• 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

muciti said:
That certainly is not what I took from some of your posts.

In any case, the same across the board is not happening. Neither side will agree to that it seems and it is not coming any time soon. While the buffet rule is not perfect it is a step in the right direction.
Click to expand...

Its a step towards further stupidity. The Bush Tax Cuts lowered everyone's rate about the same, except where folks who weren't paying much could only go so far to get to zero income tax.

Now you want to raise it back up, but just on the top group. And you call it "fair". :thumbdown

47% pay no federal income tax. And like you, they want to vote themselves even more largesse of the Treasury.
 
Billy the Kid said:
Didn't like my analysis? JFK is probably rolling in his grave; hell he'd probably sign up as a Repub. :2razz:
Click to expand...
Obviously, he would not join the GOP now. They were good with 70% top marginal rate then. Now you guys are talking about 15%.
 
TheNextEra said:
Really, please tell me what I have and haven't earned as far as wealth and site specific examples.
Click to expand...


You said:

o, you are afforded more opportunities because of your status. That's fact.
Click to expand...


I say yes this is true, but I have earned them, if your status was that of mine, you would understand this. I was making an educated guess.

good, then by all means, give up everything you have and start over. Oh wait, you wouldn't do that because you know your comments are BS and don't amount to anything but hot air.
Click to expand...



:lol: you make silly comments, I retort in kind, and you throw a tantrum.... :lamo

Anyway, I am headed to the Devils games, I have center ice titanium club seats (season ticket holder), dinner at fornos of spain, and perhaps a single malt or two.... before the game, along with a Cohiba siglo IV, my Luminor GMT is telling me it's time to go, so, I will think of you doing whatever it is you do while The Good Reverend is enjoying the high life.


Ciao! :pimpdaddy:
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Its a step towards further stupidity. The Bush Tax Cuts lowered everyone's rate about the same, except where folks who weren't paying much could only go so far to get to zero income tax.

Now you want to raise it back up, but just on the top group. And you call it "fair". :thumbdown

47% pay no federal income tax. And like you, they want to vote themselves even more largesse of the Treasury.
Click to expand...

Go back. Look really really hard and show me where I said I want to raise taxes on one group. When you give up please do admit you are wrong. I'll be here waiting.
 
muciti said:
Go back. Look really really hard and show me where I said I want to raise taxes on one group. When you give up please do admit you are wrong. I'll be here waiting.
Click to expand...

Of course we need to raise taxes on the top bracket only. They are the ones that don't spend all their income. Turtledude stated that he SAVES 80% of his yearly income for a rainy day. That is hurting our consumer economy that depends on SPENDING to grow and prosper. Taking more from those that already spend all they make is self defeating since that extra tax will come directly out of their spending, lowering GDP by the same amount we tax. Given the total wage stagnation of the 95%, raising taxes on anyone but the top bracket is economic suicide. If you want more people to pay taxes you just have to give them a raise.
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
Of course we need to raise taxes on the top bracket only. They are the ones that don't spend all their income. Turtledude SAVES 80% of his yearly income for a rainy day. That is hurting our consumer economy that depends on SPENDING to grow and prosper. Taking more from those that already spend all they make is self defeating since that extra tax will come directly out of their spending, lowering GDP by the same amount we tax. Raising taxes on anyone but the top bracket is economic suicide.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Everything should be equal. If you want to charge the rich X % you should be prepared to do that same.
 
muciti said:
I disagree. Everything should be equal. If you want to charge the rich X % you should be prepared to do that same.
Click to expand...

So charge everyone a flat rate. 15% gets you about 1.3 trillion straight up revenue.
 
Last edited:
muciti said:
Thats what I have been saying for years and multiple times in this thread.
Click to expand...

Well then lets get this thing done. Call your Congressman.

Ah, yes, the proverbial roadblock.
 
muciti said:
I disagree. Everything should be equal. If you want to charge the rich X % you should be prepared to do that same.
Click to expand...
That only allows a widening of wealth inequality. That creates a huge number of societal problems, no modern state does this.
 
Samhain said:
Well then lets get this thing done. Call your Congressman.

Ah, yes, the proverbial roadblock.
Click to expand...

I dont think very many in congress work with the best interest of the country in mind. Sadly partisan politics is far more important that the betterment of our country.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
That only allows a widening of wealth inequality. That creates a huge number of societal problems, no modern state does this.
Click to expand...

Just because no modern states do it doesnt mean it wouldnt work. It would generate massive amounts of income for our country, and would be fair to everyone in the country. I don't see the down side to it.
 
muciti said:
Just because no modern states do it doesnt mean it wouldnt work. It would generate massive amounts of income for our country, and would be fair to everyone in the country. I don't see the down side to it.
Click to expand...
There is lots of research on the ills of wealth inequality, just because you are not aware of it does not mean it does not exist.

When wealth inequality gets bad enough, things go very bad, ie the French Revolution, Russian Revolution....
 
Gimmesometruth said:
There is lots of research on the ills of wealth inequality, just because you are not aware of it does not mean it does not exist.

When wealth inequality gets bad enough, things go very bad, ie the French Revolution, Russian Revolution....
Click to expand...

Yeah, those two events fixed the wealth inequality problem. :rofl
 
muciti said:
Go back. Look really really hard and show me where I said I want to raise taxes on one group. When you give up please do admit you are wrong. I'll be here waiting.
Click to expand...

Well then ...........
muciti said:
....... In any case, the same across the board is not happening. Neither side will agree to that it seems and it is not coming any time soon. While the buffet rule is not perfect it is a step in the right direction.
Click to expand...

That was not hard ;)
 
muciti said:
I disagree. Everything should be equal. If you want to charge the rich X % you should be prepared to do that same.
Click to expand...

You may disagree but do you want to crash our economy or raise revenue? The progressive tax is designed to tax income not spent at a higher rate to encourage spending and growth. It is more than fairness, it is basic economics. Those that sock away most of their earnings are the slackers when it comes to helping our economy grow. The slghtly higher rates are more than justified to compensate for the money they take out of spending and growth. One CEO who makes as much as 100 of his workers is lucky to spend as much as 10 of them do in a year.
 
Last edited:
muciti said:
Just because no modern states do it doesnt mean it wouldnt work. It would generate massive amounts of income for our country, and would be fair to everyone in the country. I don't see the down side to it.
Click to expand...

Every version a flat tax that I've seen includes a personal exemption, which would keep many of those who currently don't pay FIT from paying under a flat tax, and of course it would result in different rates.

If you don't have an exemption then a flat tax is simply unfair. It fails to capture the distinction between income necessary for basic survival and disposable income. In effect it results in middle class disposable income being taxed at a rate in the high 80s or 90s, versus the low 20s for wealthier individuals.

In other words, it's sort of like taxing a corporation on gross revenue rather than net profits.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
There is lots of research on the ills of wealth inequality, just because you are not aware of it does not mean it does not exist.

When wealth inequality gets bad enough, things go very bad, ie the French Revolution, Russian Revolution....
Click to expand...

Creating a flat tax does not cause any wealth inequality. If anything it does the exact opposite.
 
muciti said:
Creating a flat tax does not cause any wealth inequality. If anything it does the exact opposite.
Click to expand...

Total nonsense. A flat tax is clearly regressive.
 
AdamT said:
Every version a flat tax that I've seen includes a personal exemption, which would keep many of those who currently don't pay FIT from paying under a flat tax, and of course it would result in different rates.

If you don't have an exemption then a flat tax is simply unfair. It fails to capture the distinction between income necessary for basic survival and disposable income. In effect it results in middle class disposable income being taxed at a rate in the high 80s or 90s, versus the low 20s for wealthier individuals.

In other words, it's sort of like taxing a corporation on gross revenue rather than net profits.
Click to expand...

How does a flat tax result in the middle classes being taxed in the high 80's or 90's and low 20's for wealthier?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom