• 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!

Should the Buffett Rule" be made law?

Should the Buffett Rule" be made law?


  • Total voters
    47
As an American who lives in America and stands by as GE earns billions upon billions in profits but pays nothing in US corporate taxes, why do you care one iota about "other jurisdictions"?

your ranting about GE is funny

is GE a net benefit to the USA?

lets see

it employs thousands

it pays billions in benefits, dividends etc

sure does more for the usa then lots of those dem voters who suck up tax dollars and give nothing back
 
1) too many dems

2) too much corruption

3) too much taxes

4) Idiotic gun laws

Taxes aren't that bad (actually a very affordable city too), no need for a gun personally, corruption is getting cracked down on, and the Dems aren't all that bad as they mostly focus on social issues which I usually align with.
 
Last edited:
Taxes aren't that bad, no need for a gun personally, corruption is getting cracked down on, and the Dems aren't all that bad as they mostly focus on social issues which I usually align with.

great-you can live there I choose a place that is a bit more free and has far less crime

Here in a GOP hotbed, heretics aren't burned at the stake, gays are not stoned and you can have a dead head sticker on your car, as I did for years, and the cops don't hassle you
 
your ranting about GE is funny

is GE a net benefit to the USA?

lets see

it employs thousands

it pays billions in benefits, dividends etc

sure does more for the usa then lots of those dem voters who suck up tax dollars and give nothing back

You did not answer the question that was raised by your own comments.

Again, as an American who lives in America, why do you care one iota about GE and what they may pay in "other jurisdictions"?

Is your loyalty to America?
 
I've mentioned this in a few places now and well, why not here also. The Buffett rule won't likely even affect Buffett as his salary is reported at $100,000 a year.
 
You did not answer the question that was raised by your own comments.

Again, as an American who lives in America, why do you care one iota about GE and what they may pay in "other jurisdictions"?

Is your loyalty to America?

I care far more about all those voters who don't pay any income tax yet use so much of our resources
 
You did not answer the question that was raised by your own comments.

Again, as an American who lives in America, why do you care one iota about GE and what they may pay in "other jurisdictions"?

Is your loyalty to America?

You know that GE has businesses in many nations, so it has employees and citizens elsewhere as well as here. Do those workers deserve some loyalty from the employees and companies that live and work there. I always find it interesting that even in the 21st century folks want to think only as US citizens and not world citizens.

If profits are made in the US, then companies should pay taxes as the law requires. Not sure what the logic is for a company paying taxes earned elsewhere just because they ahppen to have their headquarters here in the states. We do not want those companies to move because of a crazy tax law. GE's headquarters are close by here in CT. That headquarters not only provides many high paying jobs, it helps the housing market, local vendors like restaurants etc. In addition, GE is a good corporate citizen when it comes to donating to local charities, etc.

We need to be careful not to drive out even more business overseas. My sense is this type of discussion is hurtful to the nation. We need to find ways to compete and drive MORE companies here. Turn Detroit into a huge enterprise zone and see what happens to unemployment in that town instead of demonizing industry.
 
I care far more about all those voters who don't pay any income tax yet use so much of our resources

You still have not answered the question brought up by your own comments about GE paying to other jurisdictions.

Originally Posted by TurtleDude
we are talking about individuals. and did GE not pay payroll taxes? what about taxes in other jurisdictions? I don't believe in corporate taxes either.

As an American citizen who lives in America, why do you care one iota about what GE pays to other jurisdictions?

Are your loyalties not to America?
 
Last edited:
Bush cut taxes and started two wars, don't you think the rich should pay more since they benefited from them?

revenue from the rich went up after those cuts, and our income tax remains the most progressive in the industrialized world. they are currently paying more than their fair share.

but really, frankly, i generally care less about "getting others" than i do about actually growing the economy. you aren't going to reduce the deficit (because you won't increase revenue) by violating the 10th Commandment, but you can by spending less than you take in.
 
From customers. Ultimately in any business everyone's pay comes from customers. Some are rich, some middle class, and some are poor, but ultimately most customers are middle class.

wrong. they got it from production. :) so did the "customers". specifically they got it from past, excess production.
 
I'm going to ask you a question..... Is there anything ILLEGAL about what these hedge fund managers and the like are doing to "hide" their income from taxation? Is it really any different than when some middle class wage earner gives $500 to their favorite charity right at the end of the year, or sticks it in an IRA or other non-taxable investment to "hide" it from the Tax Man; or is it just a difference in the numbers on the check? So far as I'm aware, what these people are doing is perfectly LEGAL, just as the different things that I do to try and "hide" some portion of my $65K a year from the Feds is.

If you want to close the loopholes that allow these people to "hide" that money, that's one thing. You MIGHT even get me to agree to some of those closures. What you will not EVER get me to agree to is raising taxes on a group that already pays a much higher percentage of the overall revenue of the Government than any other group in the country; and do so in a disproportionate ratio to their percentage of the population.

Again, if we would be willing to REDUCE THE ILLEGAL, IMMORAL, and UNCONSTITUTIONAL spending, and we still need more revenue, I'll stand right there with you and demand that MY OWN TAXES be RAISED. However, while we are spending on these items which were never intended to be part of the Federal Budget, I will not agre to a single penny of additional revenue for the Federal Government.



That's fine. I didn't expect that you would agree with me on that, considering your prior comments.


Who said anything about hiding money. No, it's not illegal, that's the point of the new proposed law. To fix the inequity where hedge fund managers and the like are paying a lower rate than middle class earners. Why are you against having the very highest income earners pay at least the same rate as middle income earners?
 
I've mentioned this in a few places now and well, why not here also. The Buffett rule won't likely even affect Buffett as his salary is reported at $100,000 a year.


Yes, it would affect him, and the tax is on income.
 
Funny stuff....the teaparty republicans want this: Reduce the deficit by...Cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Making public employees pay more for thier pensions and benefits, Taking pensions and benefits from private sector employees, cutting military retiree benefits along with tax cuts for the richest americans and corporations and ending capital gains tax and the inheritance tax

Obama and the democrats, want spending cuts and some tax increases, since the rich and corps which recieve a big tax cut from Bush, so the democrat plan balances spending cuts and some tax increases on the wealthy and corps who pay less now than they ever have...

You decide which plan is fairer and which plan is rife with class warfare and which plan benefits who the most
 
Yes, it would affect him, and the tax is on income.

no, actually, generally it wouldn't. not only would his "income" be below the 250K mark, but he keeps most of his private wealth in a non-taxed trust, and pays no tax on the dividends that accrue to the stocks he owns in Berkshire-Hathaway.

Buffet has gone to quite a lot of trouble to ensure that no tax hike will ever actually hit him.
 
Who said anything about hiding money. No, it's not illegal, that's the point of the new proposed law. To fix the inequity where hedge fund managers and the like are paying a lower rate than middle class earners. Why are you against having the very highest income earners pay at least the same rate as middle income earners?

I am against ANY American paying a single penny more than their fair share to the Federal Government. That means, until we remove the illegal, immoral, and unConstitutional spending from the budget, and get the bottom HALF of our citizenry actually paying INTO the system rather than being exempted from it, I don't want to see the taxes of ANYONE who IS paying into the system raised.

I look at it this way.... We have five people renting an apartment together. Currently two of them are not contributing anything to the monthly rent and bills. One is contributing a small portion, one a medium portion and the last is picking up the majority of the tab for the rent, utilities, and groceries. Now, these individuals are running a deficit because the rent keeps going up, they're using more hot water, electricity, etc...., and the three who are at the bottom end are eating them all out of house and home. Instead of looking at controlling the bills, or pitching in themselves, the lower end trio is again screaming for the top guy to throw more into the pot "because he can afford to." BULLSPIT!!! Maybe if the lower end trio got off their lazy butts and started contributing, or actually doing something useful like cooking and cleaning rather than ordering takeout every night and demanding a maid service come in to clean the apartment for them, there wouldn't be a need to DEMAND that the rich guy pitch in more.
 
no, actually, generally it wouldn't. not only would his "income" be below the 250K mark, but he keeps most of his private wealth in a non-taxed trust, and pays no tax on the dividends that accrue to the stocks he owns in Berkshire-Hathaway.

Buffet has gone to quite a lot of trouble to ensure that no tax hike will ever actually hit him.


You are misinformed. His income was far in excess of $1mill and the tax would most definitely apply to him.


Stop Coddling the Super-Rich
By WARREN E. BUFFETT
Published: August 14, 2011

(snip ... )

Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.

If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot.

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.

Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.

I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=1&hp
 
I am against ANY American paying a single penny more than their fair share to the Federal Government. That means, until we remove the illegal, immoral, and unConstitutional spending from the budget, and get the bottom HALF of our citizenry actually paying INTO the system rather than being exempted from it, I don't want to see the taxes of ANYONE who IS paying into the system raised.

I look at it this way.... We have five people renting an apartment together. Currently two of them are not contributing anything to the monthly rent and bills. One is contributing a small portion, one a medium portion and the last is picking up the majority of the tab for the rent, utilities, and groceries. Now, these individuals are running a deficit because the rent keeps going up, they're using more hot water, electricity, etc...., and the three who are at the bottom end are eating them all out of house and home. Instead of looking at controlling the bills, or pitching in themselves, the lower end trio is again screaming for the top guy to throw more into the pot "because he can afford to." BULLSPIT!!! Maybe if the lower end trio got off their lazy butts and started contributing, or actually doing something useful like cooking and cleaning rather than ordering takeout every night and demanding a maid service come in to clean the apartment for them, there wouldn't be a need to DEMAND that the rich guy pitch in more.


Once again, an argument to avoid addressing the inequities. There is NO reason to be against ensuring that the very wealthiest pat *at least* the same rate as middle income earners. None at all. Specious arguments that "spending must be addressed first!* are just that - specious.
 
Once again, an argument to avoid addressing the inequities. There is NO reason to be against ensuring that the very wealthiest pat *at least* the same rate as middle income earners. None at all. Specious arguments that "spending must be addressed first!* are just that - specious.

Ok, then let's get to that "inequity" as you like to see it....

Is the tax rate for those people LESS than the rate for the middle class.... NO. They're just better at "hiding" their income. Either that or they live off their WEALTH rather than their income. If you want to tax their WEALTH, then we have no common ground to even discuss this topic. That is something I am against on every level possible. Now, if you are interested in removing tax loopholes to force them to pay a certain percentage on their INCOME, I might be with you (depending on the specific loopholes). However, simply raising their rate is going to do nothing more than provide added incentive for these people to "hide" their income, or (as I would) to move out of the United States entirely.
 
revenue from the rich went up after those cuts, and our income tax remains the most progressive in the industrialized world. they are currently paying more than their fair share.

Although tax revenue did start to pick up (as I can recall) about 2004 until the market crash, weren't there a few years of lag that we experienced where revenue dropped (especially on the FIT side)? Couldn't it be argued that we would might have collected more gov't revenue during that time if the tax cuts weren't enacted, and perhaps we would have been more equip to pay off our short-term war debt?

Tax cuts should have been reversed in 2003 once it was apparent that the war effort was not going to be "in-and-out", but that's just my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Ok, then let's get to that "inequity" as you like to see it....

Is the tax rate for those people LESS than the rate for the middle class.... NO. They're just better at "hiding" their income. Either that or they live off their WEALTH rather than their income. If you want to tax their WEALTH, then we have no common ground to even discuss this topic. That is something I am against on every level possible. Now, if you are interested in removing tax loopholes to force them to pay a certain percentage on their INCOME, I might be with you (depending on the specific loopholes). However, simply raising their rate is going to do nothing more than provide added incentive for these people to "hide" their income, or (as I would) to move out of the United States entirely.

No, they're not hiding their income. What they're doing is perfectly legal. The point of the new law. And yes, the rate they pay is less than middle income earners. No, it's not a wealth tax, it's an income tax. But, interesting idea :).
 
No, they're not hiding their income. What they're doing is perfectly legal. The point of the new law. And yes, the rate they pay is less than middle income earners. No, it's not a wealth tax, it's an income tax. But, interesting idea :).

Ok, if what they're doing is perfectly LEGAL, then what the hell is your problem with it? Personally, I'd like to BE one of the wealthy someday. It probably won't ever happen, but if I am able to get there, I'd like to KEEP as much of my money as possible, thank you very much. As I said, if this law is truly seeking to close existing loopholes, then I'd be willing to at least take a look at it. If instead, it is about raising their rate or forcing them to pay on items of income/wealth that the middle class doesn't, then I won't even waste my time looking at it.

As for taxing "wealth".... If you truly want to destroy this nation's economic system you go right ahead and do that. The sound of this nation's wealthiest people (and their money) leaving this nation for foreign shores would drown out any other noise you can even imagine. I would imagine they'd take their businesses, and all the associated jobs with them as well.
 
..As for taxing "wealth".... If you truly want to destroy this nation's economic system you go right ahead and do that...

returning the whiny wealthies' tax-rates to pre-Bush levels, will destroy the nation's economic system? talk about hyberbole.

how was America's economy doing during the Clinton years..when the tax-rate on the wealthy was at 38%? it was doing pretty damn well.

your scare-tactics are pathetic, dishonest, and boring.
 
Ok, if what they're doing is perfectly LEGAL, then what the hell is your problem with it? Personally, I'd like to BE one of the wealthy someday. It probably won't ever happen, but if I am able to get there, I'd like to KEEP as much of my money as possible, thank you very much. As I said, if this law is truly seeking to close existing loopholes, then I'd be willing to at least take a look at it. If instead, it is about raising their rate or forcing them to pay on items of income/wealth that the middle class doesn't, then I won't even waste my time looking at it.

As for taxing "wealth".... If you truly want to destroy this nation's economic system you go right ahead and do that. The sound of this nation's wealthiest people (and their money) leaving this nation for foreign shores would drown out any other noise you can even imagine. I would imagine they'd take their businesses, and all the associated jobs with them as well.


What's my problem with it? They are paying a lower rate than middle income earners. That is why the proposed change that Obama is making is so reasonable and sensible. Why in the world you would want it to remain legal for the very highest income earners to pay a lower rate than middle income earners is beyond me.

I thought you were interested in 'fair'. Guess not. Yea, this law is about closing loopholes. And, btw, he's proposed closing a whole bunch more loopholes too. Guess I'll just wait and watch you get in line to cheer for more loopholes, Tigger.
 
returning the whiny wealthies' tax-rates to pre-Bush levels, will destroy the nation's economic system? talk about hyberbole.

how was America's economy doing during the Clinton years..when the tax-rate on the wealthy was at 38%? it was doing pretty damn well.

your scare-tactics are pathetic, dishonest, and boring.

Two different things, Thunder. You're talking about Income Tax Rates. I was referring to taxing WEALTH rather than Income, which is something that jackalope had commented sounded like a good idea to her. It's also something that would lead to a massive exodus of the wealthy from the United States.

As for Income Tax Rates.... You can make them whatever you want on that group; they will find ways to reduce their tax burden (as every intelligent citizen does).
 
What's my problem with it? They are paying a lower rate than middle income earners. That is why the proposed change that Obama is making is so reasonable and sensible. Why in the world you would want it to remain legal for the very highest income earners to pay a lower rate than middle income earners is beyond me.

No they aren't. They're just paying less of their total income because they are better capable of finding ways to reduce their tax burden. I see nothing wrong with that, so long as the budget issue and the 51% who pay no income tax are still part of the system. In fact it's something I go out of my way to do as well; though obviously on a lesser scale.

As for why I'd want the highest earners to pay less..... I have this hope that someday I might BE one of them.


I thought you were interested in 'fair'. Guess not. Yea, this law is about closing loopholes. And, btw, he's proposed closing a whole bunch more loopholes too. Guess I'll just wait and watch you get in line to cheer for more loopholes, Tigger.

FAIR requires both ends to give, not just one. As I've said, any system that does not remove ALL UNCONSTITUTIONAL SPENDING and REQUIRE the bottom end to start paying income taxes as well cannot be "FAIR" by definition.
 
Back
Top Bottom