• 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

Muciti, can you tell me what YOUR effective tax rate is for 2011? Mine was ~16%

My effective tax rate was roughly 27%.

However that of course was after i got deductions for various things. If you take what made and what i paid in total taxes it was much less.
 
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.
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.
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.

I already answered the question BETWEEN YOU AND I, I asked you to provide proof of your claim that a flat tax DECREASES inequality.

You are avoiding the question, not I.
 
My effective tax rate was roughly 27%.

However that of course was after i got deductions for various things. If you take what made and what i paid in total taxes it was much less.
And there you go, you won't say what your tax rate would be BEFORE your AGI. If you did, then it would be LOWER (by your own admission) than 27%, lower than the flat rate of 30% you want.

It would cause you to have less wealth....and we know you are not in the top quintile.
 
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

I agree there will be an increase (slight i think) in the number of people who are able to get on welfare. Especially food stamps to help supplement the income they are then paying in taxes (going from 0-30). However, the additional payout would be minimal when compared to the amount it brings in from the rich, businesses and corporations. It would also give us money to start paying off our debt as well as contribute to programs that have had to be slashed. Many of which could help the poor improve thier lifestyles.

The biggest reason why people don't like the idea of a flat tax rate is because they have heard the nonsense spewed out by Herman Cain and others that puts a flat tax out there which decrease the rate for the rich and still leave them with their tax loopholes that would essentially make them much much more wealthy while only the poorest contribute more. However, when you eliminate the loopholes and raise the rates on the rich there will be a huge surplus that more than makes up for what the poor contribute.

Our country is in a rediculous amount of debt and everyone, not just the rich, everyone, needs to be contributing to the betterment of our country. The rich being taxed the same will be paying more in total dollar amounts and the poor will be paying more than they are used to. But it will help our economy. A big part of what I'd like to see happen is to eliminate all these loopholes and tax exceptions and crap and actually get the 30%. If you dont eliminate the loopholes and exceptions then we arent making progress. This includes these businesses and organizations that are except from taxes. Screw that. Churches for example are making boat loads of money and paying nothing on that.

The playing field needs to be leveled.
 
And there you go, you won't say what your tax rate would be BEFORE your AGI. If you did, then it would be LOWER (by your own admission) than 27%, lower than the flat rate of 30% you want.

It would cause you to have less wealth....and we know you are not in the top quintile.

You dont even know what my arugment is so your point is moot.

And I dont claim to be in the top anything. I am probably lower middle class by most standard, or upper lower class. I dont know honestly. But i am nowhere near the top quintile, or even the top 50% i am sure.
 
Last edited:
You dont even know what my arugment is so your point is moot.

And I dont claim to be in the top anything. I am probably lower middle class by most standard, or upper lower class. I dont know honestly. But i am nowhere near the top quintile, or even the top 50% i am sure.
I just read your argument and your math, you can't see how your argument for a flat tax would cause you to have less wealth.

You are the perfect example of a person who argues against their own self interest.
 
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.

No, that is incorrect. Obviously it depends on how you define middle class, and of course there's a large variation between what people pay given their particular situations. The middle quintile pays, on average, around 14%. That's a higher rate than Romney pays some years, and of course there are some people in that middle group who pay more than 14%. There are also plenty who don't pay anything at all as a result of the EITC and other credits.

But I think it's safe to say that NO middle class American is paying a 30% tax rate. That would be mathematically impossible given that the 28% bracket doesn't start until you have $140k in income (married filing jointly).
 
My effective tax rate was roughly 27%.

However that of course was after i got deductions for various things. If you take what made and what i paid in total taxes it was much less.

So you're making seven figures and you have no investment income? :2rofll:

I have the feeling that you've never actually filed a tax return.
 
"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."

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


The President is "lying".....and muci wants the rich to basically pay what they already pay.....but he wants the mid and lower quintiles to double and triple what they now pay.
 
Last edited:
So what? They still have more disposable income than they know what to do with?

That is not a concern for a free society. And you are in no position to tell someone who is more successful than you are what they should do with their income.
 
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.
I have not-I am merely responding to the claims as they merit. I am merely telling those who argue for welfare socialism wealth redistribution as a vaccine against french revolution type nastiness that such a threat doesn't scare many of us in the least and we don't find it a viable or realistic argument for wealth redistribution
 
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.

the problem with that oozing BS is that the Buffett "rule" dishonestly includes all taxes that the middle class pays-state, local and federal, progressive flat or fixed fees, and then tries to apply that same total rate to ONE KIND of tax and for the rich only without taking into account other taxes the rich pay Its complete BS
 
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.


More lies

first of all dividend income is taxed twice in many cases

secondly short term investment income is taxed the same as earned income

long term capital gains face both risk and inflation

so your claims are horsecrap. They aren't getting huge breaks. They are still paying far more and getting NOTHING additional in return.

So your claims are specious
 
I agree, also include in that the teabaggers who have done the same thing with implied threats.

gays with certain fetishes are threatening people?
 
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.

well the current system completely screws the rich compared to everyone else

you argue that more fairness is unfair to those who get all the benefits of citizenship and pay far less than they can or should (based on what they demand)
 
The Buffett rule would fund that government for about 11 hours. For Ubama it is not a fix it is a step to take all the money from the top 10% and then on down the line. The Marxist at work.
 
The Buffett rule would fund that government for about 11 hours. For Ubama it is not a fix it is a step to take all the money from the top 10% and then on down the line. The Marxist at work.


Now this is exactly what I thought. The Buffett Rule is all hype and no money. Hell the GSA has probably wasted this much on their "conferences".
 
Now this is exactly what I thought. The Buffett Rule is all hype and no money. Hell the GSA has probably wasted this much on their "conferences".
The GSA spent 30 billion? You sure about that?
 
Last edited:
The Buffett rule would fund that government for about 11 hours. For Ubama it is not a fix it is a step to take all the money from the top 10% and then on down the line. The Marxist at work.
Where on earth are you getting your numbers? 11 hours?
 
Now this is exactly what I thought. The Buffett Rule is all hype and no money. Hell the GSA has probably wasted this much on their "conferences".

Oh and by the way, speaking of Ol' Warren...you know he'll benefit if the Keystone pipeline is denied, because the oil will still come to America, only instead of by pipeline, it will come by...................Choo Choo train....Oh and who owns the Choo Choo train....................Ol' Warren.
 
Figure it out and get back to me.

how long do you think it will fund the government???...LMFAO
Asking someone to hunt down the source of your own flawed numbers is not a good practice.

Seeing as various estimates project revenues to fall anywhere between 30 and 40 billion, around 7 to 10 days.
 
Asking someone to hunt down the source of your own flawed numbers is not a good practice.

Seeing as various estimates project revenues to fall anywhere between 30 and 40 billion, around 7 to 10 days.

Doesn't seem like enough.
 
My effective tax rate was roughly 27%.

However that of course was after i got deductions for various things. If you take what made and what i paid in total taxes it was much less.

I do not understand the second part of your comment. What was much less?
Your effective tax rate is simply your tax paid divided by your gross income. That is what you paid divided by what you made.

ie: You paid $20,000 and your gross income was $120,000 your EFFECTIVE tax rate is ~16%

Your "tax bracket" is not your effective tax.

The issue I have with the story that came out about Obama's secretary is that they used his Effective tax rate and her Tax Bracket when they reported the story. Apples and Oranges...
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom