• 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!

White House Tax Plan Would Ask More of Millionaires

Status
Not open for further replies.
These numbers come from BLS data. Notice all those jobs lost before the Bush recession was officially over in June 2009.


Private sector jobs gains/losses

YearJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec
2008 Gains/
Loss
4-128-87-186-240-217-265-317-434-491-787-636
2009 Gains/
Loss
-841-721-787-773-326-438-287-215-213-250-34-102
2010 Gains/
Loss
-42-21144229486593110109143128167
2011 Gains/
Loss
94261219241997515617

Is that chart supposed to mean something? Tell that to the 25 million unemployed and under employed Americans TODAY, there is a net job loss TODAY, there are fewer people employed TODAY than when Obama took office so doubt seriously that anyone is going to take your chart seriously.
 
that still doesn't justify a tax that only applies to those who pay the most income tax

if its so great why don't your dem masters try to expand it? because any politician who proposes it applies to more people will lose an election or might even eat a bullet
WTF is a dem master? We don't have no stinking Grover Norquests if that's what you mean.
 
Is that chart supposed to mean something? Tell that to the 25 million unemployed and under employed Americans TODAY, there is a net job loss TODAY, there are fewer people employed TODAY than when Obama took office so doubt seriously that anyone is going to take your chart seriously.
You might be correct, but many of those who lost their jobs in the shadow of the Bush presidency. And you have to remember the GOP has Romney or Perry as candidates. How does it feel to have two piss poor candidates?
 
His salary from Berkshire Hathaway? You've seen his tax return and you know that's all the normal income he has?

Nope. I said that is what was reported. If you find differently, good.
 
Why does John Kerry want higher taxes? because he thinks paying more taxes is a tradeoff he is willing to make to gain more power.

what evidence do you have for this? how do you know he doesn't honestly believe that FIT for the wealthy is too low?
 
You might be correct, but many of those who lost their jobs in the shadow of the Bush presidency. And you have to remember the GOP has Romney or Perry as candidates. How does it feel to have two piss poor candidates?

Yet Obama's approval rating is at record lows. As for piss poor candidates, you elected Obama so tell me how it feels? I didn't vote for the incompetent..
 
And yet you have totally failed to show he was lying, and had to give up on the attempt. Kinda interesting...

Buffett is lying, and here's the proof.

Buffett pays a percentage on the income that he earns initially (his salary). Assuming that he makes considerably more than his secretary in salary (not a giant leap in faith to realize this), he does pay a higher income tax than his secretary. Therefore, his secretary pays a lower income tax than he does. Where Buffett is perpetrating the lie and the liberals get so easily confused and swallow it hook, line and sinker, is that capital gains tax and income tax are very, very different. If his secretary was paying capital gains tax on any investments she makes, then she would be paying the same capital gains tax that he does, but would still be paying a lower income tax because she still makes less money.

So unless Buffett is paying his secretary more money than he makes in salary, he's lying. But let's take this a little further to clear up any further misconceptions regarding capital gains (and for that matter, losses as well).

Capital gains tax is levied when a profit is made in either the short-term or long-term. The short-term rate is the exact same rate as income tax. The long-term rate is what is lower (15% currently) than the income tax. Two things to point out here to clear up the confusion over all of this:

1 - The money that was invested had already been taxed, so it is a risk that the person takes by investing the money.
2 - Capital losses can only be claimed at a maximum of $3,000 per household per year on their taxes. So if a person loses $100,000 in investments, they only get to claim $3,000 worth of it. The other $97,000 is just gone (poof).

So those who pay long-term capital gains tax on profits (remember, they pay the exact same percentage on short-term capital gains as they do for income tax) are being taxed on money they invested at a substantial risk. If they make money, Obama wants more of it. If they lose money, so sorry, have a nice day.

So unless Buffett is paying his secretary more than he is paying himself in salary (highly unlikely), he's lying - plain and simple. Investors take a risk when they invest, some win and some lose. Buffett has a better record than most when it comes to winning, but it doesn't change the fact that he's lying and so many left-of-center folks are buying it blindly.
 
If he was talking about ordinary income and tax rates he was a liar. If he was talking about capital gains only then he was telling something that may be close to the truth but we have no idea since we don't know what his secretary makes. Capital gains tax is 15%

Warren Buffet was definitely talking about the capital gains tax rate. His op-ed letter in the NY times really is not that long, it's not like reading a couple thousand page bill. He's comparing his overall tax rate to the 20 other employees in his office. As he explains, his tax rate is lower because of the capital gains tax, and because FICA only applies to earned income.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html

"To understand why, you need to examine the sources of government revenue. Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It’s a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot."

I don't understand why everyone tries to pretend Warren Buffet is making some vague undefined argument.
 
Buffett is lying, and here's the proof.

Buffett pays a percentage on the income that he earns initially (his salary). Assuming that he makes considerably more than his secretary in salary (not a giant leap in faith to realize this), he does pay a higher income tax than his secretary. Therefore, his secretary pays a lower income tax than he does. Where Buffett is perpetrating the lie and the liberals get so easily confused and swallow it hook, line and sinker, is that capital gains tax and income tax are very, very different. If his secretary was paying capital gains tax on any investments she makes, then she would be paying the same capital gains tax that he does, but would still be paying a lower income tax because she still makes less money.

Semantics. Are capital gains income? Is the capital gains tax charged on that income? So it's a tax, and it's charged on income. Sounds like an income tax.

So unless Buffett is paying his secretary more money than he makes in salary, he's lying. But let's take this a little further to clear up any further misconceptions regarding capital gains (and for that matter, losses as well).

Capital gains tax is levied when a profit is made in either the short-term or long-term. The short-term rate is the exact same rate as income tax. The long-term rate is what is lower (15% currently) than the income tax. Two things to point out here to clear up the confusion over all of this:

1 - The money that was invested had already been taxed, so it is a risk that the person takes by investing the money.
2 - Capital losses can only be claimed at a maximum of $3,000 per household per year on their taxes. So if a person loses $100,000 in investments, they only get to claim $3,000 worth of it. The other $97,000 is just gone (poof).

Poof? Not poof. The $97,000 is not just gone, it doesn't vanish. If that same person makes $100,000 in capital gains the following year, they're only going to pay tax on $3,000 of them. Because they can apply the $97,000 loss they couldn't use on the prior year return against those capital gains.
 
Libs go to such great length to defend this abomination. iF the death tax is so great why is it applied only to those of us who already pay a massive amount of the income tax. its nothing more than a surcharge on the wealthy that is based on class envy

Why do cons go to such great length to use stupid rhetoric instead of trying to have rational discussions? The estate tax(see, I did it again and used the proper name instead of the rhetoric fueled name) is only on large estates as an attempt to minimize the actual impact of the tax on those receiving the estate. It limits the number of "family farm" type situations taxed.

Hint: repeating "class envy" every single post does not make it true.
 
Having his dem buddies in power.

He also benefits from the dem financial situation

Using your logic then, every time any one advocates for any political position, it is only for their own benefit. No one ever acts based on what they feel is right.
 
WTF is a dem master? We don't have no stinking Grover Norquests if that's what you mean.

It's just stupid hyperbole used to hide the fact he has no actual facts or logic in his arguments. Ignore it.
 
Yet Obama's approval rating is at record lows. As for piss poor candidates, you elected Obama so tell me how it feels? I didn't vote for the incompetent..

I was under the impression you did vote for Bush.
 
Why do cons go to such great length to use stupid rhetoric instead of trying to have rational discussions? The estate tax(see, I did it again and used the proper name instead of the rhetoric fueled name) is only on large estates as an attempt to minimize the actual impact of the tax on those receiving the estate. It limits the number of "family farm" type situations taxed.

Hint: repeating "class envy" every single post does not make it true.

its a surcharge on those who already pay a ton of income taxes. it survives only because those who are targeted by it cannot outvote the masses who are envious
 
Using your logic then, every time any one advocates for any political position, it is only for their own benefit. No one ever acts based on what they feel is right.

CC has noted that he does not believe in altruistic positions and argues everyone pushes for their own interest. I haven't decided if I agree with that but I certainly believe that Buffett pushes for what benefits him the most.
 
Buffett is lying, and here's the proof.

Buffett pays a percentage on the income that he earns initially (his salary). Assuming that he makes considerably more than his secretary in salary (not a giant leap in faith to realize this), he does pay a higher income tax than his secretary. Therefore, his secretary pays a lower income tax than he does. Where Buffett is perpetrating the lie and the liberals get so easily confused and swallow it hook, line and sinker, is that capital gains tax and income tax are very, very different. If his secretary was paying capital gains tax on any investments she makes, then she would be paying the same capital gains tax that he does, but would still be paying a lower income tax because she still makes less money.

So unless Buffett is paying his secretary more money than he makes in salary, he's lying. But let's take this a little further to clear up any further misconceptions regarding capital gains (and for that matter, losses as well).

Capital gains tax is levied when a profit is made in either the short-term or long-term. The short-term rate is the exact same rate as income tax. The long-term rate is what is lower (15% currently) than the income tax. Two things to point out here to clear up the confusion over all of this:

1 - The money that was invested had already been taxed, so it is a risk that the person takes by investing the money.
2 - Capital losses can only be claimed at a maximum of $3,000 per household per year on their taxes. So if a person loses $100,000 in investments, they only get to claim $3,000 worth of it. The other $97,000 is just gone (poof).

So those who pay long-term capital gains tax on profits (remember, they pay the exact same percentage on short-term capital gains as they do for income tax) are being taxed on money they invested at a substantial risk. If they make money, Obama wants more of it. If they lose money, so sorry, have a nice day.

So unless Buffett is paying his secretary more than he is paying himself in salary (highly unlikely), he's lying - plain and simple. Investors take a risk when they invest, some win and some lose. Buffett has a better record than most when it comes to winning, but it doesn't change the fact that he's lying and so many left-of-center folks are buying it blindly.

Shoulda read the thread Hugh. Show me where Buffett mentioned his secretary(hint: no one has and I cannot find it either). So, the second sentence of your argument has already failed a basic fact check. ALso, you do not seem to understand what Buffett is actually saying, which is about effective tax rates. Might look into that.
 
Warren Buffet was definitely talking about the capital gains tax rate. His op-ed letter in the NY times really is not that long, it's not like reading a couple thousand page bill. He's comparing his overall tax rate to the 20 other employees in his office. As he explains, his tax rate is lower because of the capital gains tax, and because FICA only applies to earned income.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html

"To understand why, you need to examine the sources of government revenue. Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It’s a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot."

I don't understand why everyone tries to pretend Warren Buffet is making some vague undefined argument.

Isn't it fascinating that so many people are commenting on it without having read it?
 
its a surcharge on those who already pay a ton of income taxes. it survives only because those who are targeted by it cannot outvote the masses who are envious

No, it is not a surcharge. You might want to check a dictionary to find out what a surcharge actually is. It is a tax on an estate when it changes hands. Calling it other things does not change it's actual nature.
 
CC has noted that he does not believe in altruistic positions and argues everyone pushes for their own interest. I haven't decided if I agree with that but I certainly believe that Buffett pushes for what benefits him the most.

If we can throw out right and wrong as motives to do something, then we can just go with majority rule. In that case, there are more poor and middle class than rich, so you are screwed, and it's ok according to your own logic.
 
Shoulda read the thread Hugh. Show me where Buffett mentioned his secretary(hint: no one has and I cannot find it either). So, the second sentence of your argument has already failed a basic fact check. ALso, you do not seem to understand what Buffett is actually saying, which is about effective tax rates. Might look into that.

Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary - Times Online

Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent.

again that is a lie because someone in the 60K range is in the 25% marginal rate.

and her overall tax rate is far far lower than 25%

the only way he can be correct is that she pays 25% on her next dollar and he 18% but that is because he has a DIFFERENT TYPE OF INCOME

his LIKE INCOME-salary is taxed much higher than hers
 
Why do cons go to such great length to use stupid rhetoric instead of trying to have rational discussions? The estate tax(see, I did it again and used the proper name instead of the rhetoric fueled name) is only on large estates as an attempt to minimize the actual impact of the tax on those receiving the estate. It limits the number of "family farm" type situations taxed.

Half true. What it does is tell people that you don't want to be a large farm on the brink of the limit so they stay smaller, while the very big farms(aka corporations) can handle the tax without any harm what so ever. So in effect it creates a dead zone in between the large and the small farms protecting the large farms. The CBO admits this even.

Hint: repeating "class envy" every single post does not make it true.

There is no way the estate tax isn't class envy. It taxes the rich with the idea they don't want the children to be rich with the lie that it will lead to some horrible situation. It's exactly class envy. With a total of 1% of tax revenue coming from it the only reason it exists is to separate people from money.
 
Last edited:
If we can throw out right and wrong as motives to do something, then we can just go with majority rule. In that case, there are more poor and middle class than rich, so you are screwed, and it's ok according to your own logic.

I oppose majority rule when it comes to taxes. the progressive income tax and death taxes exist only because net tax consumers have the same votes as tax payers
 
Yet Obama's approval rating is at record lows. As for piss poor candidates, you elected Obama so tell me how it feels? I didn't vote for the incompetent..
I thought you voted for Bush, am I wrong? I'm happy I voted for Obama, if McCain were elected we would probably have bomb, bomb, bombed Iran by now.
 
Half true. What it does is tell people that you don't want to be a large farm on the brink of the limit so they stay smaller, while the very big farms(aka corporations) can handle the tax without any harm what so ever. So in effect it creates a dead zone in between the large and the small farms protecting the large farms. The CBO admits this even.



There is no way the estate tax isn't class envy. It taxes the rich with the idea they don't want the children to be rich with the lie that it will lead to some horrible situation. It's exactly class envy.

Of course its class envy. its certainly not economically efficient given the money wasted trying to avoid it. It persists not only because the envious support it but because of all the special interests that want it

tax preparers

Insurance salesmen

charities who think pushing the death tax gets them more contributions

government leeches
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom