• 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!

73% support the "Buffett Rule"

Dittohead not!

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
52,046
Reaction score
34,013
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I suspected this law was very popular with voters because as soon as Obama announced it his approval numbers started climbing.
 
of course it is-most people want someone else to pay for what they want

of course I doubt more than one in ten has any clue about what a fraud that is and how most of the "millionaires" pay far higher federal tax rates than the "middle class"
 
Considering only 2% of American households earn more than $250,000 a year, and only 3 of every 1000 people earn more than a million a year, do these numbers really surprise anyone?

As I've said before, I don't have a problem with increasing taxes on the wealthy to lower our nations debt... But now is NOT the time to do it. The first thing that needs to be dealt with is the economy, and raising taxes on the wealthy is counter productive to job creation.

Fix the damned economy first!
 
Grim17 said:
Considering only 2% of American households earn more than $250,000 a year, and only 3 of every 1000 people earn more than a million a year, do these numbers really surprise anyone?

As I've said before, I don't have a problem with increasing taxes on the wealthy to lower our nations debt... But now is NOT the time to do it. The first thing that needs to be dealt with is the economy, and raising taxes on the wealthy is counter productive to job creation.

Fix the damned economy first!
Click to expand...

While I do not support the plan, the people this would effect are people who make their money playing the stock market. They do not really create growth of anything but the stock market, nor do they create jobs. If this had a negative impact on the economy at all, it would be absolutely trivial.

Before I get asked: I do not at this time support any changes to the tax code. I think it is something that will, in the future, need to be looked at and revamped to an extent, but during an economic downturn, leave taxes alone. Even cutting them right now is not a good thing, as with tax rates as low as they are, the positive impact would be small and take time to see.
 
Grim17 said:
Considering only 2% of American households earn more than $250,000 a year, and only 3 of every 1000 people earn more than a million a year, do these numbers really surprise anyone?

As I've said before, I don't have a problem with increasing taxes on the wealthy to lower our nations debt... But now is NOT the time to do it. The first thing that needs to be dealt with is the economy, and raising taxes on the wealthy is counter productive to job creation.

Fix the damned economy first!
Click to expand...

People in those upper classes have been doing pretty well. And corporations have been recording record profits.
 
Redress said:
While I do not support the plan, the people this would effect are people who make their money playing the stock market. They do not really create growth of anything but the stock market, nor do they create jobs. If this had a negative impact on the economy at all, it would be absolutely trivial.

Before I get asked: I do not at this time support any changes to the tax code. I think it is something that will, in the future, need to be looked at and revamped to an extent, but during an economic downturn, leave taxes alone. Even cutting them right now is not a good thing, as with tax rates as low as they are, the positive impact would be small and take time to see.
Click to expand...

I dont advocate raising taxs ....but I dont think a raise in taxs slows the economy either....a small raise in taxs is a pittance to top earners...hardly missed...its like pocket change to the middleclass
 
No...I support "pay as you go"...a federal sales tax on all items. That way everyone pays exactly the same amount (percentage-wise) but those who purchase more (i.e.: millionaires/billionaires) will pay their fair share...as well as all corporations.
 
Redress said:
While I do not support the plan, the people this would effect are people who make their money playing the stock market. They do not really create growth of anything but the stock market, nor do they create jobs. If this had a negative impact on the economy at all, it would be absolutely trivial.

Before I get asked: I do not at this time support any changes to the tax code. I think it is something that will, in the future, need to be looked at and revamped to an extent, but during an economic downturn, leave taxes alone. Even cutting them right now is not a good thing, as with tax rates as low as they are, the positive impact would be small and take time to see.
Click to expand...

If this is the size of government the people want then taxes will have to be raised pay for it. As is currently the case most of that money will come from upper end of the income spectrum people.

That being said, I have more of a problem with the tone by the administration and folks like yourself. Any policy or statement of these people are unworthy or the way they make their money is not as noble as some one else seems anti-American to me.

First what you say is not entirely true. Many of the people who make over a million dollars are CEOs or senior VPs. Those people pay the majority of their tax at the highest rate. The capital gains they make, if they are long term is the money that gets special treatment.

It seems that if you give yourself the title of very liberal that means you should be less tolerant of all people. You get to choose the bad actors, say silly things like they do not create growth of any kind.

Let me rant and pick another example which falls right into your category of people who make a lot of their money in the stock market. The folks who put money into start up ventures. Sometimes they make a fortune if they back a company like a facebook or a Google. There are other times they lose everything on companies that never make it. Are you serious in saying that these people do not create growth in this country?
 
washunut said:
If this is the size of government the people want then taxes will have to be raised pay for it. As is currently the case most of that money will come from upper end of the income spectrum people.

That being said, I have more of a problem with the tone by the administration and folks like yourself. Any policy or statement of these people are unworthy or the way they make their money is not as noble as some one else seems anti-American to me.
Click to expand...

This is a straw man. I am not arguing about the nobility of how the money is gotten, or think one way is at all preferable to another.

First what you say is not entirely true. Many of the people who make over a million dollars are CEOs or senior VPs. Those people pay the majority of their tax at the highest rate. The capital gains they make, if they are long term is the money that gets special treatment.
Click to expand...

The only people affected by this are ones who, through making their money from capital gains, have a lower effective tax rate than those whose income is from other sources. In other words, this eliminates preferential treatment from one source of income. Apparently according to you, it is more noble to make money from investing in the stock market...

It seems that if you give yourself the title of very liberal that means you should be less tolerant of all people. You get to choose the bad actors, say silly things like they do not create growth of any kind.
Click to expand...

This is pure ad hom. It is what people do when they cannot actually counter points made(see what I did there?).

Let me rant and pick another example which falls right into your category of people who make a lot of their money in the stock market. The folks who put money into start up ventures. Sometimes they make a fortune if they back a company like a facebook or a Google. There are other times they lose everything on companies that never make it. Are you serious in saying that these people do not create growth in this country?
Click to expand...

No they do not create jobs in this country. What creates jobs in this country is demand for goods and services.
 
Redress said:
This is a straw man. I am not arguing about the nobility of how the money is gotten, or think one way is at all preferable to another.



The only people affected by this are ones who, through making their money from capital gains, have a lower effective tax rate than those whose income is from other sources. In other words, this eliminates preferential treatment from one source of income. Apparently according to you, it is more noble to make money from investing in the stock market...



This is pure ad hom. It is what people do when they cannot actually counter points made(see what I did there?).



No they do not create jobs in this country. What creates jobs in this country is demand for goods and services.
Click to expand...

Pretty weak response. First look up what the proposed law says and then get back to me about a CEO who makes $2 million in salary and then $50K in capital gains and let me know if his/her taxes go up.

As to venture capital not creating jobs in America, it seems your hatred for folks who are successful blinds you to reality.
 
Redress said:
The only people affected by this are ones who, through making their money from capital gains, have a lower effective tax rate than those whose income is from other sources. In other words, this eliminates preferential treatment from one source of income. Apparently according to you, it is more noble to make money from investing in the stock market...
Click to expand...

Who the hell cares about nobility? This is about risk. People who try to "break the bank" through the stock market are high risk-takers, which generally means they should observe a higher rate of return on investment, which is to include a lower taxable rate as one way to offset massive risk. This is why you have levels going from capital gains, down to ordinary, down to just plain unearned income taxed at normal rates. It's the difference between the stock market, treasury bills, and just throwing your money in a savings account or CDs.

Earned income doesn't need reduced rates. You go to work, do your job, don't act stupid, get a paycheck. There is no "risk" involved that you won't get paid that week.

No they do not create jobs in this country. What creates jobs in this country is demand for goods and services.
Click to expand...

There is major demand not being met in today's economy because of political and economic forecasting and speculation, mostly due to this administration. There are a few other factors at play, just so ya know...
 
washunut said:
Pretty weak response. First look up what the proposed law says and then get back to me about a CEO who makes $2 million in salary and then $50K in capital gains and let me know if his/her taxes go up.

As to venture capital not creating jobs in America, it seems your hatred for folks who are successful blinds you to reality.
Click to expand...

And you call my response weak? Here is the Buffett Rule: "No household making over $1 million annually should pay a smaller share of its income in taxes than middle-class families pay." So show me how some one would pay more under your scenario under the Buffett rule.

You have also not shown any hatred on my part, despite claiming it. I know it sounds good, but it is entirely unresponsive to my point(which you failed to address) and is just pure ad hom. Do you have anything substantive to add to the discussion?
 
Gipper said:
Who the hell cares about nobility? This is about risk. People who try to "break the bank" through the stock market are high risk-takers, which generally means they should observe a higher rate of return on investment, which is to include a lower taxable rate as one way to offset massive risk. This is why you have levels going from capital gains, down to ordinary, down to just plain unearned income taxed at normal rates. It's the difference between the stock market, treasury bills, and just throwing your money in a savings account or CDs.

Earned income doesn't need reduced rates. You go to work, do your job, don't act stupid, get a paycheck. There is no "risk" involved that you won't get paid that week.





There is major demand not being met in today's economy because of political and economic forecasting and speculation, mostly due to this administration. There are a few other factors at play, just so ya know...
Click to expand...

Firefighters and law enforcement officers and the military and long haul truckers and so on, they take risks to earn their money, Investing it in the stock market is not particularly risky.
 
Grim17 said:
Considering only 2% of American households earn more than $250,000 a year, and only 3 of every 1000 people earn more than a million a year, do these numbers really surprise anyone?

As I've said before, I don't have a problem with increasing taxes on the wealthy to lower our nations debt... But now is NOT the time to do it. The first thing that needs to be dealt with is the economy, and raising taxes on the wealthy is counter productive to job creation.

Fix the damned economy first!
Click to expand...

I agree about fixing the economy first, but there is not one shred of historical evidence that indicates a tax hike on the wealthy will harm our economy. We are running a huge fed budget deficit, we might need to get that under control before the economy will improve.
 
coolwalker said:
No...I support "pay as you go"...a federal sales tax on all items. That way everyone pays exactly the same amount (percentage-wise) but those who purchase more (i.e.: millionaires/billionaires) will pay their fair share...as well as all corporations.
Click to expand...

Millionaires and billionaires spend a much lower percent of their income on consumption, so a federal tax system would actually tax them less. If we were taxing the rich less, we would have to tax the non-rich more to make up the difference. What you are suggesting is essentially a tax increase on the consumer class, which leads to lower demand, lower corporate profits, lower income for the rich, less investment, and fewer jobs - now how is THAT going to improve our economy?
 
washunut said:
If this is the size of government the people want then taxes will have to be raised pay for it. As is currently the case most of that money will come from upper end of the income spectrum people.

That being said, I have more of a problem with the tone by the administration and folks like yourself. Any policy or statement of these people are unworthy or the way they make their money is not as noble as some one else seems anti-American to me.

First what you say is not entirely true. Many of the people who make over a million dollars are CEOs or senior VPs. Those people pay the majority of their tax at the highest rate. The capital gains they make, if they are long term is the money that gets special treatment.

It seems that if you give yourself the title of very liberal that means you should be less tolerant of all people. You get to choose the bad actors, say silly things like they do not create growth of any kind. All income should be taxed the same. And do investors create jobs? Probably not. Obviously their cash is helpful, but to the entrapanure or company trying to expand, or consumer wanting to borrow money to purchase stuff, they don't care where the money comes from. It could be one rich dude, or a thousand upper middle class folk. It doesn't matter. Typically the money bags people arn't actively inventing new products, or managing businesses, and they don't consume as much as they get, so they really arn't creating jobs. For the most part the job creators are the small business people who employ more than half of our work force and of whom only 2% make over $250k/yr. And of course the consumer plays a large part in business expansion also - without them, there would be no incentive to expand or create a business.

Let me rant and pick another example which falls right into your category of people who make a lot of their money in the stock market. The folks who put money into start up ventures. Sometimes they make a fortune if they back a company like a facebook or a Google. There are other times they lose everything on companies that never make it. Are you serious in saying that these people do not create growth in this country?
Click to expand...

I know you can't see this post because you have me on ignore, but it would be preferable to increase capital gains that to increase the tax on work. I would increase capital gains to match the tax on work.
 
Gipper said:
You go to work, do your job, don't act stupid, get a paycheck. There is no "risk" involved that you won't get paid that week.



..
Click to expand...

Until your employer goes out of business or relocates overseas, then you get to join the legions looking for work. You can apply, of course, along with the other hundred or so applicants for every job. Good luck with that. Meanwhile, if you get sick, you don't have health insurance. Your mortgage is under water, and you can't make the payments.

No risk?
 
Redress said:
Investing it in the stock market is not particularly risky.
Click to expand...

Um...lol?

Dittohead said:
Until your employer goes out of business or relocates overseas, then you get to join the legions looking for work. You can apply, of course, along with the other hundred or so applicants for every job. Good luck with that. Meanwhile, if you get sick, you don't have health insurance. Your mortgage is under water, and you can't make the payments.

No risk?
Click to expand...

Yes, no risk. If you show up at work, you get a paycheck. Your scenarios suggest no work to show up to. That is a red herring.

Now if your job gets outsourced during the middle of the pay period and they leave you holding the bag, I'll fight for your paycheck.
 
Gipper said:
Um...lol?



Yes, no risk. If you show up at work, you get a paycheck. Your scenarios suggest no work to show up to. That is a red herring.

Now if your job gets outsourced during the middle of the pay period and they leave you holding the bag, I'll fight for your paycheck.
Click to expand...

Sure, you can always put food on the table for a little while. You won't be able to keep your house, of course, and heaven help you if you or one of the kids gets a serious illness or has a serious accident.
 
Gipper said:
Um...lol?
Click to expand...

No it is not if you do it smartly. Short term it is, but long term almost not at all. Even short term using common sense you should pull a profit.
 
When we change the tax code, which is what Obama is proposing, we have to be very careful of unintended consequences. Example:

If there is no longer a tax advantage to capital gains or dividends, the stock market is going to take a big hit. What will those 73% think when they watch their 401K's do the Chinese Water Torture Thingie and start slippin' and slidin' away? Taxing capital gains differently from ordinary income directs money to certain areas. Take away the incentive and watch people leave like rats off a sinking ship.
 
Grim17 said:
Considering only 2% of American households earn more than $250,000 a year, and only 3 of every 1000 people earn more than a million a year, do these numbers really surprise anyone?

As I've said before, I don't have a problem with increasing taxes on the wealthy to lower our nations debt... But now is NOT the time to do it. The first thing that needs to be dealt with is the economy, and raising taxes on the wealthy is counter productive to job creation.

Fix the damned economy first!
Click to expand...

What job creation? We have the lowest tax rate in some time now, and the very super rich get to designate income as Capital Gains and other loopholes to lower their tax burden to that of their secretaries. So where's our jobs? Why don't we have them? We should have more jobs now then under Reagan according to your logic. Where are they?
 
Gipper said:
Who the hell cares about nobility? This is about risk. People who try to "break the bank" through the stock market are high risk-takers, which generally means they should observe a higher rate of return on investment, which is to include a lower taxable rate as one way to offset massive risk. This is why you have levels going from capital gains, down to ordinary, down to just plain unearned income taxed at normal rates. It's the difference between the stock market, treasury bills, and just throwing your money in a savings account or CDs.

Earned income doesn't need reduced rates. You go to work, do your job, don't act stupid, get a paycheck. There is no "risk" involved that you won't get paid that week.
Click to expand...

People who work for their income have just as much skin in the game as investors do. Possibly more.

Investors are investing their "extra" money. The money that they don't currently need to live on. While most investors are probably investing for retirement, so risk is a big thing to them, most of the money invested comes from very rich people. The very rich are not neccesarally investing for retirement, they have more than any rational human could ever need for retirement. Their investment is a game. The dollars are points, nothing more, noting less. It's a game.

People who earn most of their income from work, have their TIME invested. Their health invested, their identity and ego invested in their work. A financial investor may win some and loose some and it all balances out in the end, a worker can NEVER get his effort and time back. Time is a humans most valuable asset, not his money.
 
washunut said:
Pretty weak response. First look up what the proposed law says and then get back to me about a CEO who makes $2 million in salary and then $50K in capital gains and let me know if his/her taxes go up.

As to venture capital not creating jobs in America, it seems your hatred for folks who are successful blinds you to reality.
Click to expand...

Success has nothing to do with money. Is some worthless slacker who inherits millions of dollars and lives off of the interest for his entire life successful? Maybe successful at never achieving anything on his own. Maybe successful at getting laid, or being a party boy. But neither of those hold much merit in my eyes. Was Jed Clampet successful? Sure, he led the life that he chose to. But his success had nothing to do with his unearned monetary windfall. He just got lucky.

A janitor can be successful if being a janitor is his goal, and especially if his goal is to be the best darn janitor he can be.

I hold no grudge against successful people, and that has absolutely nothing to do with how much money one has or makes or acquires or steals or looses or inherits or pissed down the pot.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom