soon, what is that doing for future generations?
    No one is claiming that the Buffett rule would solve the whole deficit problem. It's just a small piece of the puzzle, which will require large spending cuts and also broad-based tax increases. The reason they're pushing the Buffett Rule now, IMO, is that raising taxes on the wealthy has less of a dampening effect on the economy than raising taxes on the poor and middle class. Not saying that it has NO effect -- but less effect, simply because the wealthy have much more disposable income and are less likely to change their spending habits as a result of a relatively small tax hike.
    "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. #52
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,520

    Re: Senate fails to advance Buffett rule

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Do you know what a non sequitur is? Hint: ^^^^^
    I also know what an expenditure is.

    ex·pen·di·ture
    noun
    \ik-ˈspen-di-chər, -də-ˌchur, -də-ˌt(y)ur\


    1: the act or process of expending <an expenditure of energy>


    2: something expended : disbursement, expense <income should exceed expenditures
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  3. #53
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,520

    Re: Senate fails to advance Buffett rule

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    No one is claiming that the Buffett rule would solve the whole deficit problem. It's just a small piece of the puzzle, which will require large spending cuts and also broad-based tax increases. The reason they're pushing the Buffett Rule now, IMO, is that raising taxes on the wealthy has less of a dampening effect on the economy than raising taxes on the poor and middle class. Not saying that it has NO effect -- but less effect, simply because the wealthy have much more disposable income and are less likely to change their spending habits as a result of a relatively small tax hike.
    The reason they're pushing the Buffet Rule, is sheer class warfare. Everyone--Reps and Dems--knows that a tax increase on the middle and lower class will cause a bunch of congress critters to be looking for a new job.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  4. #54
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    07-11-14 @ 06:21 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    1,025

    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%.

    That was pretty much spot on. I was hoping I could someone who actually said it, so I don't have illiterate it.

    Thank you.

  5. #55
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    07-11-14 @ 06:21 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    1,025

    Re: Senate fails to advance Buffett rule

    A business that I Chair, paid a grand total of 9.7% taxes in 2011. Another business where I am the CEO, paid 11.3% taxes in 2011. I expect to pay even less in 2012. Personally, however, things were a lot different. I draw a salary from both and got taxed right at the standard middle tier of rates (including routine deductions, credits, blah, blah, blah.). So, as my personal income taxes far outweighed my business taxes, but my business income far outweighed my personal income.

    You have to learn how to play the game the way the game was meant to be played. These guys will never close all the corporate loopholes and the benefits to an LLC, or an LLP, fair outweigh (for many) running your business as an S-Type Corp (where you are taxed at the individual rate). There are also benefits to properly structuring your entities as well, such as the proper use of things like the Family Limited Partnership and the Living Trust, to name just a couple. Knowing how to make sure that your passive income is invested either tax deferred, is also a huge win. Knowing how to get money from a legal entity, without triggering a taxable event, is also a plus. If the matter is just about how to keep your taxes down, there are plenty of things that you can do. Why? Because, Congress will always write tax laws that benefit themselves and their campaign supporters. That's the way it has been working for eons.

    But, the much bigger question is not the taxes we pay. Rather, the big question is the spending that Government does with the tax revenue they currently rake in. Taxing may be out of control, especially if you are up in the mid to high 20%, but Congressional spending - especially off budget spending, is where American Tax Payers are really paying a net effective higher rate - even if the Government bill does not come do for years into the future. Their current over budget spending, still translates to another Tax Bill for Tax Payers.

    I really don't think this Buffet Rule is that big of a deal. Like I said in another post, I think it really a non-issue ultimately and I think it detracts the American Tax Payer from the fact that as a nation, we are Trillions of dollars in debt and we have no way (currently) to ever repay that debt - especially with an economy limping along the way it has been.

    The sooner the American People put Congress on a Spending Diet, the sooner issues like these will stop coming up each and every national election cycle. Don't let them distract you - stay on the issue. The issue is Congressional Spending Controls. And, of course, killing the Federal Reserve and ending the Fractional Banking System.

    Stay focused on what really matters.
    Last edited by PW4000; 04-17-12 at 04:38 AM.

  6. #56
    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
    Thankyou I lost the site, what numbers do you quible with?
    All of them.

  7. #57
    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

    If Obama wants this rule so bad, then why did he take every possible deduction on his taxes? He should have just filed a 1040EZ, took the standard deduction, and paid the highest effective tax possible.

  8. #58
    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
    The point remains that Reagan recognized the fact that tax increases, coupled with spending cuts, were necessary to keep government solvent. In essence, my point was that even Reagan recognized that tax increases were needed, and tax cuts alone wouldn't generate enough revenue, if at all.

    This whole conversation began as a challenge to the supply-side argument, which is essentially that tax cuts alone can generate more revenue, which is untrue. So if you could address that part, please. Otherwise you're just trying to counter an argument that I'm not making.
    All I wanted to do is make people that are saying Reagan raised taxes too STFU! I am sick of hearing obama and his minions distort history to justify raising taxes and spending like drunken sailors, no offense to sailors.

  9. #59
    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 sawyerloggingon View Post
    All I wanted to do is make people that are saying Reagan raised taxes too STFU! I am sick of hearing obama and his minions distort history to justify raising taxes and spending like drunken sailors, no offense to sailors.
    I guess that sort of backfired, then.
    "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

  10. #60
    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 PW4000 View Post
    A business that I Chair, paid a grand total of 9.7% taxes in 2011. Another business where I am the CEO, paid 11.3% taxes in 2011. I expect to pay even less in 2012. Personally, however, things were a lot different. I draw a salary from both and got taxed right at the standard middle tier of rates (including routine deductions, credits, blah, blah, blah.). So, as my personal income taxes far outweighed my business taxes, but my business income far outweighed my personal income.

    You have to learn how to play the game the way the game was meant to be played. These guys will never close all the corporate loopholes and the benefits to an LLC, or an LLP, fair outweigh (for many) running your business as an S-Type Corp (where you are taxed at the individual rate). There are also benefits to properly structuring your entities as well, such as the proper use of things like the Family Limited Partnership and the Living Trust, to name just a couple. Knowing how to make sure that your passive income is invested either tax deferred, is also a huge win. Knowing how to get money from a legal entity, without triggering a taxable event, is also a plus. If the matter is just about how to keep your taxes down, there are plenty of things that you can do. Why? Because, Congress will always write tax laws that benefit themselves and their campaign supporters. That's the way it has been working for eons.

    But, the much bigger question is not the taxes we pay. Rather, the big question is the spending that Government does with the tax revenue they currently rake in. Taxing may be out of control, especially if you are up in the mid to high 20%, but Congressional spending - especially off budget spending, is where American Tax Payers are really paying a net effective higher rate - even if the Government bill does not come do for years into the future. Their current over budget spending, still translates to another Tax Bill for Tax Payers.

    I really don't think this Buffet Rule is that big of a deal. Like I said in another post, I think it really a non-issue ultimately and I think it detracts the American Tax Payer from the fact that as a nation, we are Trillions of dollars in debt and we have no way (currently) to ever repay that debt - especially with an economy limping along the way it has been.

    The sooner the American People put Congress on a Spending Diet, the sooner issues like these will stop coming up each and every national election cycle. Don't let them distract you - stay on the issue. The issue is Congressional Spending Controls. And, of course, killing the Federal Reserve and ending the Fractional Banking System.

    Stay focused on what really matters.
    IMO we should go to a VAT. It's a proven system that eliminates most of the problems in our tax code.
    "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

Page 6 of 36 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... 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
  •