• 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!

Senate fails to advance Buffett rule

TurtleDude said:
I doubt many of the people who got the ball rolling there or in Stalinist Russia intended to have 40 million people die either. Its the attitude that we need to DO SOMETHING that lights the fuse
Click to expand...
I think Pol Pot DID intend on killing a lot of people.

Again...you are confusing "CAUSE" with "CURE". Another conservative did the same exact thing earlier.

Try again.
 
Last edited:
muciti said:
Your arguement would only slightly make sense if they middle class were currently paying nothing in taxes, which is not the case.
Click to expand...

In fact many in the middle class are paying no federal income tax and most of those who are a paying are paying at a far lower effective rate than they would be paying under any flat tax.
 
AdamT said:
In fact many in the middle class are paying no federal income tax and most of those who are a paying are paying at a far lower effective rate than they would be paying under any flat tax.
Click to expand...

Either you or Obama are lying. You decide which. A large part of his push with the Buffet rule is that the majority of middle class are paying a higher % of their income than the wealthy. The 30% number came about because that is what the majority of middle class Americans are paying. A flat tax would barely affect the middle class and would greatly affect the higher end individuals especially if you eliminate ALL the tax breaks they receive and actually take 30% from them.
 
muciti said:
Either you or Obama are lying. You decide which. A large part of his push with the Buffet rule is that the majority of middle class are paying a higher % of their income than the wealthy. The 30% number came about because that is what the majority of middle class Americans are paying. A flat tax would barely affect the middle class and would greatly affect the higher end individuals especially if you eliminate ALL the tax breaks they receive and actually take 30% from them.
Click to expand...
The focus of the Buffet rule is on INVESTMENT INCOME, those making over $1M are getting huge breaks on their INVESTMENT INCOMES.

The tax would affect a minority of high-income households that manage to pay relatively low rates because of deductions and preferential tax rates on investment income....

According to administration data, the median effective tax rate for the middle 20 percent of U.S. taxpayers is 13.3 percent, including income, payroll and corporate taxes. For the top 1 percent of taxpayers, the rate is 29.6 percent, according to the 2012 Economic Report of the President. Still, 10 percent of high-income households have tax rates of 8.7 percent or less.
Click to expand...
Senate Blocks Buffett Rule 30% Tax Floor on Top Earners - Bloomberg


So you are wrong on the effective rate for middle income earners, too.


Still waiting for your proof that flat taxes decrease WEALTH INEQUALITY.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
The focus of the Buffet rule is on INVESTMENT INCOME, those making over $1M are getting huge breaks on their INVESTMENT INCOMES.

Senate Blocks Buffett Rule 30% Tax Floor on Top Earners - Bloomberg


So you are wrong on the effective rate for middle income earners, too.


Still waiting for your proof that flat taxes decrease WEALTH INEQUALITY.
Click to expand...

YOu can keep waiting. Until you learn what you are talking about and go back and read what i am talking about, like i said before, i am done discussing this with you.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
feel free to revolt. I get tired of implied threats. Lets party:mrgreen:
Click to expand...


I agree, also include in that the teabaggers who have done the same thing with implied threats.
 
muciti said:
YOu can keep waiting. Until you learn what you are talking about and go back and read what i am talking about, like i said before, i am done discussing this with you.
Click to expand...
You have no proof to back your flat tax claims, you are wrong on the effect of a flat tax on middle earners (it would more than double their tax rate) and you don't understand where the top earners are making their incomes from.

I can understand why you won't debate me, you can't.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
You have no proof to back your flat tax claims, you are wrong on the effect of a flat tax on middle earners (it would more than double their tax rate) and you don't understand where the top earners are making their incomes from.

I can understand why you won't debate me, you can't.
Click to expand...

I am not debating you until you go back and read what I am posting about. Say what you want you are not going to hurt my feelings any. Let me know when you've read up on what I have already said then we can talk. Until then there is no point.
 
Last edited:
Gimmesometruth said:
There is lots of research on the ills of wealth inequality, just because you are not aware of it does not mean it does not exist.

When wealth inequality gets bad enough, things go very bad, ie the French Revolution, Russian Revolution....
Click to expand...
apdst said:
Yeah, those two events fixed the wealth inequality problem. :rofl
Click to expand...

Gimmesometruth said:
Oh, you equate "cause" with "cure".

That is kinda messed up...
Click to expand...

apdst said:
What is messed up, is that you think the French and Soviet Revolutions were revolts against rich folks, when in actuality, they were revolts against greedy governments.
Click to expand...
Gimmesometruth said:
Wow....dude.....who was in power? They were Monarchies.
Click to expand...

apdst said:
Your point?...........
Click to expand...

I'll let it sink in....then get back to me.
 
muciti said:
I am not debating you until you go back and read what I am posting about. Say what you want you are not going to hurt my feelings any. Let me know when you've read up on what I have already said then we can talk. Until then there is no point.
Click to expand...
If you think I missed anything in what we discussed, then show it.

You have been constantly in error on the flat tax, it's effect on income inequality, the amount of taxes on middle earners, you can't prove that a flat tax decreases wealth inequality....it just goes on and on...even simple things like reading an article when I give you alternate sources.

Again, it is up to you to defend yourself, I won't go back and do it for you.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
If you think I missed anything in what we discussed, then show it.

You have been constantly in error on the flat tax, it's effect on income inequality, the amount of taxes on middle earners, you can't prove that a flat tax decreases wealth inequality....it just goes on and on...even simple things like reading an article when I give you alternate sources.

Again, it is up to you to defend yourself, I won't go back and do it for you.
Click to expand...

I have not been in error on anything.

I'll make it very simple for you, at least it will be simple if you have actually read what I have been writing about for 24 pages.

What is it you think I'd like to see happen with the current tax system? When has it ever even been attempted and failed? How exactly would it have a negative effect on income inequality?

I dont need to defend anything. I am ready to discuss it when you actually know what I am talking about. Until then, we have nothing to discuss. Its all right here in this thread if you genuinely want to know.
 
muciti said:
I have not been in error on anything.

I'll make it very simple for you, at least it will be simple if you have actually read what I have been writing about for 24 pages.

What is it you think I'd like to see happen with the current tax system? When has it ever even been attempted and failed? How exactly would it have a negative effect on income inequality?

I dont need to defend anything. I am ready to discuss it when you actually know what I am talking about. Until then, we have nothing to discuss. Its all right here in this thread if you genuinely want to know.
Click to expand...
Again, you are asking me to support your arguments, I won't. I have countered your arguments, you cannot show anything to back your claims after repeated requests. Now you are asking the same questions of me that have already been answered, so why would my answering them again a second time do any good. You want me to go back, but here you are repeating what has already been debated. I know this game, it played on forums like this where comments get buried, where a poster can ask the same thing again and act as if it has not been covered.

I already showed how it causes increased inequality, you won't back your claim that a flat tax decreases inequality in wealth. You have not shown it in this thread, you have provided nothing to back your claim.

Beyond this, you are totally wrong on the effect of a flat 30% on middle earners. It doubles their tax rate. It is worse for lower income earners, it triples their tax rate. This proves without my showing you documentation that it makes wealth inequality greater.
 
Last edited:
muciti said:
How exactly would it have a negative effect on income inequality?
Click to expand...

On income equality, it wouldn't because people will have the same amount taken out. However, after all that's said and done, the poor will have an even lower % of disposable income while the rich will have a much higher % of disposable income due to a flat tax. That will lead to an even greater gap in classes which would be a negative effect.

The main people that would benefit from a flat tax is the rich.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Again, you are asking me to support your arguments, I won't. I have countered your arguments, you cannot show anything to back your claims after repeated requests. Now you are asking the same questions of me that have already been answered, so why would my answering them again a second time do any good. You want me to go back, but here you are repeating what has already been debated. I know this game, it played on forums like this where comments get buried, where a poster can ask the same thing again and act as if it has not been covered.

I already showed how it causes increased inequality, you won't back your claim that a flat tax decreases inequality in wealth. You have not shown it in this thread, you have provided nothing to back your claim.

Beyond this, you are totally wrong on the effect of a flat 30% on middle earners. It doubles their tax rate. It is worse for lower income earners, it triples their tax rate. This proves without my showing you documentation that it makes wealth inequality greater.
Click to expand...

Answer the question or quit talking to me. If you know what i am arguing for, tell me. Because I dont think you do. I think you are assuming many things about my argument.
 
TheNextEra said:
On income equality, it wouldn't because people will have the same amount taken out. However, after all that's said and done, the poor will have an even lower % of disposable income while the rich will have a much higher % of disposable income due to a flat tax. That will lead to an even greater gap in classes which would be a negative effect.

The main people that would benefit from a flat tax is the rich.
Click to expand...


Only if you let them continue to exploit loopholes. You remove their loopholes and make them pay 30% on their total earning they will be paying far more in taxes than they do. This isnt about taxing disposable income. The gap will close some because the rich will be paying more in taxes. I dont see how that benefits the rich.
 
Muciti, can you tell me what YOUR effective tax rate is for 2011? Mine was ~16%
 
Last edited:
muciti said:
Only if you let them continue to exploit loopholes. You remove their loopholes and make them pay 30% on their total earning they will be paying far more in taxes than they do. This isnt about taxing disposable income. The gap will close some because the rich will be paying more in taxes. I dont see how that benefits the rich.
Click to expand...

Here's the issue. I would be all for discussing a flat tax, when the issue of welfare reform was done.

However, right now, the poor are already (if they aren't on welfare) working min wage or close to min wage jobs. If you increase their tax from 0 to 30% you are going to swamp and kill the welfare system.

The rich have a higher % of disposable income, so while they will be paying more it won't affect them nearly as much as the poor so the gap will widen IMO
 
AdamT said:
So what? They still have more disposable income than they know what to do with?
Click to expand...

And the government knows better what to do with it :roll:

This attitude, a trademark of the folks that support Obama, will doom the Republic.
 
TheNextEra said:
On income equality, it wouldn't because people will have the same amount taken out. However, after all that's said and done, the poor will have an even lower % of disposable income while the rich will have a much higher % of disposable income due to a flat tax. That will lead to an even greater gap in classes which would be a negative effect.

The main people that would benefit from a flat tax is the rich.
Click to expand...

I have a really wild idea...the government could stop ****ing over the private sector and allow middle class workers advance themselves.

I know, it's outrageous that the government stop trying to fix everything, but I think we've seen how much they really fix, in the long run.
 
TheNextEra said:
Here's the issue. I would be all for discussing a flat tax, when the issue of welfare reform was done.

However, right now, the poor are already (if they aren't on welfare) working min wage or close to min wage jobs. If you increase their tax from 0 to 30% you are going to swamp and kill the welfare system.

The rich have a higher % of disposable income, so while they will be paying more it won't affect them nearly as much as the poor so the gap will widen IMO
Click to expand...

Every Flat-Tax and Fair Tax scheme allows for a basic deduction such that anyone remotely in the category you describe pays nothing in such tax.

Do we have any liberals around here who have some self respect ? Or is it all this envy crap ?
 
apdst said:
I have a really wild idea...the government could stop ****ing over the private sector and allow middle class workers advance themselves.

I know, it's outrageous that the government stop trying to fix everything, but I think we've seen how much they really fix, in the long run.
Click to expand...
How is the government holding back the middle class? The stagnation in middle class income we're seeing currently is simply the predictable effects of a recession.
 
muciti said:
Only if you let them continue to exploit loopholes. You remove their loopholes and make them pay 30% on their total earning they will be paying far more in taxes than they do. This isnt about taxing disposable income. The gap will close some because the rich will be paying more in taxes. I dont see how that benefits the rich.
Click to expand...

Behold the grand fallacy. That its the loopholes that causes the gap in income and wealth.

Nope. Its the growth of government. All government costs flow downhill. Just like **** from the toilet to the septic tank. The "rich" will pass on every added tax to those downstream. Every time Obama wants to raise taxes on the rich, or evil corporations, it will flow downhill until it hits those who cannot pass it on. The middle and lower classes. The bigger the government, the more crap will be passed on, and the greater the gap will become.

And the liberal lemmings just keep foaming with the class envy stupidity.
Cause its all they know to do.
 
apdst said:
What is messed up, is that you think the French and Soviet Revolutions were revolts against rich folks, when in actuality, they were revolts against greedy governments.
Click to expand...
The Causes of the French Revolution were the significant historical factors that led to the revolution of 1789 in France.
Although France in 1785 faced economic difficulties, mostly concerning the equitability of taxation, it was one of the richest and most powerful nations of Europe.[1] The French people also enjoyed more political freedom and a lower incidence of arbitrary punishment than any of their fellow Europeans. However, Louis XVI, his ministers, and the widespread French nobility had become immensely unpopular. This was a consequence of the fact that peasants and, to a lesser extent, the bourgeoisie, were burdened with ruinously high taxes levied to support wealthy aristocrats and their sumptuous, often gluttonous, lifestyles.[2]

http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/9602/pg9602.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom