• 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
Great post sam and right on target....when CEO pays became tied to stock value is when all the shenanigans began, whether or not the stock gain was sustainable or had any relation to the companies long term health didnt matter, CEOs got paid and recieved bonus'

If I said it once I’ll say it again that humans are much too short term in their thinking to ever make pure free-market capitalism completely sustainable.

Capitalism does have its (many) virtues, however it in its pure form isn’t a solid end-state solution for humans (in my opinion).

Whereas focus solely on the whole sometimes ends up diminishing the individual, focus solely on the individual sometimes ends up diminishing the whole. I think we need to find a middle ground.

We need to give some of these bankers a hard spanking (and not in a sexy way), too, for being so irresponsible with such large sums of money for the purpose of personal gain.

And the only way to 'spank' a banker is to force-ably take away his money, make it harder for him to make money, or make him incapable of making money for a period of time; each of these have its own set of consequences, too, for the broader society they bank in.
 
Last edited:
David said:
Capitalism does have its (many) virtues, however it in its pure form isn’t a solid end-state solution for humans (in my opinion).

Oh that's not opinion, that's documented fact. Frankly it's the anarcho-capitalists that give libertarians and minarchists a bad name. They are so hardcore that they ignore accepted facts like market failures and inefficiencies do, in fact, exist. Private enterprise is not capable (or motivated) to handle all aspects of national maintenance. To think you can outsource things like police or national defense is just plain silly.

So yeah, by definition pretty much any existing social/economic structure is a hybrid. The question is how much capitalism and how much socialism is accepted.
 
I wouldn't support the "Buffet Bill" first on principle and second because it's not a fair system as it is. Everyone having to pay their fair share to me means everyone has to pay something and that's not currently the case. I'd certainly support a flat tax on a % basis, I'd also support closing corporate and other loopholes, but I can't on principle support the class warfare bs this president wants to feed his base for his re-election.
 
The day the poor start to create jobs I'll be fine with taxing the rich.
The middle class creates jobs by creating demand and having money to pay for it. For example if a new singer named Luna C'Tuney comes out with a hit album named Luv m'Babe that everyone wants, people feel a demand for it and spend money on it. Then there are jobs involved in packaging it and distributing it, on a promotional tour, etc. It's the demand that creates the jobs, not the rich person. If Luna C'Tuney is a zillionaire and records a great album, it doesn't matter one bit unless a lot of people want to buy and have money to do so. That demand lies in the middle class mainly. In other words, a healthy middle class desiring things creates jobs.
 
Because you're cutting into their iPod and plasma TV money by making them invest.
 
I'll say the same thing I have always said....

Until we remove EVERY SINGLE PENNY of illegal, immoral, and unConstitutional spending from the US Budget, and implement means to ensure that it can never be put back into the budget, I don't want to see ANYONE have to send another penny to the Federal Government.
 
If Buffet wants to pay more, nobody is stopping him from sending in a check.
Are you saying that if a person wants to pay taxes, they should, otherwise they shouldn't?
 
I voted yes. Within the past year I have changed my position somewhat, and have become convinced that it is fundamentally wrong for Buffet to pay 15-20% while one of his middle-managers making 50k a year pays a much higher percentage, just because Buffet/Heines-Kerry/Soros/etc's income has been artfully arrainged to be mostly "cap gains".

If the struggling small businessman who owns one Chick-Fil-A has to pay 30-40% or more, then Warren Buffet and Heines-Kerry and Soros should pay that much percentagewise.
 
no, I am saying if they think that they don't pay enough taxes (as Buffet and Obama both often claim), then the US Treasury takes donations that it puts towards paying down the debt. simply mail the check to:

ATTN DEPT G
BUREAU OF THE PUBLIC DEBT
P O BOX 2188
PARKERSBURG, WV 26106-2188

and all of Buffets' guilt can be washed clean without him having to take from others.
 
I voted yes. Within the past year I have changed my position somewhat, and have become convinced that it is fundamentally wrong for Buffet to pay 15-20% while one of his middle-managers making 50k a year pays a much higher percentage, just because Buffet/Heines-Kerry/Soros/etc's income has been artfully arrainged to be mostly "cap gains".

If the struggling small businessman who owns one Chick-Fil-A has to pay 30-40% or more, then Warren Buffet and Heines-Kerry and Soros should pay that much percentagewise.

I highly doubt that the Chick-Fil-A guy pays the full rate and he likely takes a series of tax deductions.
Depends on how the business is organized though.
 
no, I am saying if they think that they don't pay enough taxes (as Buffet and Obama both often claim), then the US Treasury takes donations that it puts towards paying down the debt. simply mail the check to:

ATTN DEPT G
BUREAU OF THE PUBLIC DEBT
P O BOX 2188
PARKERSBURG, WV 26106-2188

and all of Buffets' guilt can be washed clean without him having to take from others.

Bush cut taxes and started two wars, don't you think the rich should pay more since they benefited from them?
 
If the struggling small businessman who owns one Chick-Fil-A has to pay 30-40% or more, then Warren Buffet and Heines-Kerry and Soros should pay that much percentagewise.

If he's paying that much more, his accountant sucks.

Having a good accountant helps.
 
no, I am saying if they think that they don't pay enough taxes (as Buffet and Obama both often claim), then the US Treasury takes donations that it puts towards paying down the debt. simply mail the check to:

ATTN DEPT G
BUREAU OF THE PUBLIC DEBT
P O BOX 2188
PARKERSBURG, WV 26106-2188

and all of Buffets' guilt can be washed clean without him having to take from others.

It is this type of comment that mis-characterizes Buffets position (it has nothing to do with guilt). So while it may sound "cute" to tell people to pay more to the treasury than they are liable whenever someone, especially when it is someone with the authority of Mr. Buffet, brings up tax increases, your idea (or lack there of) is simply not grounded in economic reality.

The issue is a diminishing ability to repay our debts due to a general lack of revenue. This is not solved by asking people to pay more in taxes without enacting legislation that makes it an actual requirement. Why? Because nobody is going to pay more than they are legally liable to pay.

A tax increase for the wealthiest Americans is the least painful (when considering how tax increases impact output) way to boost federal tax revenue. Tax revenue @ 15% of total output simply will not cut it.
 
Isn't there a limit on how much you can claim as capital gains though?
 
Isn't there a limit on how much you can claim as capital gains though?

There isn't a limit on capital gains, but there is a limit on capital loss and how it can alter current (and future) tax liabilities.
 
Those are horrendous tax rates.I guess only a lib would think that the government should steal most of the money you earn. That said I have to wonder if any American actually paid those horrendous tax rates after deductions were made.
Those Top Income tax rates, 70% to 92%, Persisted for Most of the last century. Including under "Libs": Wilson, Nixon, (deficit hawk) Eisenhower, Ford, Truman, as well as Democrats like Kennedy etc.

It wasn't until the wealthy's wind-up-doll Ronald Reagan in 1980-1988 that the Rich were gifted down from 70% to 28% and the Bottom RAISED from 11 to 15%.

Including
Tax Reform Act of 1986 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The top tax rate was lowered from 50% to 28% while the bottom rate was raised from 11% to 15%. Many lower level tax brackets were consolidated, and the upper income level of the bottom rate (married filing jointly) was increased from $5,720/year to $29,750/year. This package ultimately consolidated tax brackets from fifteen levels of income to four levels of income.[1] This would be the Only time in the history of the U.S. income tax (which dates back to the passage of the Revenue Act of 1862) that the top rate was reduced and the bottom rate increased concomitantly. In addition, capital gains faced the same tax rate as ordinary income.
[......]

The coup de grace::: Bush then lowering Cap Gains/Divs top 15% from Reagan's 28%.
and PRESTO!
We have a Big Deficit, Ever increasing wealth Polarity, and Collapsing Middle Class. Surprise!

It's time to at least Partially Reverse the Class Warfare waged and won by Ronald Reagan and lower the deficit in the fairest way possible.\
We couldn't afford Reagan rates then and we definitely can't now.
 
Last edited:
Those Top Income tax rates, 70% to 92%Persisted for Most of the last century. Including under "Libs": Wilson, Nixon, Eisenhower, Ford, Truman, as well as Democrats like Kennedy etc.

It wasn't until Ronald Reagan in 1980-1988 that the Rich were gifted from 70% to 28% and the Bottom RAISED from 11 to 15%.

Kennedy was almost as ardent as Reagan in lowering corporate tax rates. While Reagan was the leader of lowering the effective rate, Kennedy proposed the 2nd largest reduction ever.

So for all the people wanting to slam supply-side, you better go verbally bash Kennedy too. He authored it, not Reagan.
 
Those Top Income tax rates, 70% to 92% Persisted for Most of the last century. Including under "Libs": Wilson, Nixon, Eisenhower, Ford, Truman, as well as Democrats like Kennedy etc.

It wasn't until the wealthy's wind-up-doll Ronald Reagan in 1980-1988 that the Rich were gifted down from 70% to 28% and the Bottom RAISED from 11 to 15%.

Including
Tax Reform Act of 1986 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The top tax rate was lowered from 50% to 28% while the bottom rate was raised from 11% to 15%. Many lower level tax brackets were consolidated, and the upper income level of the bottom rate (married filing jointly) was increased from $5,720/year to $29,750/year. This package ultimately consolidated tax brackets from fifteen levels of income to four levels of income.[1] This would be the Only time in the history of the U.S. income tax (which dates back to the passage of the Revenue Act of 1862) that the top rate was reduced and the bottom rate increased concomitantly. In addition, capital gains faced the same tax rate as ordinary income.
[......]

The coup de grace::: Bush then lowering Cap Gains/Divs top 15% from Reagan's 28%.
and PRESTO!
We have a Big Deficit, Ever increasing wealth Polarity, and Collapsing Middle Class. Surprise!

It's time to at least Partially Reverse the Class Warfare waged and won by Ronald Reagan and lower the deficit the fairest way possible.

All in an era when America was the sole economic super power.
Things have changed now, get off it man.
 
Kennedy was almost as ardent as Reagan in lowering corporate tax rates. While Reagan was the leader of lowering the effective rate, Kennedy proposed the 2nd largest reduction ever.

So for all the people wanting to slam supply-side, you better go verbally bash Kennedy too. He authored it, not Reagan.

You have to take into consideration the fiscal side; debt/GDP had fallen from 144% to less than 50% by the time Kennedy took office. Cutting taxes at that stage of the game is/was the right thing to do (economically speaking).
 
from jamesrage

I guess only a lib would think that the government should steal most of the money you earn.



Conservatives and those on the far right who persist in the bumper sticker wisdom that taxation is theft and amounts to stealing remind me of the awful joke about the woman who comes home after a long day at work and cries that she was sexually assaulted that day when she cut down an alleyway to save five minutes time in getting to the office. A homeless man living in that alley took advantage of her. Her husband consoles her and she confesses that the worst thing was that it happened twice. "Twice' says the hubby - "why twice?". "I was late for the subway and had to use that same route to come home." she confesses.

Anybody who uses the over the top hyperbole of THEFT and STEALING when talking about taxation but still lives here of their own choice and of their own free will knowing the rules and the costs, is not going to get any sympathy out of me when they use that same alleyway everyday of their life.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom