• 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

You did misread that part, it was stated strictly for CONSERVATIVES.

No, you are whining about having to pay more when you are afforded more.


Afforded more? :lamo I earn every dime I get. You or the government don't earn me money, I earn me money... What will you personally benefit from by taxing the rich more to the tune of 40 billion a year?

:lol: @ the dependent class.
 
It didn't go over my head, you were just showing your partisan hackery at that moment. You're forgiven my left wing friend.


Partisan hackery? I think you should at least apply relevant insults, partisanism has nothing to do with it my dependent class friend.
 
It's nonsense, look at what TNE stated, regarding 2013... he thinks only I will have to pay. but in one year, when all these taxes come back and the average family is paying 3k or so more a year, in one year, they will collect over 500 billion. 40 billion in one year, is not about reducing the deficit, but class warfare election year politics.

Yes, Rev, you may get an increase in taxes, however, if you are indeed as well off as you claim it won't harm you like it would harm families currently struggling just to make rent.

I have also mentioned decriminalization, welfare reform, and education for jobs that will also add.

You only look at taxes, that's funny.
 
edit: misread that one.
 
Last edited:
It's nonsense, look at what TNE stated, regarding 2013... he thinks only I will have to pay. but in one year, when all these taxes come back and the average family is paying 3k or so more a year, in one year, they will collect over 500 billion. 40 billion in one year, is not about reducing the deficit, but class warfare election year politics.

No its not class warfare. Thats just a catch phrase. Other than the fact that Obama is for it, do you actually have a reason for not wanting people to pay taxes?
 
Yes, Rev, you may get an increase in taxes, however, if you are indeed as well off as you claim it won't harm you like it would harm families currently struggling just to make rent.

True, I won't even notice. However, neither will "struggling people trying to make rent".... that's the point, you fail to grasp. you won't be getting any of my money no matter how much they take.


I have also mentioned decriminalization, welfare reform, and education for jobs that will also add.

You only look at taxes, that's funny.


in a thread on buffets tax rules, how odd I focus on taxes...... odd I say! :lamo
 
No its not class warfare. Thats just a catch phrase. Other than the fact that Obama is for it, do you actually have a reason for not wanting people to pay taxes?



yes, I find us to be far overtaxed, if the fed and state was limited to 15% and that's it, they may by neccecity need to become far more efficient, and more careful where they spend and what they do with our money.


And it is class warfare that Obama is playing, it's an irrellevant argument that adds next to nothing to the fedgov sow's trough.....
 
The alternate is do nothing until we come up with a bill that will eliminate our debt? I hate to break it to you, but that is not going to happen. That 40 billion won't pay of interest for a week? We pay on average about 21 billion in interest a month. So yes it would cover a week. Dont exaggerate please. Futhermore that 40 billion is not going to just pay on the interest. It is going to reduce the debt amount and not only give us 40 billion but also reduce the amount that we are paying in interest. Even if only by a few million a month. You pass a few bills reducing it by 40 billion and you are making a difference. Which is far better than ignoring it and doing nothing.

This is the great LIE that Obama and Reid are pushing on the gullible. It does seem that they are better, more cunning politicians than their foes. It would seem that the Republicans would have been better off allowing this to pass in the senate and then taking up the issue of COMPREHENSIVE tax reform in the house. The house could then call on members from both sides, the senate and white house to come up with a bill.

It has been done, look at the tax reform act in 1986 with Bill Bradley as a key leader on the issue.
 
yes, I find us to be far overtaxed, if the fed and state was limited to 15% and that's it, they may by neccecity need to become far more efficient, and more careful where they spend and what they do with our money.


And it is class warfare that Obama is playing, it's an irrellevant argument that adds next to nothing to the fedgov sow's trough.....

15% is sad and rediculous. Especially considering the number of tax breaks, and deductions and other loopholes the rich exploit so they aren't even going to be paying the 30% of their actual income.
 
yes, I find us to be far overtaxed, if the fed and state was limited to 15% and that's it, they may by neccecity need to become far more efficient, and more careful where they spend and what they do with our money.

Or they close the LTCG handout and raise it to 30% and then whiners like yourself can deal with it since even YOU admitted it won't affect you in the slightest.

And it is class warfare that Obama is playing, it's an irrellevant argument that adds next to nothing to the fedgov sow's trough.....

LOL $40 Billion adds nothing according to you. You can't make this **** up folks and it's people like the rev that complain about class warfare when $40 Billion means nothing to them.
 
15% is sad and rediculous. Especially considering the number of tax breaks, and deductions and other loopholes the rich exploit so they aren't even going to be paying the 30% of their actual income.



get rid of all breaks, all "loopholes", all deductions, everyone pays 15%.....on all income earned....
 
get rid of all breaks, all "loopholes", all deductions, everyone pays 15%.....on all income earned....

I am all for leveling the playing field so that every one pays the same amount. No loopholes or deductions. But I dont think 15% is sufficient.
 
get rid of all breaks, all "loopholes", all deductions, everyone pays 15%.....on all income earned....

Again, your solution is to basically raise the tax on the poor and middle class who can't afford it while giving a huge tax break for the rich. Classic.

Fairness for the rich.
 
I agree with you in part. The buffet rule is not going to change much so long as there are so many loopholes to be exploited. The Buffet rule would be a start but we need to start holding people to paying 30% of their total earning, not 30% of their adjusted income (like the buffet rule is doing). There is a huge difference there. The buffet rule as it might generate 40 billion, which is great, but how much would it make if you got people to pay 30% of the TOTAL income. The payoff would probably be 10x that amount.

Which is literally to embrace the socialist stupidity. If you are advocating a flat tax for all, then that has merit. However, you are embracing nothing but class envy, where we reduce everyone's taxes via the Bush tax Cuts ($250 B per year from the middle class), but then raise them back up on the most successful. What a plan eh ? Let's just line up folks in groups of ten, lower everyone's taxes, then raise them back up for that guy on the end. Cause its "fair" ? Then we'll do it again ! Whoooot !

Secondly, investments can walk. And they will, when you decide to pursue this class warfare crap. If you want to embrace revisions to the tax code, look to the Fair Tax. Or such as Simpson-Bowles, which lowered tax rates, but made other changes so as to increase general revenue.
They follow true solutions, not some class-warfare script.

To embrace such as the Buffet Rule is to be short-sighted and small-minded. aka: Liberal.
 
Again, your solution is to basically raise the tax on the poor and middle class who can't afford it while giving a huge tax break for the rich. Classic.

Fairness for the rich.

Would you be willing to pay 30% of your total earnings if it meant ALL of the rich would be paying 30% of theirs? And not just the rich, corporations and such as well. I would be more than happy to.
 
Or they close the LTCG handout and raise it to 30% and then whiners like yourself can deal with it since even YOU admitted it won't affect you in the slightest.

It won't. check out the tavern pic thread, since you seem so interested in the Good Reverend's opulence.... you are the guy whining about the evil rich....I'm just saying you could tax me at 50% and you won't see a damn change in your dependent class life. :lol:


LOL $40 Billion adds nothing according to you. You can't make this **** up folks and it's people like the rev that complain about class warfare when $40 Billion means nothing to them.


3.8 trillion dolla budget.....

2013 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


15.4 trillion in debt.

U.S. expected to hit debt ceiling before 2013, Geithner says - The Washington Post


$40 billion over ten years is like pissing in the ocean.


the fatted sow will have no more milk for the dependent class to suckle....
 
Would you be willing to pay 30% of your total earnings if it meant ALL of the rich would be paying 30% of theirs? And not just the rich, corporations and such as well. I would be more than happy to.



So, S corp owners should be taxed at 60% total? way to kill business... :lol:
 
Which is literally to embrace the socialist stupidity. If you are advocating a flat tax for all, then that has merit. However, you are embracing nothing but class envy, where we reduce everyone's taxes via the Bush tax Cuts ($250 B per year from the middle class), but then raise them back up on the most successful. What a plan eh ? Let's just line up folks in groups of ten, lower everyone's taxes, then raise them back up for that guy on the end. Cause its "fair" ? Then we'll do it again ! Whoooot !

Secondly, investments can walk. And they will, when you decide to pursue this class warfare crap. If you want to embrace revisions to the tax code, look to the Fair Tax. Or such as Simpson-Bowles, which lowered tax rates, but made other changes so as to increase general revenue.
They follow true solutions, not some class-warfare script.

To embrace such as the Buffet Rule is to be short-sighted and small-minded. aka: Liberal.

Couple things here. First off, attacking liberals has little to no effect on me because I am not a liberal. It only goes to show how much you have been brainwashed by your own party to the point that you aren't able to think for yourself.

Secondly, I have repeatedly in this thread, and other stated that I think every in this country should be paying the exact same rate on their total earning. No deductions. Loop holes or anything else. And I believe that rate should be 25-30%.
 
Again, your solution is to basically raise the tax on the poor and middle class who can't afford it while giving a huge tax break for the rich. Classic.

Fairness for the rich.



15% for all, seems fair. I will still pay more than you..... :shrug:
 
So, S corp owners should be taxed at 60% total? way to kill business... :lol:

S corporations pay taxes via the individual not the business. If the individuals are marking the profit then the business clearly isnt. Dont try to twist up anything I am saying. Either address the post or don't. But dont make things up.
 
You make a dollar, I make 100,000 dollars..... we both get taxed at 15% of our representative salary...


who pays more?

We both pay 15%. I know what your trying to do here. Either you want to pay $0.15 in taxes or you want someone who makes $1 to pay $15,000 in taxes. Both scenarios are retarded. Neither is fair. Fair is paying the same percentage no matter what you make.
 
Last edited:
No. You would be paying the same as everyone. That is the point.

I beleive the poster means that 15% of a high number - let us say $500,000.00 is a whole lot more in dollars than 15% of $50,000.00.

In the first case ones tax bill would be $75,000.00 while in the second case it would be $7,500.00. Thus even though the rate is the same percentage, higher income earners pay more actual dollars.
 
Back
Top Bottom