• 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
Harry Guerrilla said:
All in an era when America was the sole economic super power.
Things have changed now, get off it man.
Click to expand...
Another Assinine/empty post.. while I put up solid Info.

Your cheap shot partisan chirps are a Disgrace and contribute Nothing to this board.
You know NOTHING about anything just partisanly hack hack hack with nonsense through these strings.
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
Another EMPTY post.. while I put up solid Info.

You cheap shot partisan posts are a Disgrace and contribute Nothing to this board.
Click to expand...

Your post is a combination of jumping to conclusions and a correlation fallacy.

Tax rates in the U.S. were higher in previous decades, there for it can be replicated now with similar results.
Jumping to conclusions.

Wealth disparity is a result of lower tax rates for the wealthy.
Correlation fallacy.

Until you offer something other than loosely correlative statistics, they are empty statistic that you keep spamming the board with.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Your post is a combination of jumping to conclusions and a correlation fallacy.
Click to expand...
And you can demonstrate this?

Would you consider EVER doing a little research on YOUR posts- or is the usual argumentative Howdy Doody argumentation routine?

Tax rates in the U.S. were higher in previous decades, there for it can be replicated now with similar results.
Jumping to conclusions.
Click to expand...
I certainly didn't say that. It's not Iron clad.
It would MAKE SENSE however.
While you try to make Common sense into as Proof equation (shifting the burden fallacy), presenting NOTHING of your own, No contrary logic, NOTHING.

Wealth disparity is a result of lower tax rates for the wealthy.
Correlation fallacy.
Click to expand...
It's a very Plausible reason, Taking less, Much less, Leaves more. ? ? ?

Your continued Nonsense harassment of my posts is an issue again.
Your Howdy-doody Empty/2c posts are a disgrace to this board especially in your position.

Until you offer something other than loosely correlative statistics, they are empty statistic that you keep spamming the board with.
Click to expand...
You're ALL Spam, No facts.
Disgraceful trash.
 
Last edited:
No, it shouldn't be made law. We need to revamp our tax system in much more major ways than this.

We should have a flat tax rate with a single deduction based on family size (and possibly geographic area) to cover cost of living expenses (just the basics) and that's it.
 
mbig said:
And you can demonstrate this?
Click to expand...

I did.
The lack of evidence from you, plus the faulty reasoning.

mbig said:
Would you consider EVER doing a little research on YOUR posts- or is the usual argumentative Howdy Doody argumentation routine?
Click to expand...

Research what?
That you constantly spam the board, with the same material that jumps to conclusions, with a correlation fallacy?

mbig said:
I certainly didn't say that. It's not Iron clad.
It would MAKE SENSE however.
While you try to make Common sense into as Proof eqaution (shifting the burden fallacy), presenting NOTHING of your own, No contrary logic, NOTHING.
Click to expand...

Why would it make sense?
Because you say so?

"Common sense" isn't proof.
The common sense argument is a fallacious mental short cut.

mbig said:
It's a very Plausible reason, Taking less, Much less, Leaves more.
Click to expand...

Income and wealth are dynamic, something you fail to note.
Also notice your terminology, "taking."

Does a business really "take" from people or are they trading value for value?
You know the answer to this but you've reworded it to represent business people and the wealthy as "taking" from other people.


mbig said:
Your continued Nonsense harassment of my posts is an issue again.
Your Howdy-doody Empty/2c posts are a disgrace to this board especially in your position.
Click to expand...



It isn't harassment, it's pointing out that the emperor has no cloths.
Your spamming the board with this constant nonsense, that has already been pointed out as nonsense, is not proof that you are right.

mbig said:
You're ALL Spam, No facts.
Disgraceful trash.
Click to expand...

All you've done is made personal attacks and attempts at character assassination.
Deflecting your poor argument, as my fault, does not actually make your argument, not poor.
 
cpwill said:
yeah? where'd they get that money?
Click to expand...

From customers. Ultimately in any business everyone's pay comes from customers. Some are rich, some middle class, and some are poor, but ultimately most customers are middle class.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
All in an era when America was the sole economic super power.
Things have changed now, get off it man.
Click to expand...
The facts are that when the rates were much highter than they are today we were a super power for good reason. Then we were the biggest creditor nation in the world and now were are now one of the biggest debtor nations in the world. Back then we had a positive trade balance, today we have a negative one. We have sold our sole to the rest of the world by exporting our jobs to China, India, SE Asia, etc, etc, etc. Even service related jobs that can be handled on the phone have been exported to India.
 
pbrauer said:
The facts are that when the rates were much highter than they are today we were a super power for good reason. Then we were the biggest creditor nation in the world and now were are now one of the biggest debtor nations in the world. Back then we had a positive trade balance, today we have a negative one. We have sold our sole to the rest of the world by exporting our jobs to China, India, SE Asia, etc, etc, etc. Even service related jobs that can be handled on the phone have been exported to India.
Click to expand...

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).
 
pbrauer said:
The facts are that when the rates were much highter than they are today we were a super power for good reason. Then we were the biggest creditor nation in the world and now were are now one of the biggest debtor nations in the world. Back then we had a positive trade balance, today we have a negative one. We have sold our sole to the rest of the world by exporting our jobs to China, India, SE Asia, etc, etc, etc. Even service related jobs that can be handled on the phone have been exported to India.
Click to expand...

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.
 
jamesrage said:
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 .
Click to expand...

its too bad you cannot ask incomes. people who aren't facing higher taxes do to that asswipe's scheme really are cowardly to vote for others to pay more taxes
 
pbrauer said:
The facts are that when the rates were much highter than they are today we were a super power for good reason. Then we were the biggest creditor nation in the world and now were are now one of the biggest debtor nations in the world. Back then we had a positive trade balance, today we have a negative one. We have sold our sole to the rest of the world by exporting our jobs to China, India, SE Asia, etc, etc, etc. Even service related jobs that can be handled on the phone have been exported to India.
Click to expand...

so you labor under the delusion that it was high tax rates, not the fact that we were the only industrial power not to get destroyed in WWII that caused this?
 
mbig said:
Another Assinine/empty post.. while I put up solid Info.

Your cheap shot partisan chirps are a Disgrace and contribute Nothing to this board.
You know NOTHING about anything just partisanly hack hack hack with nonsense through these strings.
Click to expand...

yeah we get it that you think those more successful than you ought to pay more taxes
 
TurtleDude said:
its too bad you cannot ask incomes. people who aren't facing higher taxes do to that asswipe's scheme really are cowardly to vote for others to pay more taxes
Click to expand...

By your own admission, you support people paying a far bigger percentage of their income in FICA tax than you do
 
haymarket said:
By your own admission, you support people paying a far bigger percentage of their income in FICA tax than you do
Click to expand...

You are confused. that is like claiming I support you paying a higher percentage of your income for the same cheeseburger I buy

I get the same benefits from SS as you do. WTF should I pay more? Again, you labor under the assumption that FROM EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR ABILITY IS THE ONLY valid basis for tax rates.

I reject that and you seem to believe all taxes should be progressive because that benefits your political masters
 
TurtleDude said:
yeah we get it that you think those more successful than you ought to pay more taxes
Click to expand...


why are you against millionaires paying the same rates as middle income earners?
 
jackalope said:
why are you against millionaires paying the same rates as middle income earners?
Click to expand...

why are you so dishonest? millionaires pay HIGHER RATES ON THE SAME TYPE OF INCOME THAN THE MIDDLE CLASS

if you are unable to understand that you really shouldn't be making such idiotic claims
 
Temporal said:
Well, like I have always said, the problem is not the stated tax rate, but the effective tax rate. Simply increasing the tax rate for the rich is not going to address the myriad loopholes that they use to pay little to no taxes at all. It might make some people feel better but it's not really doing anything.

If the Buffett rule closes the loopholes then I'm all for it. There is no reason why 1% of the population should hold the majority of the nation's wealth. We're supposed to live in a democracy where elected representatives control the country, not the super rich. Allowing people to hold that much money is only detrimental to the stated foundations of America's formation.

They should be paying their fair share, and that's that.
Click to expand...

As I understand what was proposed it will not close loopholes.
 
TurtleDude said:
why are you so dishonest? millionaires pay HIGHER RATES ON THE SAME TYPE OF INCOME THAN THE MIDDLE CLASS

if you are unable to understand that you really shouldn't be making such idiotic claims
Click to expand...

Like GE? They paid 0 percent in taxes, plus got corporate welfare. Wait a minute, I thought you didn't like welfare. Oh, that's right, only the poor on welfare are freeloaders.
 
TurtleDude said:
You are confused. that is like claiming I support you paying a higher percentage of your income for the same cheeseburger I buy

I get the same benefits from SS as you do. WTF should I pay more? Again, you labor under the assumption that FROM EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR ABILITY IS THE ONLY valid basis for tax rates.

I reject that and you seem to believe all taxes should be progressive because that benefits your political masters
Click to expand...

There is nothing confusing here aside from your cheeseburger reference which is a mystery.

Social Security is a societal program which benefits society. It is NOT an IRA and should not be confused with one by equating benefits. To do that is a fallacy as well as intellectually dishonest since it attempts to ignore the societal aspect of Social Security. Please note the name of the program. It is not Your Individual Retirement Benefit.

In point of fact you get the benefit of living in a society where older people have a decent standard of living and you benefit in that situation as it benefits the entire nation.
 
TurtleDude said:
why are you so dishonest? millionaires pay HIGHER RATES ON THE SAME TYPE OF INCOME THAN THE MIDDLE CLASS

if you are unable to understand that you really shouldn't be making such idiotic claims
Click to expand...


It appears you are wildly uninformed as to what the new proposal is, TD
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
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.
Click to expand...

The whole "outsourcing out jobs overseas" rhetoric is overblown. On a relative basis, the U.S. imports far less than any other developed nation on the planet. At this point in time, 14% or so of GDP is imported! Even the Chinese import more (in terms of GDP) than we do!!!!

In areas like Luxemburg, they imports > aggregate output.

Source: memory
 
washunut said:
As I understand what was proposed it will not close loopholes.
Click to expand...

It replaces the AMT, which hits many upper middle class earners, with a new millionaires minimum tax, which ensures the wealthiest are paying the same rates as middle class earners. It new buffet rule tax will affect an estimated 0.3% of earners.


Anyone blasting that as BAD FOR AMERICA is a moron, plain and simple.
 
jackalope said:
Anyone blasting that as BAD FOR AMERICA is a moron, plain and simple.
Click to expand...

"Good or Bad for America" is really irrelevant in terms of Taxes until we get a handle on SPENDING.

IF, after we have reduced spending to its Constitutionally mandated limitations we still need Tax Increases to cover our expenses, then I'd be all for it. However, the political types will never even consider that type of reduction in spending because we'd see just how much excess income the US Government would have at the current tax rates.
 
Luna Tick said:
Like GE? They paid 0 percent in taxes, plus got corporate welfare. Wait a minute, I thought you didn't like welfare. Oh, that's right, only the poor on welfare are freeloaders.
Click to expand...

we are talking about individuals. and did GE not pay payroll taxes? what about taxes in other jurisdictions? I don't believe in corporate taxes either.
 
jackalope said:
It replaces the AMT, which hits many upper middle class earners, with a new millionaires minimum tax, which ensures the wealthiest are paying the same rates as middle class earners. It new buffet rule tax will affect an estimated 0.3% of earners.


Anyone blasting that as BAD FOR AMERICA is a moron, plain and simple.
Click to expand...

why don't you explain how this works. So what the moron in chief wants to do is to change capital gains and dividend taxes so that the "rich" pay as much as the very top of the middle class. what about the rest of us "rich" who pay more than either. Are we gonna get a reduction

there are reasons way beyond obumble's ability to comprehend why tax rates on LTCG (inflation for example) and dividends (double taxation) are lower than on earned income

he is pandering based on politics and his proposals are not based on rational economic facts
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom