• 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

Chiefgator said:
I do not understand the second part of your comment. What was much less?
Your effective tax rate is simply your tax paid divided by your gross income. That is what you paid divided by what you paid.

ie: You paid $20,000 and your gross income was $120,000 your EFFECTIVE tax rate is ~16%

Your "tax bracket" is not your effective tax.

The issue I have with the story that came out about Obama's secretary is that they used his Effective tax rate and her Tax Bracket when they reported the story. Apples and Oranges...
Click to expand...

Warren really doesn't pay income tax. He already paid income tax on the money he's investing quite a while ago...he's basically only paying a dividend tax... or capital gains.
Of course he's for the Buffett rule, it doesn't effect him.
 
Hare said:
Asking someone to hunt down the source of your own flawed numbers is not a good practice.

Seeing as various estimates project revenues to fall anywhere between 30 and 40 billion, around 7 to 10 days.
Click to expand...

You should be unabashedely ashamed of a post like that.

That you are not is indicative of the cancer amongst us.

7-10 days. Out of a total of over 3700. Oh yeah, this really counts :roll:

Ron White nailed it.
 
Rapunzel52 said:
Warren really doesn't pay income tax. He already paid income tax on the money he's investing quite a while ago...he's basically only paying a dividend tax... or capital gains.
Of course he's for the Buffett rule, it doesn't effect him.
Click to expand...

yes..... I know......
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I just read your argument and your math, you can't see how your argument for a flat tax would cause you to have less wealth.

You are the perfect example of a person who argues against their own self interest.
Click to expand...

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.
 
AdamT said:
No, that is incorrect. Obviously it depends on how you define middle class, and of course there's a large variation between what people pay given their particular situations. The middle quintile pays, on average, around 14%. That's a higher rate than Romney pays some years, and of course there are some people in that middle group who pay more than 14%. There are also plenty who don't pay anything at all as a result of the EITC and other credits.

But I think it's safe to say that NO middle class American is paying a 30% tax rate. That would be mathematically impossible given that the 28% bracket doesn't start until you have $140k in income (married filing jointly).
Click to expand...

And yet Obama is pushing that the middle class does. Are you saying he is full of ****?
 
Eighty Deuce said:
You should be unabashedely ashamed of a post like that.

That you are not is indicative of the cancer amongst us.

7-10 days. Out of a total of over 3700. Oh yeah, this really counts :roll:

Ron White nailed it.
Click to expand...
Why's that?

Not going to even venture into that realm of absurdity.

Never said it was meaningful, in fact I wouldn't support the Buffet rule if I had the chance to vote on the legislation. I was simply pointing out the error in another users post.
 
Hare said:
Why's that?

Not going to even venture into that realm of absurdity.

Never said it was meaningful, in fact I wouldn't support the Buffet rule if I had the chance to vote on the legislation. I was simply pointing out the error in another users post.
Click to expand...

What error is that?
 
muciti said:
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.
Click to expand...
Um.....but that is the point, the top quintile would not.

What you would do is to shift the tax burden to the lowest income groups. As Adam already showed you, you would take nearly all disposable income from the two lowest quintiles.

PS...anytime you want to, you can overpay to your hearts content....I would expect you to, since apparently you think it is your duty to do so. Let us know about that, OK?

PS...you proved my point once again, a flat tax will create a greater wealth inequality.
 
Last edited:
Gimmesometruth said:
Um.....but that is the point, the top quintile would not.

What you would do is to shift the tax burden to the lowest income groups. As Adam already showed you, you would take nearly all disposable income from the two lowest quintiles.

PS...anytime you want to, you can overpay to your hearts content....I would expect you to, since apparently you think it is your duty to do so. Let us know about that, OK?

PS...you proved my point once again, a flat tax will create a greater wealth inequality.
Click to expand...



Awesome, why hasn't buffet?
 
TurtleDude said:
More lies

first of all dividend income is taxed twice in many cases

secondly short term investment income is taxed the same as earned income

long term capital gains face both risk and inflation

so your claims are horsecrap. They aren't getting huge breaks. They are still paying far more and getting NOTHING additional in return.

So your claims are specious
Click to expand...
Right...and Buffet (et al) is a liar.

You didn't look at the NYT, Atlantic or Bloomberg articles...your loss.
 
TurtleDude said:
That is not a concern for a free society. And you are in no position to tell someone who is more successful than you are what they should do with their income.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a totally free society. That's what's called anarchy and it ends up being the least free society of all.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Right...and Buffet (et al) is a liar.

You didn't look at the NYT, Atlantic or Bloomberg articles...your loss.
Click to expand...

Buffett is dishonest. He pays himself an artificially low salary that is one fifth what his secretary earns

of course she is going to pay a higher rate than he does-her like income is much higher
 
AdamT said:
There is no such thing as a totally free society. That's what's called anarchy and it ends up being the least free society of all.
Click to expand...


that does not justify your working for a more socialist society. Tell me true are you a paid employee of the dems or a den candidate. I remember when I was your age and working at a big law firm-I sure didn't have the kind of time you have
 
apdst said:
What is messed up, is that you think the French and Soviet Revolutions were revolts against rich folks, when in actuality, they were revolts against greedy governments.
Click to expand...

Greedy Govt.s alright...... made up of all the greedy rich people in the society. Sort of like what the GOP has become now. Isn't that funny.
 
Billy the Kid said:
Now this is exactly what I thought. The Buffett Rule is all hype and no money. Hell the GSA has probably wasted this much on their "conferences".
Click to expand...

The money that the GSA wasted and the money that was wasted on Solyndra, combined, isn't a pore on a pimple on the ass of the money that would be collected under the Buffett rule. Thus the usual right wing hypocrisy.
 
TurtleDude said:
Buffett is dishonest. He pays himself an artificially low salary that is one fifth what his secretary earns

of course she is going to pay a higher rate than he does-her like income is much higher
Click to expand...
Again, you prove the point, his massive investment income does not get taxed at a rate that is proper. You are arguing for the loopholes he gets.
 
TurtleDude said:
that does not justify your working for a more socialist society. Tell me true are you a paid employee of the dems or a den candidate. I remember when I was your age and working at a big law firm-I sure didn't have the kind of time you have
Click to expand...
Yeah, the US from WWII to 81 was a socialist state.
Love it!
 
TurtleDude said:
that does not justify your working for a more socialist society. Tell me true are you a paid employee of the dems or a den candidate. I remember when I was your age and working at a big law firm-I sure didn't have the kind of time you have
Click to expand...

I'd bet that you're younger than I am, champ. :lol:
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Again, you prove the point, his massive investment income does not get taxed at a rate that is proper. You are arguing for the loopholes he gets.
Click to expand...

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
 
AdamT said:
I'd bet that you're younger than I am, champ. :lol:
Click to expand...

really-how old are you? I passed the bar in 84, I thought you claimed you and your wife were recent law grads

Oh well
 
TurtleDude said:
really-how old are you? I passed the bar in 84, I thought you claimed you and your wife were recent law grads

Oh well
Click to expand...

No, never claimed that. I guess you must be three or four years older if you passed the bar in '84. That's the year I graduated college.

But I was 30 when I went to law school and haven't practiced for a few years. Decided to do something I enjoy instead.
 
AdamT said:
No, never claimed that. I guess you must be three or four years older if you passed the bar in '84. That's the year I graduated college.

But I was 30 when I went to law school and haven't practiced for a few years. Decided to do something I enjoy instead.
Click to expand...

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.
 
18834957.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom