• 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!

Warren Buffett: Raise Taxes On The "Very Rich"

A person making 200k per year will see their income taxes go up zero dollars. (assuming the lower end tax cuts get extended as planned. did they vote on that yet? I think they went to break first)

you are lying. if they have any dividend income or capital gains their taxes will go up and the Obama health care scheme will raise their taxes and their social security "contributions" will go up as well
 
I do, he is a billionaire who says the wealthy should be paying higher taxes. So far I've only heard from folks who think or wish they will be wealthy some day and don't want to be taxed at all.

Proof please?
 
what is silly is watching you constantly trying to justify other people paying more taxes. I find that pathetic. Tell me my tax hiking friend, are you willing to have 40% tax rates on your income? If not then you have no credibility calling for such rates on other people's income
There is no one, I repeat no one who pays 40% taxes on their federal income taxes. The super rich pay an effective rate of about 17% on their Adjusted Gross Income. Mind you that's after they have hidden much of their income in tax shelters and in overseas bank accounts.
 
There is no one, I repeat no one who pays 40% taxes on their federal income taxes. The super rich pay an effective rate of about 17% on their Adjusted Gross Income. Mind you that's after they have hidden much of their income in tax shelters and in overseas bank accounts.

why do you post such nonsense. Next year the tax rate is going to be 39.6% on both earned income and dividend income for those making over 200K a year. You constantly post this utter BS that most of the rich have hidden their income oversees. That is a complete and utter lie. I want you to prove that and you cannot. like most of the envious libs, you want to lump everyone in the top bracket as being some sort of robber barons. Doctors, lawyers, small business owners, widows of wealthy executives etc make up most of the top 2% and very few of them are doing what you claim.
 
A person making 200k per year will see their income taxes go up zero dollars. (assuming the lower end tax cuts get extended as planned. did they vote on that yet? I think they went to break first)

That's not true.

Your boy said: "People making less than $200,000 a year will see their taxes go down".
 
Great. So he thinks the government should take even more money away from people. Big whoop, that doesn't make him any different than any other high-tax liberal.

Unfortunately, our government has not curtailed it's spending, and is deeply in debt. In order to stabilize the economy, 2 things are going to have to happen:

1) Curtail spending: That is obvious.

2) Raise taxes to help reduce the deficit.

Both steps need to be done. "But why should I pay" you ask? The answer is very simple. You and I did not hold our government accountable for it's actions, and therefore we the people also bear responsibility.
 
It's people like Warren Buffet that make me wish for a law that says You First. If you want the rest of the country to do some act, like raising taxes, then they should be the first one to see how it works. This should go for politicians as well. You want public education without vouchers then stop sending your kids to private school and send them to a public school. You want to raise taxes then you live your life according to the amount you want everyone else to pay. Just call me a member of the You First Brigade. ;)
 
Unfortunately, our government has not curtailed it's spending, and is deeply in debt. In order to stabilize the economy, 2 things are going to have to happen:

1) Curtail spending: That is obvious.

2) Raise taxes to help reduce the deficit.

Both steps need to be done. "But why should I pay" you ask? The answer is very simple. You and I did not hold our government accountable for it's actions, and therefore we the people also bear responsibility.

that's a good point-but the people that the dems want to pay are only a small minority-not the people who have been voting for years for more spending. I have said it for years, until the middle class and lower classes get zapped every time the government spends recklessly, that massive amount of voters won't vote against irresponsible spending politicians.

taxes should not be withheld but people should pay quarterly taxes as I do on much of my income and one of the payments should be the week before elections.
 
It's people like Warren Buffet that make me wish for a law that says You First. If you want the rest of the country to do some act, like raising taxes, then they should be the first one to see how it works. This should go for politicians as well. You want public education without vouchers then stop sending your kids to private school and send them to a public school. You want to raise taxes then you live your life according to the amount you want everyone else to pay. Just call me a member of the You First Brigade. ;)

this board is filled with the posts of several members who constantly howl for tax hikes on others coupled with the idiotic claims that "the rich" need to pay more because they can afford massive tax hikes. If those people are willing to pay 40C on every additional dollar they make starting Jan 1, then they might have some credibility. If they are willing to see half of what their estate is worth taken by the government then they can clamor for death confiscation taxes.
 
I appologize in advance for the math phrasing but, tlmorg02, if you could indulge me in the following.

For the top 1% bracket, or alternately the 5 quintiles of taxpayers:
Define "Y", where "Y" is percentage of income paid in federal taxes that satisfies your definition of "reasonable".
Define "F(x)", where "x" is share of national income such that "Y=F(x)"

I don't expect a purely mathematically phrased answer. For example my response would be, "A reasonable share of federal taxes as a percentage of income is when that share equals the share of national income". Alternately, F(x) = x so that Y=x.

J

I feel that if the top 1% are going to control, what is the exact figure, around 90% of the national income, then they should pay 75% of the taxes. Ultimately, it would be the fairest system if we had a flat tax of say 20%, but for some reason this has never caught on.
 
I feel that if the top 1% are going to control, what is the exact figure, around 90% of the national income, then they should pay 75% of the taxes. Ultimately, it would be the fairest system if we had a flat tax of say 20%, but for some reason this has never caught on.

the problem is that the top 1% get only 22% of the national income yet pay 40% of the national income tax because they have to balance the slugs who pay ZERO percent of the income tax and certainly have far more than ZERO of the natinal income.
 
That's not true.

Your boy said: "People making less than $200,000 a year will see their taxes go down".

Well, first off that's not what you said before. You said the taxes on someone making 200k/year would go up. You hadn't mentioned what "my boy" had said.

Also:
[citation needed]

Where did he say this, and when? Referring to what?
 
Last edited:
I feel that if the top 1% are going to control, what is the exact figure, around 90% of the national income, then they should pay 75% of the taxes. Ultimately, it would be the fairest system if we had a flat tax of say 20%, but for some reason this has never caught on.

Well, first off if they have 90% of the income, a flat tax would have them paying 90% of the taxes ;)

Second, poor people have to spend a disproportionate amount of their income on basic necessities, while a rich person has more discretionary income which they can save and invest, earning interest on. Therefore, adding $1000 in income to a rich person's income is worth, in essence, more than $1000. (they invest it and earn a return) Hence the basic reasoning for a progressive tax setup. Adding $1000 in income to a poor person just makes them a little less poor.

Someone making $10,000 per year with two kids to support can't really afford to pay any of it in taxes. The same cannot be said of someone making $100,000 per year.
 
I feel that if the top 1% are going to control, what is the exact figure, around 90% of the national income, then they should pay 75% of the taxes.

If you mandate that those people foot the bills, then you're ultimately giving them sole ownership of all that wealth and that would be self defeating.

Ultimately, it would be the fairest system if we had a flat tax of say 20%, but for some reason this has never caught on.

It hasn't caught on, because there are too many voters who don't pay any taxes.
 
Well, first off that's not what you said before. You said the taxes on someone making 200k/year would go up. You hadn't mentioned what "my boy" had said.

Also:
[citation needed]

Where did he say this, and when? Referring to what?

Do you fully understand what, "...under $200,000 a year...", means?
 
Well, first off if they have 90% of the income, a flat tax would have them paying 90% of the taxes ;)

Second, poor people have to spend a disproportionate amount of their income on basic necessities, while a rich person has more discretionary income which they can save and invest, earning interest on. Therefore, adding $1000 in income to a rich person's income is worth, in essence, more than $1000. (they invest it and earn a return) Hence the basic reasoning for a progressive tax setup. Adding $1000 in income to a poor person just makes them a little less poor.

Someone making $10,000 per year with two kids to support can't really afford to pay any of it in taxes. The same cannot be said of someone making $100,000 per year.

Someone making 10 grand a year is probably on welfare, anyway.
 
Do you fully understand what, "...under $200,000 a year...", means?

You're not reading the right stuff. When the tax cuts expire, taxes on anyone making $200,000 a year, coporations will go up.

You're changing the subject and you don't even seem to realize it. You said someone making 200k/year would have their taxes go up. This is not true, based on the plan to extend the lower end of the tax cuts.

Then you brought up some random thing about Obama saying taxes would go down. Show evidence of this, please.
 
Well, first off if they have 90% of the income, a flat tax would have them paying 90% of the taxes ;)

Second, poor people have to spend a disproportionate amount of their income on basic necessities, while a rich person has more discretionary income which they can save and invest, earning interest on. Therefore, adding $1000 in income to a rich person's income is worth, in essence, more than $1000. (they invest it and earn a return) Hence the basic reasoning for a progressive tax setup. Adding $1000 in income to a poor person just makes them a little less poor.

Someone making $10,000 per year with two kids to support can't really afford to pay any of it in taxes. The same cannot be said of someone making $100,000 per year.

someone capable of only making 10 grand a year should not be producing two children
 
You're changing the subject and you don't even seem to realize it. You said someone making 200k/year would have their taxes go up. This is not true, based on the plan to extend the lower end of the tax cuts.

Then you brought up some random thing about Obama saying taxes would go down. Show evidence of this, please.

you are not being truthful. if they have only earned income their SS taxes are going up since the ceiling has been removed. if they have dividend or capital gains income that is going up to whatever bracket they are in rather than being only 15% so you are flat out WRONG
 
You're changing the subject and you don't even seem to realize it. You said someone making 200k/year would have their taxes go up. This is not true, based on the plan to extend the lower end of the tax cuts.

Then you brought up some random thing about Obama saying taxes would go down. Show evidence of this, please.

No, I'm not wrong:

Lower tax rates on income and investments enacted in 2001 and 2003 expire Dec. 31. Obama and most Democrats want to retain those that target individuals earning less than $200,000 and married couples earning under $250,000 and allow policies that benefited those with higher incomes to expire.

New York, Hawaii Top Earners Face Highest Tax Under Obama Plan, Study Says - Bloomberg
 
someone capable of only making 10 grand a year should not be producing two children

The fundamental flaw of conservatives is that they think income is determined solely on merit. They also think that there are no circumstances in which they could end up in this position.

Only capable of. Wow. You really do think poor people are beneath you.
 
The fundamental flaw of conservatives is that they think income is determined solely on merit. They also think that there are no circumstances in which they could end up in this position.

Only capable of. Wow. You really do think poor people are beneath you.

as usual complete nonsense

merit has nothing to do with it

if you only make 10K a year you cannot possibly pay for two children

I realize you dems want lots of poor people breeding massively to create more dem voters and more excuses for socialist income redistribution but the fact remains, someone only making 10K a year is not in a position to responsibly have two children. You want to whine and piss and moan that a big bad mean conservative is castigating the untalented or the unlucky. That has nothing to do with it. IT IS IRRESPONSIBLE FOR SOMEONE MAKING ONLY MINIMUM WAGE (at best) TO BE HAVING MULTIPLE CHILDREN
 
The fundamental flaw of conservatives is that they think income is determined solely on merit. They also think that there are no circumstances in which they could end up in this position.

Only capable of. Wow. You really do think poor people are beneath you.

btw your claim is a complete strawman as well. I want some proof for your claim that COnservatives think income is determined solely on merit. Lindsay Lohan is a perfect example that it is not
 
as usual complete nonsense

merit has nothing to do with it

if you only make 10K a year you cannot possibly pay for two children

I realize you dems want lots of poor people breeding massively to create more dem voters and more excuses for socialist income redistribution
I need to get my boots on.
That's total bull**** and you know it. Democrats typically support Planned Parenthood, and Rupublican's typically don't.
 
Back
Top Bottom