Page 1 of 36 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 358

Thread: Senate fails to advance Buffett rule

  1. #1
    Gradualist

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    09-25-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    34,949
    Blog Entries
    6

    Senate fails to advance Buffett rule

    The Democratic-controlled Senate failed on Monday to reach a super-majority needed to pass a tax plan offered by
    President Obama
    to require millionaires to pay a 30% minimum effective tax rate.

    The 51-45 defeat of the "Buffett rule," named after billionaire investor Warren Buffett, fell mostly along party lines. The bill needed 60 votes to move forward. Sen.Susan Collins, R-Maine, was the only Republican to vote with Democrats, while Arkansas Democrat Mark Pryor sided with the GOP.Senate Republicans criticized the bill as an election-year ploy by the president who has been campaigning on a message that all Americans should pay their "fair share" in order to help balance the budget. "For him, it's not about jobs or the economy. It's about his idea of fairness, about imposing it on others," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

    Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., countered that wealthy Americans are currently enjoying some of the lowest tax rates in modern history. "This unfair system has turned the gap between the richest few and everyone else into a gulf," he said.
    The White House proposal was named for Buffett after he publicly called last year for a tax code that does not allow the wealthiest of Americans to pay a lower effective tax rate than the middle class, which is currently possible because of how tax rules apply differently to money made off of investments vs. money earned through a pay check.



    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!?


  2. #2
    Educator
    Chiefgator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Lake Jem, FL pop:35
    Last Seen
    05-08-15 @ 08:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,172

    Re: Senate fails to advance Buffett rule

    30% effective tax is insane. Yu just did your taxes (I would assume).... what was YOUR tax rate?

    Not you MAX TAX BRACKET, your effective rate...........
    As a dreamer of dreams and a travellin' man, I have chalked up many a mile.
    Read dozens of books about heroes and crooks and I've learned much from both of their styles!

  3. #3
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,561

    Re: Senate fails to advance Buffett rule

    mine is around 22% and I have lots of investment income. No one in the middle class pays an effective rate of 30%. The Buffett BS is based on lies, dishonesty and appeals to envy and ignorance.

    My tax bracket is 35% on earned income and 15% on investment income. The top bracket hits at 388,350+ for single or Married filing jointly.

    the top end for 28% is 178K or so, 33% is 388,350. In other words, no one making under 400K (with NO DEDUCTIONS) is paying an EFFECTIVE RATE OF 30% because

    you pay 10% on the first 8700
    15% on the amount from 8700-35, 350
    25% on 35,350-85,650
    28% on 85,650 to 178,650
    etc

    No way anyone but someone in the top 1% is paying an effective FIT rate of anywhere near 30%

  4. #4
    Educator
    Chiefgator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Lake Jem, FL pop:35
    Last Seen
    05-08-15 @ 08:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,172

    Re: Senate fails to advance Buffett rule

    Now TD. Let's not confuse people with facts....
    As a dreamer of dreams and a travellin' man, I have chalked up many a mile.
    Read dozens of books about heroes and crooks and I've learned much from both of their styles!

  5. #5
    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 TheDemSocialist View Post
    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]
    This seems to be a good time to share my favorite JFK quote:

    "It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."
    -- John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president's news conference

  6. #6
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: Senate fails to advance Buffett rule

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    mine is around 22% and I have lots of investment income. No one in the middle class pays an effective rate of 30%. The Buffett BS is based on lies, dishonesty and appeals to envy and ignorance.

    My tax bracket is 35% on earned income and 15% on investment income. The top bracket hits at 388,350+ for single or Married filing jointly.

    the top end for 28% is 178K or so, 33% is 388,350. In other words, no one making under 400K (with NO DEDUCTIONS) is paying an EFFECTIVE RATE OF 30% because

    you pay 10% on the first 8700
    15% on the amount from 8700-35, 350
    25% on 35,350-85,650
    28% on 85,650 to 178,650
    etc

    No way anyone but someone in the top 1% is paying an effective FIT rate of anywhere near 30%
    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%.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  7. #7
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: Senate fails to advance Buffett rule

    Quote Originally Posted by Porchev View Post
    This seems to be a good time to share my favorite JFK quote:

    "It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."
    -- John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president's news conference
    Not to burst your bubble, Porch, but the actual empirical data on supply side tax policies is a hell of a lot less black and white than JFK is making it out to be. Even Reagan realized that he had to raise rates after lowering them temporarily.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  8. #8
    Educator
    Chiefgator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Lake Jem, FL pop:35
    Last Seen
    05-08-15 @ 08:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,172

    Re: Senate fails to advance Buffett rule

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    Not to burst your bubble, Porch, but the actual empirical data on supply side tax policies is a hell of a lot less black and white than JFK is making it out to be. Even Reagan realized that he had to raise rates after lowering them temporarily.
    Agreed . As I said in a post a week ago or so... There is a point of diminishing returns... I do not believe that cutting the tax rate any further with result in a gain in tax revenues.
    As a dreamer of dreams and a travellin' man, I have chalked up many a mile.
    Read dozens of books about heroes and crooks and I've learned much from both of their styles!

  9. #9
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: Senate fails to advance Buffett rule

    Quote Originally Posted by Chiefgator View Post
    Agreed . As I said in a post a week ago or so... There is a point of diminishing returns... I do not believe that cutting the tax rate any further with result in a gain in tax revenues.
    Agree. I think we can also agree that the reverse is true as well, when it comes to increasing rates.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  10. #10
    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 StillBallin75 View Post
    Not to burst your bubble, Porch, but the actual empirical data on supply side tax policies is a hell of a lot less black and white than JFK is making it out to be. Even Reagan realized that he had to raise rates after lowering them temporarily.
    My bubble is doing just fine. The income tax adjustments by JFK and Reagan were very helpful to the economy and much more reasonable than some previous years. Reagan gradually lowered income tax rates that reduced taxes for everyone at all income levels. By the end of his Presidency he had the top rates down to 28%. I suggest a good compromise to get this Buffett rule to pass would be to reduce income tax rates back to 1988.

Page 1 of 36 12311 ... 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
  •