• 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!

Senate fails to advance Buffett rule

mike2810 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
AdamT said:
Do you know what a non sequitur is? Hint: ^^^^^
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...
 
AdamT said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
StillBallin75 said:
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%.
Click to expand...


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.
 
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:
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.
 
StillBallin75 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
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.
Click to expand...

I guess that sort of backfired, then. :lol:
 
PW4000 said:
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.
Click to expand...

IMO we should go to a VAT. It's a proven system that eliminates most of the problems in our tax code.
 
The Buffet Rule is an f'ing Joke !!

It would amount to less than 1/2 of one-percent of the increased debt over the next 10 years.
The Buffett tax would raise $47 billion from 2012 through 2022 if imposed on taxpayers earning more than $1 million, or $500,000 for married individuals filing separately, according to a March memo from the Joint Committee on Taxation, a nonpartisan body that estimates tax changes for lawmakers.

Critics note that the additional revenue would do little to tame the $1.2 trillion federal budget deficit that is forecast for this fiscal year, which ends on Sept. 30. Proponents say every little bit helps and the bigger issue is fairness.

Q+A: The 'Buffett Rule,' a minimum tax on the rich | Reuters
Click to expand...

$47 billion over 10 years. That's if it did not stifle investment in the US. We are looking at $10 trillion in increasing debt over those 10 years.

The Buffet Rule is liberal stupidity. Liberal nonsense to get all the little libbies panties-in-a-wad. It amounts to less than 0.5% of the projected increase in the debt over the next 10 years. Just more class warfare ignorance for the liberals.

This is pathetic.
 
AdamT said:
IMO we should go to a VAT. It's a proven system that eliminates most of the problems in our tax code.
Click to expand...
I might be persuaded on a VAT. But, you would have to educate me on exactly how you plan to deal with the price corruption that could easily take place on the production and distribution side of the Value (or Magnitude) of the VAT itself, before I'd be willing to vote for it. I make more money than I know what to do with. So, my interest is in fairness. I can (and so should you) clearly see the stage being set for inflation. But, the input of inflation in the overall economy, could be blunted be a higher overall "per capita wealth index as a percentage of overall GDP" (if I may be so bold as to create yet another economic indicator). Take me to skool on how you appropriately deal with the "value added" variable and you might have the beginnings of a deal.
 
Here's a simple question... if Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush Jr all increased the budget deficit following the Conservative ideals of cutting taxes, cutting the social net and regulations, why do Conservatives believe that NOW if they cut taxes, cut the social net and regulations it'll magically balance the budget?
 
Tettsuo said:
Here's a simple question... if Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush Jr all increased the budget deficit following the Conservative ideals of cutting taxes, cutting the social net and regulations, why do Conservatives believe that NOW if they cut taxes, cut the social net and regulations it'll magically balance the budget?
Click to expand...
They don't really believe that, Tettsuo. But, let's be clear about whom we give the honor to for being setting our nation's fiscal policies. All Money Bills originate in the House. It is the Congress (typically) who is charged with that responsibility by way of Constitutional norms. When you look at all the critical money bills that have hurt this country, you will find that both Republicans and Democrats have ink on their hands. You will also find that some of the best legislation, also had bi-partisan support in both the House and the Senate, making the job of the President, so much easier. I think President Obama, said it best when he recently stated that not even Ronald Reagan, would make it through the GOP selection process (speaking to the extreme views that now dominate almost all Conservative dialog about which way to take the country).
 
PW4000 said:
They don't really believe that, Tettsuo. But, let's be clear about whom we give the honor to for being setting our nation's fiscal policies. All Money Bills originate in the House. It is the Congress (typically) who is charged with that responsibility by way of Constitutional norms. When you look at all the critical money bills that have hurt this country, you will find that both Republicans and Democrats have ink on their hands. You will also find that some of the best legislation, also had bi-partisan support in both the House and the Senate, making the job of the President, so much easier. I think President Obama, said it best when he recently stated that not even Ronald Reagan, would make it through the GOP selection process (speaking to the extreme views that now dominate almost all Conservative dialog about which way to take the country).
Click to expand...

My point is very simple. They want to blame Obama for everything, yet when we look and see which side has done the most harm to the budget (if going only by presidents) it's Conservatives/Republicans touting the exact same ideas. So either it's not the president's fault or it is. You can't have it both ways.
 
PW4000 said:
I might be persuaded on a VAT. But, you would have to educate me on exactly how you plan to deal with the price corruption that could easily take place on the production and distribution side of the Value (or Magnitude) of the VAT itself, before I'd be willing to vote for it. I make more money than I know what to do with. So, my interest is in fairness. I can (and so should you) clearly see the stage being set for inflation. But, the input of inflation in the overall economy, could be blunted be a higher overall "per capita wealth index as a percentage of overall GDP" (if I may be so bold as to create yet another economic indicator). Take me to skool on how you appropriately deal with the "value added" variable and you might have the beginnings of a deal.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what potential you see for corruption. I think the VAT is one of the hardest taxes to fudge because it's applied at each stage of production, from raw product to retail sale. If you're not familiar with it, here's an example of how it works:

Farmer sells his wheat to distributor, who pays a tax on the sale. Distributor sells the wheat to miller, who pays a tax on the sale. But the distributor gets a credit for the tax he already paid. The miller sells his flower to the baker who pays a tax on the sale, while the miller gets a credit for the tax he already paid and for the tax the distributor paid. The baker sells his bread to the grocer, who pays a tax on the sale, while the baker gets a credit for the tax he already paid, the tax the miller paid, and the tax the distributor paid. The grocer sells the bread to the consumer, who pays a tax on the sale, while the grocer gets a credit for all the previously paid taxes.

So in the end, the consumer ends up paying the tax, but unlike a traditional sales tax, if the final seller manages to avoid the tax (say he engages in barter), most of the tax will already have been collected. The only tax that's actually avoided is the tax on the grocer's markup.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
The Buffet Rule is an f'ing Joke !!

It would amount to less than 1/2 of one-percent of the increased debt over the next 10 years.


$47 billion over 10 years. That's if it did not stifle investment in the US. We are looking at $10 trillion in increasing debt over those 10 years.

The Buffet Rule is liberal stupidity. Liberal nonsense to get all the little libbies panties-in-a-wad. It amounts to less than 0.5% of the projected increase in the debt over the next 10 years. Just more class warfare ignorance for the liberals.

This is pathetic.
Click to expand...

You know what they say: $50 billion here, $50 billion there -- soon you're talking about real money. :roll:
 
Eighty Deuce said:
The Buffet Rule is an f'ing Joke !!

It would amount to less than 1/2 of one-percent of the increased debt over the next 10 years.


$47 billion over 10 years. That's if it did not stifle investment in the US. We are looking at $10 trillion in increasing debt over those 10 years.

The Buffet Rule is liberal stupidity. Liberal nonsense to get all the little libbies panties-in-a-wad. It amounts to less than 0.5% of the projected increase in the debt over the next 10 years. Just more class warfare ignorance for the liberals.

This is pathetic.
Click to expand...

Makes you wonder how much revenue would be raised if we had a minimum tax % for everyone.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Read more @: Senate fails to advance Buffett rule

Dear god why!? Its common ****ing sense. When we are at a time when we have deficits that need to be closed and we need to make investments to strengthen our economy why cant a simple thing like this pass!?
[/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]
Click to expand...



40 billion over ten years is hardly a dent in the deficit. the "buffet rule" (buffet btw is suing the IRS for paying too much taxes), is an emotional class warfare tactic.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
The Buffet Rule is an f'ing Joke !!

It would amount to less than 1/2 of one-percent of the increased debt over the next 10 years.
Click to expand...

I thought Cons always said "It all adds up". I guess that was only for Social Programs, not taxes.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
40 billion over ten years is hardly a dent in the deficit. the "buffet rule" (buffet btw is suing the IRS for paying too much taxes), is an emotional class warfare tactic.
Click to expand...


Cons and Libertarians have said "It all adds up".
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Read more @: Senate fails to advance Buffett rule

Dear god why!? Its common ****ing sense. When we are at a time when we have deficits that need to be closed and we need to make investments to strengthen our economy why cant a simple thing like this pass!?
[/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]
Click to expand...

This is nothing more than a political stunt on the part of Democrats. They took a poll and found out that most people support the Buffett rule, so brought it up in the Senate so they could rub Republican faces in it, when they go on the record, by their vote, as against it. Honestly, the Democrats don't give a damn about the issue, except to make it a wedge issue in the upcoming election.
 
TheNextEra said:
I thought Cons always said "It all adds up". I guess that was only for Social Programs, not taxes.
Click to expand...

It does all add up. 1/2 of one percent is going in the right direction. If you want it to go up more we need to be eliminating all these loopholes that people, especially the rich, exploit. 30% doesnt mean anything if they are only paying 30% of 25% of thier income. We need to make people pay taxes on their full earnings!
 
danarhea said:
Honestly, the Democrats don't give a damn about the issue, except to make it a wedge issue in the upcoming election.
Click to expand...

In that regard, I believe you are correct. But then that is standard politics for both sides which is why we are in the mess we are in.

Both sides "claim" to want to take action, but never do.
 
muciti said:
It does all add up. 1/2 of one percent is going in the right direction. If you want it to go up more we need to be eliminating all these loopholes that people, especially the rich, exploit. 30% doesnt mean anything if they are only paying 30% of 25% of thier income. We need to make people pay taxes on their full earnings!
Click to expand...

There are lots of things we need to be doing. The problem is, both sides only want their way implemented. The right only wants social programs cut and taxes lowered, while most on the left in congress want only taxes increased and military cut.

Cuts, reforms, and tax increases need to happen for us to get out of the mess we are in. However, both sides are only interested in getting elected and re-elected for their own benefit instead of the whole.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom