• 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
ReverendHellh0und said:
you havent establised prof they were illegal. He said the rich should pay more. Yet he's suin the irs.
Click to expand...

I don't follow you. He said the rich should pay a higher tax rate. He didn't agree to pay illegal taxes. From your own article:
"Berkshire Hathaway Inc., this week sued the Internal Revenue Service over what it called an "illegal" $643 million tax assessment." We will have to wait to see what the court determines.







you forgot john kerry. And most of the senate..... The top of which are democrats....

Everyone pays the same capitol gains tax no?

U haz the class envy.
Click to expand...



Or, I haz a brain. Only the richest people have income that is primarily from investments. Continuing their tax breaks are of no value to the working class of this country.





Sure i do, govenmental theft. And out forfathers? Please proof please. :lamo:
Click to expand...

Another extremist who doesn't believe in the rule of law, and who doesn't know the definition of forefathers.

"Definition of FOREFATHER

1
: ancestor 1a
2
: a person of an earlier period and common heritage"
Forefather - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary




No interest in your video.
Click to expand...

Reagan too much of a lefty for your taste???
 
Catawba said:
Its fortunate that you love it, as it is a major distinction between the candidates and will be a theme from now through the election.

How did the working class in this country benefit from the GOP War in Iraq that cost us $2 trillion dollars in debt?




Buffett has never suggested he is ok with paying illegal taxes.









What percentage of Buffett's secretary's income is from capitol gains??? :lol:
Click to expand...

how did most of the people that the parasite class want to tax more benefit from the war? I sure did not. I am a competitive shooter-the wars drove up the cost of ammunition big time
 
Catawba said:
Everyone but you, apparently, knows that FIT makes up for less than half of federal taxes. The rich that earn most of their income from investments pay a lower total tax rate than do those who work for a living. Most Americans agree with the presidents, Obama and Reagan, that this is not right.

You can whine all you want, but it will be decided by the people as it should be.
Click to expand...

another idiotic combination of appeal to mass mediocrity combined with a dishonest take on the facts

the Buffett rule applies to income taxes. Not state sales taxes, gasoline taxes, or FICA. and you are lying again. Most of those who are in the top 2% don't live off of investments

as usual you try to use some uber wealthy with no earned income as an excuse to soak anyone making more than a million. Most of those who "work" for a living (Union speak for blue collar) don't pay an effective federal income tax rate anywhere Near the 24% or so that the average top one percenter pays
 
Catawba said:
I don't follow you. He said the rich should pay a higher tax rate. He didn't agree to pay illegal taxes. From your own article:
"Berkshire Hathaway Inc., this week sued the Internal Revenue Service over what it called an "illegal" $643 million tax assessment." We will have to wait to see what the court determines.











Or, I haz a brain. Only the richest people have income that is primarily from investments. Continuing their tax breaks are of no value to the working class of this country.







Another extremist who doesn't believe in the rule of law, and who doesn't know the definition of forefathers.

"Definition of FOREFATHER

1
: ancestor 1a
2
: a person of an earlier period and common heritage"
Forefather - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary






Reagan too much of a lefty for your taste???
Click to expand...

what value do people living on the government tit have to anyone else?
 
TurtleDude said:
how did most of the people that the parasite class want to tax more benefit from the war?

I sure did not. I am a competitive shooter-the wars drove up the cost of ammunition big time
Click to expand...


Try rephrasing so your post makes sense.
 
TurtleDude said:
another idiotic combination of appeal to mass mediocrity combined with a dishonest take on the facts
Click to expand...

An inconvenient take on the facts for those that wish to idiotically continue class warfare, but not dishonest at all. If they were you could prove what is dishonest here:

"Everyone but you, apparently, knows that FIT makes up for less than half of federal taxes. The rich that earn most of their income from investments pay a lower total tax rate than do those who work for a living. Most Americans agree with the presidents, Obama and Reagan, that this is not right."

the Buffett rule applies to income taxes. Not state sales taxes, gasoline taxes, or FICA. and you are lying again. Most of those who are in the top 2% don't live off of investments
Click to expand...

I never said any of those things.

as usual you try to use some uber wealthy with no earned income as an excuse to soak anyone making more than a million. Most of those who "work" for a living (Union speak for blue collar) don't pay an effective federal income tax rate anywhere Near the 24% or so that the average top one percenter pays.
Click to expand...

Those making more than a million a year have received more tax breaks and tax loopholes over the last 30 years than have the middle class, so if you are looking for sympathy you are barking up the wrong tree Turtledude.
 
Catawba said:
An inconvenient take on the facts for those that wish to idiotically continue class warfare, but not dishonest at all. If they were you could prove what is dishonest here:

"Everyone but you, apparently, knows that FIT makes up for less than half of federal taxes. The rich that earn most of their income from investments pay a lower total tax rate than do those who work for a living. Most Americans agree with the presidents, Obama and Reagan, that this is not right."



I never said any of those things.



Those making more than a million a year have received more tax breaks and tax loopholes over the last 30 years than have the middle class, so if you are looking for sympathy you are barking up the wrong tree Turtledude.
Click to expand...


those making more than a million dollars a year pay more in income taxes in 6 months than 50+million americans will ever pay.

I don't have a duty to fund people like you who are unwilling or unable or not skilled enough to pay for your own existence.
 
Catawba said:
Try rephrasing so your post makes sense.
Click to expand...

trying reading a bit slower

how did people like me (the ones the parasite class want to tax more) benefit from the wars?
 
TurtleDude said:
how did people like me (the ones the parasite class want to tax more) benefit from the wars?
Click to expand...

The GOP war on Iraq was on behalf of big oil, the most profitable industry in the history of the world.
 
buffett%20deficits%20perspective.jpg
 
Catawba said:
I don't follow you. He said the rich should pay a higher tax rate. He didn't agree to pay illegal taxes. From your own article:
"Berkshire Hathaway Inc., this week sued the Internal Revenue Service over what it called an "illegal" $643 million tax assessment." We will have to wait to see what the court determines.
Click to expand...


You haven't proven it's illegal.... I guess some of the 1% are more equal than others from the 1%. :ssst:


Or, I haz a brain. Only the richest people have income that is primarily from investments. Continuing their tax breaks are of no value to the working class of this country.
Click to expand...

Dependent class welfare. I made my money, don't be jealous I re-invest it to make more. There are not tax "breaks" its a tax rate. try being honest for a change.


Another extremist who doesn't believe in the rule of law, and who doesn't know the definition of forefathers.
Click to expand...


oh, kid, you think calling me an extremist is gonna hurt? I didn't watch your stupid video because I was on the iphone with little battery left, now I wont watch your video, because of your asinine attack.... You are far more an "extremist" than I, sir. Have a nice day. :pimpdaddy:


"Definition of FOREFATHER

1
: ancestor 1a
2
: a person of an earlier period and common heritage"
Forefather - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Click to expand...


ahh yes, I thought you were talking about the founding fathers. glad we cleared that up.,



Reagan too much of a lefty for your taste???
Click to expand...


yes. his MG ban was unconstitutional for one. but then again he was also too far right for me as well. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
"Obama’s plan would raise revenues to 19.2 percent of GDP. Most of that would come from people making more than $250,000 a year. Back in September, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center ran the numbers on his proposal — which is unchanged in the budget — and they estimated that taxpayers in the bottom 20 percent would pay an average federal tax rate of 1.8 percent, those in the middle 20 percent would pay 15.2 percent, and the top 1 percent would pay 36.3 percent.

Romney’s plan cuts taxes to about 17 percent of GDP. Most of those cuts would accrue to upper-income Americans. According to the Tax Policy Center, under Romney’s plan, taxpayers in the bottom 20 percent would pay a rate of 3.4 percent, those in the middle 20 percent would pay a rate of 15.6 percent, and the top 1 percent would pay 25.9 percent."

w-ezra.jpg


Comparing taxes under Obama’s and Romney’s budgets - The Washington Post
 
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...

I think everyone should pay the same tax percentage.I think people who exploit the tax system to deliberately pass less like Buffet himself and those who exploit the tax system to not pay any taxes at all like the 50% of American households have no business whining how others are not paying their fair share. So **** Buffet and **** all those green with envy chumps whining how the rich are not paying their fair share when they themselves do not pay their fair share.
 
jamesrage said:
I think everyone should pay the same tax percentage.I think people who exploit the tax system to deliberately pass less like Buffet himself and those who exploit the tax system to not pay any taxes at all like the 50% of American households have no business whining how others are not paying their fair share. So **** Buffet and **** all those green with envy chumps whining how the rich are not paying their fair share when they themselves do not pay their fair share.
Click to expand...

The only people not paying taxes are the elderly poor and the disabled. So your plan to reduce the deficit is to tax the elderly poor and the disabled?

The reason our forefathers instituted a progressive tax was to prevent the the wealthy from controlling the country and to provide a more feasible method of financing the government. They understood that is is not possible to get blood from a turnip.
 
Catawba said:
The only people not paying taxes are the elderly poor and the disabled. So your plan to reduce the deficit is to tax the elderly poor and the disabled?

The reason our forefathers instituted a progressive tax was to prevent the the wealthy from controlling the country and to provide a more feasible method of financing the government. They understood that is is not possible to get blood from a turnip.
Click to expand...

According to this logic, the half of the population that does not pay taxes is either elderly, poor, or disabled. With those kinds of percentages, it is no wonder the economy is in trouble.

What forefathers instituted the progressive tax system? The original income tax, instituted in 1860's, contained two brackets, 3% over $600, 5% on income over $10,000. No deductions, no tax breaks. Everybody over $600 paid.
 
Catawba said:
Why the Rich Should Pay Higher Taxes

"The very rich benefit most from national security, government-funded research, infrastructure, and property laws. Defending the country benefits the rich more, because they have more to defend. Taxpayer-funded research at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (the Internet), the National Institute of Health (pharmaceuticals), and the National Science Foundation (the Digital Library Initiative) has laid a half-century foundation for their idea-building. The interstates and airports and FAA and TSA benefit people who have the money to travel."

"Finally, back to the tax statistics. Why should financial earnings (i.e., capital gains) be taxed less than wage earnings from actual work? The richest 10% of Americans own over 80% of the stocks, the gains from which are taxed at a 15% rate. Most wage earners pay more.

Furthermore, over the past 15 years millionaires have seen their income tax rates drop from 30% to 22%. During approximately the same time period, American economic growth declined from an annual 3.2 percent rate to 1.7 percent. Lower taxes for the rich do not lead to productivity.

Will the rich stop investing or move to another country if their taxes are increased? Not likely. They have it too good here. As Warren Buffett recently stated, "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."

Mr. Buffett is admitting what everyone else is beginning to realize. The rich take much more than they pay for."

Why the Rich Should Pay Higher Taxes | Common Dreams
Click to expand...
I'm one of the few people who considers himself a fiscal conservative, yet is willing to accept a more progressive tax code. I support raising the rate on long term capital gains to 20%, and I also support an AMT. However, your argument has holes that you can drive a truck through.

Firstly, you raise an interesting point when you say that rich people benefit from defense more than the rest of us, because they have more to lose. I never looked at it that way, but even if taxes weren't progressive, the rich would be paying more than the middle class, so it sounds like you're pushing the flat tax.

Secondly, it's true that rich people use more resources, because they own companies which own things like trucks, so they use infrastructure more than the rest of us. However, we already have things like corporate taxes, truck taxes, and toll booths, so that argument doesn't hold water.

Thirdly, you talk about tax rates going down for the rich as if that's automatically bad. That's like saying 'whatever they're paying, it isn't enough'. If you raise the rates to 100%, you kill the goose that laid the golden egg, and then you have to double the taxes on the middle class, not to mention destroying the economy in the process.
 
jimbo said:
According to this logic, the half of the population that does not pay taxes is either elderly, poor, or disabled. With those kinds of percentages, it is no wonder the economy is in trouble.

What forefathers instituted the progressive tax system? The original income tax, instituted in 1860's, contained two brackets, 3% over $600, 5% on income over $10,000. No deductions, no tax breaks. Everybody over $600 paid.
Click to expand...

I said forefathers, not founding fathers. Look up the difference Jimbo!

And there is no such thing as half the country paying no taxes. 14% of the country pays no federal taxes, and they are mostly elderly poor and disabled.

It’s A Myth That 47% Of Americans Pay No Taxes, In Truth 86% Pay Taxes
 
mpg said:
I'm one of the few people who considers himself a fiscal conservative, yet is willing to accept a more progressive tax code. I support raising the rate on long term capital gains to 20%, and I also support an AMT. However, your argument has holes that you can drive a truck through.

Firstly, you raise an interesting point when you say that rich people benefit from defense more than the rest of us, because they have more to lose. I never looked at it that way, but even if taxes weren't progressive, the rich would be paying more than the middle class, so it sounds like you're pushing the flat tax.

Secondly, it's true that rich people use more resources, because they own companies which own things like trucks, so they use infrastructure more than the rest of us. However, we already have things like corporate taxes, truck taxes, and toll booths, so that argument doesn't hold water.

Thirdly, you talk about tax rates going down for the rich as if that's automatically bad. That's like saying 'whatever they're paying, it isn't enough'. If you raise the rates to 100%, you kill the goose that laid the golden egg, and then you have to double the taxes on the middle class, not to mention destroying the economy in the process.
Click to expand...

Would you point out to me how the Bush tax cuts helped either our economy or the middle class in this country?
 
Catawba said:
Would you point out to me how the Bush tax cuts helped either our economy or the middle class in this country?
Click to expand...
You want me to explain why cutting taxes on the middle class helps the middle class???

Do you have any comments about my post?
 
mpg said:
You want me to explain why cutting taxes on the middle class helps the middle class???

Do you have any comments about my post?
Click to expand...

I already made my comment about your post. We have a difference of opinion on who benefits the most from the government. If the working class benefited the most, they would be doing much better than they are.

The wealthy received far greater tax breaks than the middle class, through loopholes and reductions in tax rates on inheritance and capital gains.

That is what is in contention, and is one of the main distinctions between the candidates positions in this election.
 
Catawba said:
I already made my comment about your post.
Click to expand...
When? Where?





Catawba said:
We have a difference of opinion on who benefits the most from the government.
Click to expand...
Actually we don't, and I already addressed that.





Catawba said:
If the working class benefited the most, they would be doing much better than they are.
Click to expand...
straw man





Catawba said:
The wealthy received far greater tax breaks than the middle class, through loopholes and reductions in tax rates on inheritance and capital gains.
Click to expand...
That doesn't mean that the tax code isn't progressive. The US has the most progressive tax code in the OECD.Progressive tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
OTOH, it's easy to understand how people might see it the other way around if they're mathematically challenged.http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pa...atforms/122866-tax-system-explained-beer.html





Catawba said:
That is what is in contention, and is one of the main distinctions between the candidates positions in this election.
Click to expand...
I think I prefer Obama's tax plan over Romney's. I like the progressiveness of Obama's plan, but I like the lower rates of Romney's plan. I prefer to balance the budget by cutting spending.
 
mpg said:
When? Where?
Click to expand...

A little while ago. Above.




That doesn't mean that the tax code isn't progressive. The US has the most progressive tax code in the OECD.Progressive tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
OTOH, it's easy to understand how people might see it the other way around if they're mathematically challenged.http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pa...atforms/122866-tax-system-explained-beer.html
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was not progressive. It is less progressive however than at anytime since the 1960s.

"effective tax rates for high-earning Americans are either at their lowest level since 1960 or at least very close to their lowest level."
PolitiFact Florida | Debbie Wasserman Schultz says tax rates lowest since the 1950s for wealthy Americans



I think I prefer Obama's tax plan over Romney's. I like the progressiveness of Obama's plan, but I like the lower rates of Romney's plan. I prefer to balance the budget by cutting spending.
Click to expand...



I look at it realistically. Congress is not going to cut SS and Medicare, but they will go along with Mitt's plans to increase military spending and cut revenues to pay for it. So, we end up with more debt than is already projected.

It makes more sense to me to increase revenues and cut military spending as the president has proposed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom