• 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 releases tax figures to GOP

Which bills did they pass did Obama sign?

They have passed several.

Can you name one?

Be specific.
 
Reg said:
Obama doesn't have a plan, and never will. All he does is campaign against everyone else's.
Click to expand...

Obama Unveils Deficit Reduction Plan, 'Buffett Rule' Tax On Millionaires

October 21, 2011

"Drawing clear battle lines for next year's elections, a combative President Barack Obama on Monday demanded that the richest Americans pay higher taxes to help cut soaring U.S. deficits by more than $3 trillion. He promised to veto any effort by congressional Republicans to cut Medicare benefits for the elderly without raising taxes as well.

"This is not class warfare. It's math," Obama declared, anticipating Republican criticism, which was quick in coming.

"Class warfare isn't leadership," House Speaker John Boehner said, in Cincinnati.

Obama's speech marked a new, confrontational stance toward Republicans after months of cooperation that many Democrats complained produced too many concessions. While the plan stands little chance of passing Congress, its populist pitch is one that the White House believes the public can support.

The president's proposal, which he challenged Congress to approve, would predominantly hit upper-income taxpayers and would also target tax loopholes and subsidies used by many larger corporations. It would spare retirees from any changes in Social Security, and it would direct most of the cuts in Medicare spending to health care providers, not beneficiaries.

Benefit programs wouldn't be unscathed. Obama's plan would reduce spending for those, including Medicare and Medicaid, by $580 billion. But with Republicans calling for massive cuts in entitlement programs, Obama said he would veto any legislation that cut Medicare benefits without raising new revenue.

His plan also would count savings of $1 trillion over 10 years from the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.

The deficit-reduction plan represents Obama's longer-term follow-up to the $447 billion in tax cuts and new public works spending that he has proposed as a short-term measure to stimulate the economy. The new proposal also inserts the president's voice into the legislative discussions of a joint congressional "supercommittee" charged with recommending deficit reductions of up to $1.5 trillion."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/19/obama-deficit-plan-buffet-rule-taxes-medicare_n_969403.html

See Plan overview here:

Fact Sheet: Living Within Our Means and Investing in the Future - The President
 
There are no specifics on tax increases in that fact sheed link.

Except he wants ten years of taxe to pay for one year of public employee union bailouts.
 
Reg said:
There are no specifics on tax increases in that fact sheed link.

Except he wants ten years of taxe to pay for one year of public employee union bailouts.
Click to expand...

From the fact sheet:

"The President calls on the Committee to undertake comprehensive tax reform, and lays out five principles for it to follow: 1) lower tax rates; 2) cut wasteful loopholes and tax breaks; 3) reduce the deficit by $1.5 trillion; 4) boost job creation and growth; and 5) comport with the “Buffett Rule” that people making more than $1 million a year should not pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than middle-class families pay.

Tax reform should draw on the specific proposals the President has put forward, together with elimination of additional inefficient tax breaks. If the Joint Committee is unable to undertake comprehensive tax reform, the President believes the discrete measures he has proposed should be enacted on a standalone basis. Their enactment as a standalone package still would significantly improve the country’s fiscal standing, represent an important step toward more fundamentally transforming our tax code, and serve as a strong foundation for economic growth and job creation.

To advance this debate, the President is offering a detailed set of specific tax loophole closers and measures to broaden the tax base that, together with the expiration of the high-income tax cuts, would be more than sufficient to hit the $1.5 trillion target. These include:

Allowing the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for upper income earners to expire ($866 billion)
Limiting deductions and exclusions for those making more than $250,000 a year ($410 billion)
Closing loopholes and eliminating special interest tax breaks (approximately $300 billion)"
 
Reg said:
Which bills did they pass did Obama sign?

They have passed several.

Can you name one?

Be specific.
Click to expand...

Did you even read your own argument? By your measure, a president sending a bill every day and getting rejected has no bills.

Seriously. The quality of poster here is on the massive downtrend the closer we get to the election.
 
obvious Child said:
Did you even read your own argument? By your measure, a president sending a bill every day and getting rejected has no bills.

Seriously. The quality of poster here is on the massive downtrend the closer we get to the election.
Click to expand...

No, the assertion was that Congress did nothing.

Congress passed several bills the President did not sign.
 
Reg said:
No, the assertion was that Congress did nothing.

Congress passed several bills the President did not sign.
Click to expand...

In regards to the economy? Hello, seriously stay on subject.

Christ sakes. We get any lower quality posters, I'm taking break till the election is over.
 
No, the statement was that Congress did nothing. What he meant to say was that Congress didn't merely show up and rubberstamp Obama's crap.
 
Reg said:
All three quotes. The assertion was that the GOP had no plan.
Click to expand...

Let's reexamine this for proof as you are lying.

You replied to this: "I haven't seen any current proposals from the President with a $250K threshold since he had the meeting with Buffett and decided to go with the Buffett rule. Perhaps I missed it, could you provide a source?" From Catawba.

That is CLEARLY a post discussing the economy. You replied "Obama doesn't have a plan, and never will. All he does is campaign against everyone else's."

You really have to work on lying. We shouldn't be able to spot it that easily.

I'll retract my statement if you admit you didn't read what Catawba said and just made up whatever you thought Catwaba said.
 
There is no detail on taxes in that link.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Play nice and keep it civil plz.
 
Reg said:
There is no detail on taxes in that link.
Click to expand...

Are you really saying this:

"I haven't seen any current proposals from the President with a $250K threshold since he had the meeting with Buffett and decided to go with the Buffett rule. Perhaps I missed it, could you provide a source?"

What YOU responded to, has nothing to do with taxes?

Jesus. Tashah just shoot me now.
 
Reg said:
Why the cult of personality for Warren Bluffer? Is he untouchable since he sings the right hymns?
Click to expand...
Cult of Personality = Defending someone from lies.
Ockham said:
So you're saying he doesn't employ CPA's and tax lawyers?
Click to expand...
He doesn't need to. It's common knowledge that capital gains are taxed at much lower rates than personal income tax. He also makes most of his money through capital gains, hence the lower tax rate. He's not gaming the system, the system was tailor made for him.

Ockham said:
While a very good explaination, it's irrelevant to my charge that he's a hypocrite. I know very well the difference between corporate and personal tax obligations.
If that were to be true, why then does he only pay 15%? The answer is, because he has CPA's, and lawyers and people who's job it is to utilize the existing tax code to lower his person tax rate. His tax rate is ALREADY higher ... yet he doesn't pay the higher rate. THAT is why he's a hypocrite.
That's certainly a second way he'd be a hypocrite yes.
Click to expand...
No, you don't pay less based on how many lawyers you hire. He pays less cause most of his money comes from capital gains and not personal income from his job. If you went out and made the same amount of money as him through personal gains and investing you'd pay very close to the same tax rate. He's not gaming he system. If you think that him making money through capital gains is gaming the system then I would think you agree with me that we should tax capital gains income as personal income...

Reg said:
Yes, and Warren Buffet could make that go away and direct Berkshire to pay it, if he wanted it so.
Click to expand...
They are not simply refusing to pay taxes. They are filing appeals on what they actually owe. The company thinks it was over taxed and they are following all the right moves to get it dealt with. Warren Buffett can't treat the company's money the same way he would treat his own money. That's not how the world works.
 
Last edited:
roughdraft274 said:
Cult of Personality = Defending someone from lies.
Click to expand...

Your distinction is without difference.

He doesn't need to.
Click to expand...

Whoa there, so Warren Buffet does all of his own taxes? You want to stick with that one?

It's common knowledge that capital gains are taxed at much lower rates than personal income tax.
Click to expand...

Which is the exact reason that the analogy between Buffet and his secretary is beyond disingenuous.

He also makes most of his money through capital gains, hence the lower tax rate.
Click to expand...

So do a lot of retirees in this country. Would you like to see their break go away too? There is a reason that capital gain is not taxed like regular income, one of which is that the money invested to make that gain has already been taxed.

He's not gaming the system, the system was tailor made for him.
Click to expand...

And you, and I, and anyone that invests. Are you really that jealous of someone that has more than you that you would advocate taking it from them so you could have it?

No, you don't pay less based on how many lawyers you hire. He pays less cause most of his money comes from capital gains and not personal income from his job.
Click to expand...

Which is a scam as well, but both have a ring of truth. It is a fact that the better people you hire the better result you will have. Just as it is a truth that Buffet takes a token salary to avoid taxation probably based on these persons advice.

If you went out and made the same amount of money as him through personal gains and investing you'd pay very close to the same tax rate. He's not gaming he system.
Click to expand...

Glad to see you actually understand the system. It makes it all the more confusing that you would advocate destruction of that system over your jealousy of people that make more than yourself. Also, since you understand this, then one can only conclude that you are also being disingenuous in your argument by supporting Buffet's silly crap.

If you think that him making money through capital gains is gaming the system then I would think you agree with me that we should tax capital gains income as personal income...
Click to expand...

If you shrink the reward for investing, and make it more expensive to invest, what is the logical outcome of that?

They are not simply refusing to pay taxes. They are filing appeals on what they actually owe. The company thinks it was over taxed and they are following all the right moves to get it dealt with. Warren Buffett can't treat the company's money the same way he would treat his own money. That's not how the world works.
Click to expand...

Arguing for other wealthy people to pay more while he is connected with legal maneuvers to avoid paying more, and you don't see the conflict there? Really?

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Your distinction is without difference.



Whoa there, so Warren Buffet does all of his own taxes? You want to stick with that one?



Which is the exact reason that the analogy between Buffet and his secretary is beyond disingenuous.



So do a lot of retirees in this country. Would you like to see their break go away too? There is a reason that capital gain is not taxed like regular income, one of which is that the money invested to make that gain has already been taxed.



And you, and I, and anyone that invests. Are you really that jealous of someone that has more than you that you would advocate taking it from them so you could have it?



Which is a scam as well, but both have a ring of truth. It is a fact that the better people you hire the better result you will have. Just as it is a truth that Buffet takes a token salary to avoid taxation probably based on these persons advice.



Glad to see you actually understand the system. It makes it all the more confusing that you would advocate destruction of that system over your jealousy of people that make more than yourself. Also, since you understand this, then one can only conclude that you are also being disingenuous in your argument by supporting Buffet's silly crap.



If you shrink the reward for investing, and make it more expensive to invest, what is the logical outcome of that?



Arguing for other wealthy people to pay more while he is connected with legal maneuvers to avoid paying more, and you don't see the conflict there? Really?

j-mac
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing this out of jealousy dude. That's one of the very many mistakes you make in your post. If you were to skip over that bull**** and actually talk specifics and not keep coming back to how I must just be jealous then we can have a discussion. If you can't manage that then I'll continue to glance over your posts with a snicker.

BTW, is Warren Buffett also jealous of himself? Think before you type dude.
 
roughdraft274 said:
I'm not arguing this out of jealousy dude. That's one of the very many mistakes you make in your post. If you were to skip over that bull**** and actually talk specifics and not keep coming back to how I must just be jealous then we can have a discussion. If you can't manage that then I'll continue to glance over your posts with a snicker.
Click to expand...

It is up to you whether or not you reply to any posting. However, I am trying to understand why it is that many on the liberal side of the argument seem to want to go after this class war argument crap, when in this country everyone has the same opportunity to better themselves.

I am not avoiding specifics, just lay them out and I'll be more than happy to address them. Unless ofcourse, it is just easier to continue to show arrogance, and insult those that don't agree with your point of view.:cool:

BTW, is Warren Buffett also jealous of himself? Think before you type dude.
Click to expand...

No, Buffet is just another in a long line of what Stalin called "Useful idiots".... If Buffet, or any other liberal, including those in Hollywood that are in the end dumb as a box of rocks, want to pay more, they can. But, when it comes to others, and how they manage their own finances, they should STFU!

j-mac
 
roughdraft274 said:
I'm not arguing this out of jealousy dude. That's one of the very many mistakes you make in your post. If you were to skip over that bull**** and actually talk specifics and not keep coming back to how I must just be jealous then we can have a discussion. If you can't manage that then I'll continue to glance over your posts with a snicker.

BTW, is Warren Buffett also jealous of himself? Think before you type dude.
Click to expand...

Just save yourself the agitation. I've quit responding to posts that make assumptions based on right-wing radio carictures of the dreaded "liberal".
 
iliveonramen said:
Just save yourself the agitation. I've quit responding to posts that make assumptions based on right-wing radio carictures of the dreaded "liberal".
Click to expand...

Here we go, now I must not think for myself because I disagree with the liberal point of view eh....If any group has that mentality of sheeple regurgitating the latest talking points, take a look at your own group.

j-mac
 
Catawba said:
From the fact sheet:

"The President calls on the Committee to undertake comprehensive tax reform, and lays out five principles for it to follow: 1) lower tax rates; 2) cut wasteful loopholes and tax breaks; 3) reduce the deficit by $1.5 trillion; 4) boost job creation and growth; and 5) comport with the “Buffett Rule” that people making more than $1 million a year should not pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than middle-class families pay.

Tax reform should draw on the specific proposals the President has put forward, together with elimination of additional inefficient tax breaks. If the Joint Committee is unable to undertake comprehensive tax reform, the President believes the discrete measures he has proposed should be enacted on a standalone basis. Their enactment as a standalone package still would significantly improve the country’s fiscal standing, represent an important step toward more fundamentally transforming our tax code, and serve as a strong foundation for economic growth and job creation.

To advance this debate, the President is offering a detailed set of specific tax loophole closers and measures to broaden the tax base that, together with the expiration of the high-income tax cuts, would be more than sufficient to hit the $1.5 trillion target. These include:

Allowing the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for upper income earners to expire ($866 billion)
Limiting deductions and exclusions for those making more than $250,000 a year ($410 billion)
Closing loopholes and eliminating special interest tax breaks (approximately $300 billion)"
Click to expand...

Reading this post, especially the last two lines you write why did you debate the point that Obama's plan hits people below $1 million and thus is different than what Buffet proposed.
 
j-mac said:
Here we go, now I must not think for myself because I disagree with the liberal point of view eh....If any group has that mentality of sheeple regurgitating the latest talking points, take a look at your own group.

j-mac
Click to expand...

I have no problem with regurgitating talking points. It's the attack on a person because of their political affiliation and assumptions based on their affiliation.

"Person X is a liberal, therefore jealousy is their motivational factor for raising taxes on the richest of Americans". If everybody on this board agreed I wouldn't be on here because there would be no debate. The majority of your post is fine, but saying that he wants higher taxes on the wealthy due to jealousy is just used to discount any legitimate concern he could have.
 
iliveonramen said:
I have no problem with regurgitating talking points. It's the attack on a person because of their political affiliation and assumptions based on their affiliation.

"Person X is a liberal, therefore jealousy is their motivational factor for raising taxes on the richest of Americans". If everybody on this board agreed I wouldn't be on here because there would be no debate. The majority of your post is fine, but saying that he wants higher taxes on the wealthy due to jealousy is just used to discount any legitimate concern he could have.
Click to expand...

When he displays a legitimate concern, or posting that goes further than just the 'rich should pay more' pap, using talking point straight out of Zucatti park then I'll delve a little further. However, when all he has are insults, and arrogance, then he doesn't deserve substantive reply.

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
It is up to you whether or not you reply to any posting. However, I am trying to understand why it is that many on the liberal side of the argument seem to want to go after this class war argument crap, when in this country everyone has the same opportunity to better themselves.
Click to expand...
I agree, in most cases you hold your own destiny. In America maybe not everyone can end up like Warren Buffett but even a homeless person can get a job somewhere and work their way up and earn a good living with enough hard work and dedication.

The class war talking point is crap. I'm not mad at people that make more money than I do. It's a simple case that I think the country would be better off with the wealthy paying what they did before the bush tax cuts and the super wealthy paying maybe even alittle bit more than that and that capital gains should be taxed similar to personal income, maybe after the first 100,000 that year it's taxed at the exact same rate personal income tax is. That would not allow people earning millions to pay 17% tax and reduces the deficit.

j-mac said:
No, Buffet is just another in a long line of what Stalin called "Useful idiots".... If Buffet, or any other liberal, including those in Hollywood that are in the end dumb as a box of rocks, want to pay more, they can. But, when it comes to others, and how they manage their own finances, they should STFU!

j-mac
Click to expand...
Last time I checked everyone in this country has the right to express their opinion on tax policy. Don't like freedom of speech? Move somewhere else. Learn to get past your idiotic talk radio stereotypes and come back to me.
 
j-mac said:
Here we go, now I must not think for myself because I disagree with the liberal point of view eh....If any group has that mentality of sheeple regurgitating the latest talking points, take a look at your own group.

j-mac
Click to expand...
Kind of like how you assumed I'm not thinking for myself and just hate the rich because I think raising their taxes is a good idea? how can you see this in others but refuse to see it in your self? Remove the blinders dude. Open up your eyes. That sun light only burns for a few seconds. After that you'll get used to it and enjoy it. Trust me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom