• 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!

What are your feelings on the Buffet Rule?

Your opinion of the Buffet Rule

  • It will hurt job creators

    Votes: 11 29.7%

  • It will raise revenue and help the economy

    Votes: 19 51.4%

  • It will promote laziness

    Votes: 7 18.9%

  • It is the definition of socialism

    Votes: 6 16.2%

  • It will help close the gap between the middle class and rich

    Votes: 16 43.2%

  • It punishes the upper tier of social darwinism

    Votes: 5 13.5%
  • Total voters
    37
TheLastIndependent said:
The argument that I dont understand is how lowering their taxes will help "job creators". If they were creating jobs, then why were we losing 3 million jobs a month at the presidential interchange? That is what does not make sense. I am all for reducing the complications. What I am not for is reducing the rates on the people that don't need it reduced.
Click to expand...

that's like saying why isn't state of the art chemotherapy curing stage IV pancreatic or lung cancer and maybe if we cut back on that treatment the rates of cures for those now almost 98% fatal diseases will increase
 
radcen said:
Will it make some people STFU?
Click to expand...
\

a 38 special to the head will do that too but that is no reason to support such a tactic as a general proposition
 
TheLastIndependent said:
The argument that I dont understand is how lowering their taxes will help "job creators". If they were creating jobs, then why were we losing 3 million jobs a month at the presidential interchange? That is what does not make sense. I am all for reducing the complications. What I am not for is reducing the rates on the people that don't need it reduced.
Click to expand...

IMO, you actually have two different questions. Why are we losing jobs? and why are we not creating jobs? Both have different answers. As to losing jobs, restrictive government regulations and high labor costs are the largest contributors. When government requires vast amounts of time and monetary expenditure to effect a startup, that startup will go somewhere else. Example is the Keystone pipeline, bogged down in government restrictions. Similarly, when a company is denied the right to start a new manufacturing facility in a low wage, non union state, such as the Boeing new plant in SC, than the company will either move overseas, or the plane does not get built.

As to producing jobs, companies need a favorable environment and capital to expand. Corporations do not gather money and store it under the mattress. Once again, a favorable environment, including a favorable labor market, is needed, but the added requirement of ample capital is needed. As we have seen, government intervention into the capital market is not necessarily based on market factors, but is generally agenda driven. Lower taxes provides more capital in the hands of job producers, which seldom remains stagnant, but must be put to work.
 
The purpose of taxes should be to raise revenue, rather than to make people less wealthy.
 
jimbo said:
IMO, you actually have two different questions. Why are we losing jobs? and why are we not creating jobs? Both have different answers. As to losing jobs, restrictive government regulations and high labor costs are the largest contributors. When government requires vast amounts of time and monetary expenditure to effect a startup, that startup will go somewhere else. Example is the Keystone pipeline, bogged down in government restrictions. Similarly, when a company is denied the right to start a new manufacturing facility in a low wage, non union state, such as the Boeing new plant in SC, than the company will either move overseas, or the plane does not get built.

As to producing jobs, companies need a favorable environment and capital to expand. Corporations do not gather money and store it under the mattress. Once again, a favorable environment, including a favorable labor market, is needed, but the added requirement of ample capital is needed. As we have seen, government intervention into the capital market is not necessarily based on market factors, but is generally agenda driven. Lower taxes provides more capital in the hands of job producers, which seldom remains stagnant, but must be put to work.
Click to expand...

I think it's much simpler than that. Corporations don't create jobs just because they can. They create jobs because they need more bodies. They need more bodies in a growing economy.

For years, the general public was creating a false economy by easy credit, refinancing their homes and spending their equity on vacations, cars, yada yada yada. When that gravy train ran out, consumer spending dropped like a rock. The mindset went from, "We're in the money!!" to "What the hell happened to my money??"

As consumers regain confidence in the economy, they'll start spending again. (They've started.) But until then, why would corporations create jobs? They're still making hard decisions on who to lay off and what plants/locations to shut down.
 
MaggieD said:
I think it's much simpler than that. Corporations don't create jobs just because they can. They create jobs because they need more bodies. They need more bodies in a growing economy.

For years, the general public was creating a false economy by easy credit, refinancing their homes and spending their equity on vacations, cars, yada yada yada. When that gravy train ran out, consumer spending dropped like a rock. The mindset went from, "We're in the money!!" to "What the hell happened to my money??"

As consumers regain confidence in the economy, they'll start spending again. (They've started.) But until then, why would corporations create jobs? They're still making hard decisions on who to lay off and what plants/locations to shut down.
Click to expand...

I think there are other reasons as well, but what you say I believe is a HUGE part of it. The big boom we had was indeed a false economy, yet people in business seem to think it was the "new norm" and think it can come back as it did before... and I think that is a false expectation.
 
It's neither or a economy booster or breaker, it's simply an election year stunt and an appeal to populism. I wouldn't be devastated if it was turned into legislation, but it's certainly not an issue that demands as much attention as it has been receiving of late.
 
Hare said:
It's neither or a economy booster or breaker, it's simply an election year stunt and an appeal to populism. I wouldn't be devastated if it was turned into legislation, but it's certainly not an issue that demands as much attention as it has been receiving of late.
Click to expand...

why would you not be bothered by the government taking more money from others to waste?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
It's political posturing for the most part.
The majority of millionaires pay a higher effective tax rate, than anyone else does, as it is.
Click to expand...


No one pays an effective rate of 30% except people with millions upon millions of earned income.
 
TheLastIndependent said:
As you know, Congress will be taking a look at the Buffet rule in the upcoming days. How do you feel about it?
Click to expand...


100% in support of making that change. While it is not the be all and end all of tax reform, it is a beginning that is long overdue.
 
TurtleDude said:
mainly because they are uncertain what sort of confiscatory tax schemes the parasite in chief is intending-especially if that turd is reelected
Click to expand...

Poll participants cite lack of attractive alternatives for deploying cash (34.3 percent), no common framework, tools and metrics to evaluate alternatives (13.6 percent), and siloed decision making (12.1 percent) as the biggest challenges in executing cash deployment strategies at their organizations.

“We keep hearing from companies that they’re struggling to develop a shared framework and level playing field through which multiple teams can work together to determine the best use for cash reserves in the new year,” says Silber.

“Getting your strategic house in order for cash reserve deployment should be the top resolution for corporate leadership teams in 2012.”

Companies ready to deploy their cash reserves, Deloitte says | TechJournal
 
haymarket said:
100% in support of making that change. While it is not the be all and end all of tax reform, it is a beginning that is long overdue.
Click to expand...

Of course you do-you have consistently demanded the rich pay more and more and more and more

BTW who pays an effective rate of 30% who is not a millionaire already.

ball players who are making 12 million or so a year (ie all earned income) pay that range of effective federal income taxes. NO ONE in the middle class pays an effective rate of 30%
 
You haven't been paying attention? Haymarket long ago declared that just because he was wrong in the real world of effective tax rates didn't mean he couldn't also be right in the make-believe world of nominal tax rates.
 
cpwill said:
You haven't been paying attention? Haymarket long ago declared that just because he was wrong in the real world of effective tax rates didn't mean he couldn't also be right in the make-believe world of nominal tax rates.
Click to expand...

astute wisdom
 
TurtleDude said:
Of course you do-you have consistently demanded the rich pay more and more and more and more
Click to expand...

You conveniently only tell part of my stance since I have advocated all earners paying an tax increase.
 
cpwill said:
You haven't been paying attention? Haymarket long ago declared that just because he was wrong in the real world of effective tax rates didn't mean he couldn't also be right in the make-believe world of nominal tax rates.
Click to expand...

That makes no sense even my your standards.
 
I'm for it. The gap between the wealthy and middle class has been ever increasing in recent years. If it prevents the gap from increasing to an even greater degree, and raises revenue, that's a good thing.
 
It is a necessary correction of one of the components of supply side economics this country has suffered from. It is long overdue!
 
haymarket said:
You conveniently only tell part of my stance since I have advocated all earners paying an tax increase.
Click to expand...

however, the schemes you advocate would massively increase taxes on the rich

for example making all inheritances taxed as income meaning every dollar a rich person gets would be taxed at 35% rather than what happens now where only an estate over 5 million gets taxed and at 35% AFTER 5 million

you also want dividend income taxed first at the 35% corporate rate and then at 40% for those in the top one percent which almost triples taxes on the rich while it really doesn't raise it much on most americans
 
Rosie1 said:
I'm for it. The gap between the wealthy and middle class has been ever increasing in recent years. If it prevents the gap from increasing to an even greater degree, and raises revenue, that's a good thing.
Click to expand...

Not even the most avid fans of Obumble and his tax scheme have stated it will do that

indeed, Obumble's paid butt boys are now saying the main reason for this idiocy is "Fairness" rather than revenue.

I have a great idea-lets have REAL FAIRNESS

make all the slackers who PAY NOTHING pay 30% as well
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom