• 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!

Should the Buffett Rule" be made law?

Should the Buffett Rule" be made law?


  • Total voters
    47
Should the Buffett Rule" be made law?

Yes
No
other
I do not know

Obama to propose new tax rate for millionaires - CNN.com
The White House will propose a new tax rate for people earning more than $1 million a year to ensure that they pay at least the same percentage of their earnings in taxes as middle-income Americans, administration and White House officials told CNN on Sunday. Called the Buffett Rule, the proposal will be part of a comprehensive deficit reduction plan that President Barack Obama will unveil on Monday, according to a senior administration official and White House sources who spoke on condition of not being identified. The information was first reported by The New York Times.




I pick other. I support making everyone pay he same percentage in income taxes regardless of income level and eliminating exemptions .

You put out a poll, but do we know the details of what we are voting on? Is this a second AMT, how does it work, i.e. can the rich still donate and take it as a deduction, will municipal debt still be exempt from federal taxes, how much money will the changes raise?
 
The fact that computers are primarily assembled in China instead of here in the U.S. allows for far cheaper prices than they ever would have been. What is the benefit of keeping the production within the U.S. (more low skilled manufacturing positions) as opposed to the cost (less total computers used/produced) in terms of opportunity? Given that our aggregate production possibilities are fixed within relatively short increments of time (it takes time to train employees and build facilities), i find no real short or long term benefit of keeping low skilled labor here in the U.S. at the expense of high skilled labor and manufacturing.

IMO, i would much rather our economy be centered on high tech goods and services as opposed to encouraging skill stagnation (that hinders our long term competitive advantage).
You are assuming and I think incorrectly labor costs and not supply and demand is the prime driver of consumer price. Also, we have a diverse population, some people will be skilled and others are not. I see no reason why we can't employ unskilled labor.

To believe the entirety of that, I would have to ignore the productivity rates of American factories and how they have climbed steadily over the years, even into today.
I'd also have to ignore that we were pretty much the only nation left standing with an intact national infrastructure and economy, after WW2 and that is largely why we retained the economic power over the globe.

Fast forward to now, where there are multiple nations competing with from all over the globe.
Wanting for yesterday won't change the facts that the rest of the world has grown to meet us on the economic competitors table.

Those obscene tax rates would definitely cause significant capital flight, because there are a multitude of nations willing to house that money at much, much lower rates.
Baloney, because of the loopholes in the tax code, no one pays anywhere the 35% corporate tax rate. I think the average is under 10%.
 
pbrauer said:
You are assuming and I think incorrectly labor costs and not supply and demand is the prime driver of consumer price. Also, we have a diverse population, some people will be skilled and others are not. I see no reason why we can't employ unskilled labor.

I do. By forcing corporations to maintain cheap unskilled labor, you're increasing the cost aggregate of products as a whole in America - not just toy trucks and metal pipes, but semiconductors and high-tech stuff. This will cause inflation rates to go up in order to support the weakest link of the chain that can be shipped elsewhere for cost minimization purposes without having adverse effects on several other sections of the economy. Many products are priced based on ratios compared against each other to determine market value - not only would a more expensive Cadillac result in more expensive Porsches, but other no-automotive luxury items as well, as a method of cost metamorphosis arising from disposable income.

It's basically a similar explanation as to why a sizable shift in minimum wage would be detrimental to myriad economic forces.
 
No they aren't. They're just paying less of their total income because they are better capable of finding ways to reduce their tax burden. I see nothing wrong with that, so long as the budget issue and the 51% who pay no income tax are still part of the system. In fact it's something I go out of my way to do as well; though obviously on a lesser scale.

As for why I'd want the highest earners to pay less..... I have this hope that someday I might BE one of them.
...


Of course you don't see anything wrong with it. Because really, it's just all about 'your team', and who gives a **** about anything else. gmafb
 
Of course you don't see anything wrong with it. Because really, it's just all about 'your team', and who gives a **** about anything else. gmafb

I don't have a team, jackalope. I AM my own team. Always have been and likely always will be. Nobody else is looking out for me, so why the hell would I be looking out for anyone else?
 
I don't have a team, jackalope. I AM my own team. Always have been and likely always will be. Nobody else is looking out for me, so why the hell would I be looking out for anyone else?


Sure you do. You say you're for the FAIR tax, but you're against a millionaire's minimum tax that would target a very very few people and make sure they are paying the same rate as middle income earners.

Show's your just blowing smoke, and you're against this 'buffet rule' because the GOP is against it. You're cheering for your team.

If you TRULY were for the FAIR tax, there would be nothing objectionable in this proposal. Sure, it might be just a small step towards parity of rates, but it is a step. Yet you're against it. You show who you are.
 
Seems as if you're calling the kettle black. You probably denounce FAIR tax in favor of progressive taxation.
 
Seems as if you're calling the kettle black. You probably denounce FAIR tax in favor of progressive taxation.


What *I* think of the FAIR tax has nothing to do with Tigger's position. On the one hand, he's saying go go go FAIR tax. On the other hand he's saying it's not faaaaaaiiiiirrr to make the very wealthiest pay the same rates as middle income earners.

It is Tigger who is being intellectually dishonest ... and showing his true colors.
 
Sure you do. You say you're for the FAIR tax, but you're against a millionaire's minimum tax that would target a very very few people and make sure they are paying the same rate as middle income earners.

Show's your just blowing smoke, and you're against this 'buffet rule' because the GOP is against it. You're cheering for your team.

If you TRULY were for the FAIR tax, there would be nothing objectionable in this proposal. Sure, it might be just a small step towards parity of rates, but it is a step. Yet you're against it. You show who you are.

A FAIR tax system, has the same RATE for EVERYONE, on their INCOME (not their Wealth), with no deductions. That's NOT what Mr. Obama is suggesting or proposing in any way.

LOL. I have no more love for the GOP than I do for the Democratic Party, the Libertarians, or any other political entity. So far as I'm concerned they should all be outlawed.

Once again, this is an attempt by the party in power to equalize RESULTS more than anything else.... "Well, they're smarter than me, so they can get around these things.... SO WE SHOULD PUNISH THEM!!!!" That's all this is.
 
A FAIR tax system, has the same RATE for EVERYONE, on their INCOME (not their Wealth), with no deductions. That's NOT what Mr. Obama is suggesting or proposing in any way.

LOL. I have no more love for the GOP than I do for the Democratic Party, the Libertarians, or any other political entity. So far as I'm concerned they should all be outlawed.

Once again, this is an attempt by the party in power to equalize RESULTS more than anything else.... "Well, they're smarter than me, so they can get around these things.... SO WE SHOULD PUNISH THEM!!!!" That's all this is.

who is taxed on their wealth and not their income?
 
who is taxed on their wealth and not their income?

That's a topic jackalope and I had been discussing... the idea that some people want to tax the rich on their wealth rather than their income. It doesn't happen currently, though I would suggest that Inheretance Taxes, Capital Gains, Investment Taxes, etc... amount to a Wealth Tax.
 
A FAIR tax system, has the same RATE for EVERYONE, on their INCOME (not their Wealth), with no deductions. That's NOT what Mr. Obama is suggesting or proposing in any way.

LOL. I have no more love for the GOP than I do for the Democratic Party, the Libertarians, or any other political entity. So far as I'm concerned they should all be outlawed.

Once again, this is an attempt by the party in power to equalize RESULTS more than anything else.... "Well, they're smarter than me, so they can get around these things.... SO WE SHOULD PUNISH THEM!!!!" That's all this is.


You're misinformed. It's a tax on income, not wealth. And it's applying the same rate as middle income earners as to the wealthiest. Swing, and a miss, Tigger.



who is taxed on their wealth and not their income?


'zackly
 
That's a topic jackalope and I had been discussing... the idea that some people want to tax the rich on their wealth rather than their income. It doesn't happen currently, though I would suggest that Inheretance Taxes, Capital Gains, Investment Taxes, etc... amount to a Wealth Tax.


Actually, I keep talking about the tax on income that Obama has proposed, and you keep talking about taxing wealth. :D
 
Should the super rich have to pay as much percentage as everyone else (if not more)? Yes. Whew, that was easy.
 
So what happens when they stop doing a lot of things because there's no tax incentive to do so?
 
Should the super rich have to pay as much percentage as everyone else (if not more)? Yes. Whew, that was easy.

Please show me the piece of legislation that indicates a LOWER TAX RATE for the upper income brackets than for the Middle Class. You can't do it.

What you people are apparently interested in is PUNISHING these people because they are smart enough to figure out how to game the system. I have no such interest. In fact, I like trying to find ways to game the system myself in order to keep more money in MY pocket and out of the hands of the Government.
 
Should the super rich have to pay as much percentage as everyone else (if not more)? Yes. Whew, that was easy.

That apparently wasn't so easy. You did not specify for what? Social Security, income taxes, capital gains taxes, or what?
 
So what happens when they stop doing a lot of things because there's no tax incentive to do so?

YEP. Exactly. Either that or they pick up their ball and go somewhere with a lower rate in general. More than likely they take their business with them as well.
 
Please show me the piece of legislation that indicates a LOWER TAX RATE for the upper income brackets than for the Middle Class. You can't do it.

What you people are apparently interested in is PUNISHING these people because they are smart enough to figure out how to game the system. I have no such interest. In fact, I like trying to find ways to game the system myself in order to keep more money in MY pocket and out of the hands of the Government.

He can do it, but he has to compare apples to oranges or alter the intent of a program.
 
So what happens when they stop doing a lot of things because there's no tax incentive to do so?

they won't stop investing. it's how they make their money. what do you think, they'll stuff it in a matress?
 
Please show me the piece of legislation that indicates a LOWER TAX RATE for the upper income brackets than for the Middle Class. You can't do it.

What you people are apparently interested in is PUNISHING these people because they are smart enough to figure out how to game the system. I have no such interest. In fact, I like trying to find ways to game the system myself in order to keep more money in MY pocket and out of the hands of the Government.


Whatcha worried about? If they're not paying a lower rate, they ain't gonna be affected. D'oh!
 
liblady said:
they won't stop investing. it's how they make their money. what do you think, they'll stuff it in a matress?

They could stop expanding. They could stop paying for (or back) employee tuition. They could stop giving to charity. They could outsource. They could find other tax-free places to put their money.

They wouldn't put it under a mattress because you probably would tax the absolute hell out of treasury instruments.

I do like your thinking though. Now it easier to see why corporations are holding the economy hostage.
 
Whatcha worried about? If they're not paying a lower rate, they ain't gonna be affected. D'oh!

My concern is that you people are intentionally confusing the TAX RATE with the actual percentage of their income that they pay. It really sounds to me like you people are intending on doing everything within the Government's power to ensure that these people's ACTUAL PERCENTAGE equals that TAX RATE, no matter what.

That would be fine with me, except that you don't expect the same thing out of the people at the other end of the tax spectrum. You have no problem with HALF of the country not actually paying anything into the Income Tax system (they get it all back in most cases, and in some cases they even get back more than they put in).
 
My concern is that you people are intentionally confusing the TAX RATE with the actual percentage of their income that they pay. It really sounds to me like you people are intending on doing everything within the Government's power to ensure that these people's ACTUAL PERCENTAGE equals that TAX RATE, no matter what.

That would be fine with me, except that you don't expect the same thing out of the people at the other end of the tax spectrum. You have no problem with HALF of the country not actually paying anything into the Income Tax system (they get it all back in most cases, and in some cases they even get back more than they put in).


Nope, not confusing the tax rate with the actual percentage of their income that they pay. That is exactly what the millionaire's minimum tax aka the Buffet rule will do, make sure the actual percentage of their income that they pay in taxes is on par with middle income earners. It will affect 0.03% of filers. If the wealthiest are ALREADY paying that percentage, then it won't affect them.

You conservatives talk quite a bit about the lowest earners not paying income tax. Did it ever occur to you that that is an indictment of the wealth disparity in our country? WHY do we have so many people making so little money???

And, btw, the working low-income earners DO pay federal taxes. ie payroll taxes. The others - they're mostly old people. Yes, let's DO screw the elderly poor, that sounds awesome.
 
Back
Top Bottom