• 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
Zyphlin said:
This EXACT same argument can be used against those who refuse to cut spending, restructure or remove entitlements, and other such things.
Click to expand...


Entitlement spending did not create the debt accumulated over the last 30 years. That is where your comparison fails.

Asking seniors to now pay for the excessive military spending and tax cuts for the wealthy over the last 30 years, is like cutting teacher's compensation to make up for budget shortfalls brought about by the recession.

This kind of distinction between parties though will help the Democrats in 2012, so please carry on. :)
 
I totally agree that Jimmy Buffet rules.






..... what?


:mrgreen:
 
What's this about buffet rules? Like get a new plate everytime? I think they're a good idea
 
lpast said:
No major fail...doesnt matter where his income comes from, its still EARNED income...thats the only income he has and he paid less a percentage than I did and thats just plain WRONG... no one has to be an accountant to figure out...romny on hundreds of millions paid 13.7....lpast paid more on a minisule portion of that amount, not rocket science there dudey, I NEED THE TAX cut not him and all his buddies...including you.

Turtle all your repetitive talking points have no effect on us anymore...weve all heard them 2-3000 times....check this out...The tax rate is "SUPPOSED" to be 35% the top 10 corporations paid zero and none of them pay anywhere near 35% so why do they need a tax cut, greed is why.

Heres a plan for you....GOP and DEM sit down and hash out deficit reduction....and medicare reform in a bipartisan manner, change the tax code....take ALL tax cuts and loopholes off the rich and make tax havens outside of the country illegal....then if theres enough revenue coming in and debt reduction and the debt is dropping....THEN start dropping the tax rate....not when your taking from everyone else... The teaparty wants to take from everyone else and give to the 1% yeah ok...pfffffffffffffft.....they arent the only tax payers..
Click to expand...

You just proved how clueless you are about the tax code. You need to pay more if you are paying less actual dollars than the people you demand more of. What we all need is less government spending. You made a HUGE MISTAKE when you claimed ROMNEY somehow avoided taxes because YOU WERE UNAWARE of the TAX RATES ON INVESTMENT INCOME when you SPEWED THE IDIOTIC COMMENT THAT HE SHOULD BE PAYING 35%

You also PROVED TO BE A LIAR claiming the corporations should be paying X when they are not. THEY ARE FOLLOWING THE LAW SO YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN;

I am STATING THE LAW-its you and your envy driven psychobabble that are talking points.
 
Catawba said:
Excellent point! Why should the working class and small businesses agree to pay more so that large corporations and wealthy individuals pay a lower tax rate, especially given that the tax breaks aren't being used to create jobs in this country.
Click to expand...

Excellent point? your nonsense is clueless as well. YOur appeal to mob rule is touching. YOu are dishonestly ignoring that the RICH PAY THE HIGHEST POSSIBLE RATES ON ALL TYPES OF INCOME

You are dishonest in comparing one type of income with another



Your envy and dishonesty on this issue is what the pimps in Washington count on. Ignorance and envy are fertile breeding grounds for class warfare
 
TurtleDude said:
Excellent point? your nonsense is clueless as well. YOur appeal to mob rule is touching. YOu are dishonestly ignoring that the RICH PAY THE HIGHEST POSSIBLE RATES ON ALL TYPES OF INCOME
Click to expand...

Poppycock. you just admitted above that investment income is taxed now at a lower rate than earned income. Reagan worked to make sure they were taxed at the same rate.

Otherwise we continue with people like Buffett, Romney, and Obama paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries.

Perhaps you don't mind subsidizing the tax breaks for the wealthy, but I do. They've done nothing for me but increase the debt and my taxes. Now the GOP says seniors will have to hit the streets so they can cut the tax rates for the wealthy some more!

It is going to be fun getting to see the greedy get their comeuppance in November! :cool:
 
Catawba said:
Poppycock. you just admitted above that investment income is taxed now at a lower rate than earned income. Reagan worked to make sure they were taxed at the same rate.

Otherwise we continue with people like Buffett, Romney, and Obama paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries.

Perhaps you don't mind subsidizing the tax breaks for the wealthy, but I do. They've done nothing for me but increase the debt and my taxes. Now the GOP says seniors will have to hit the streets so they can cut the tax rates for the wealthy some more!

It is going to be fun getting to see the greedy get their comeuppance in November! :cool:
Click to expand...

1) you keep braying that wait till november. BFD-Come november you will still be whining about the rich no matter who wins. You have been whining about the rich when Obama had complete control of both houses so why is anything going to change even if your beloved Messiah is reelected and his pathetic minions retake congress (not likely

2) you continually lie about reality. The tax code YOU LOVE when it makes the rich pay not only more dollars but higher rates on earned income than those who use most of the government's services, is the SAME tax code that treats investment income differently. You don't like that because you labor under the parasitic delusion that the rich should pay higher rates on EVERY TAX available and if they get most of their income from investments it is not parasitized as if they have earned income

3) those who pay a higher EFFECTIVE RATE (yes I understand that issue-your posts demonstrate you do not or you ignore it) of federal income taxes than the 15% the billionaires' pay are still in the top 2%. They are not the ONES whining about investment income because people who are earning 200K or more a year are almost always investing some of that EARNED INCOME. they are also people who tend to be targeted by the parasite pimps in office for higher taxes on earned income as well

4) since the wealthy pay more than their share its moronic to claim your low taxes are subsidizing them. People like me pay for some of what you use. Not the other way around. What you are really whining about is that you want people like me to subsidize even more handouts to people like you
 
DISCLAIMER: I ONLY READ THE FIRST PAGE

It is the day before taxes are due. The vast majority of the people here should have done their taxes by now. Take your TAXES PAID and divide it by your GROSS INCOME.
This will give you your actual total tax. I am upper middle class and mine is ~16%

I cannot bitch about 16%, even if the other guy is getting 14%.....................
 
Moderator's Warning:
Gentlemen.... :wassat1: .... take it easy mmkay?
 
I would note that citing Reagan means nothing to me. For that cite to have any relevance I would have to have agreed with everything Reagan did as would those who cite him. I believe that those who cite Reagan don't understand what he was really saying and they certainly see as anathema, his cutting top marginal rates from 70% to the far more sane and fair 28%
 
TurtleDude said:
I would note that citing Reagan means nothing to me. For that cite to have any relevance I would have to have agreed with everything Reagan did as would those who cite him. I believe that those who cite Reagan don't understand what he was really saying and they certainly see as anathema, his cutting top marginal rates from 70% to the far more sane and fair 28%
Click to expand...

If the so-called Buffett rule happened it would be better at that 28% amount (as in we should go back to 1988 Reagan tax rates). Although I don't see the point of the rule anyway, because Warren Buffet pays the same capital gains tax rate as his secretary. We all pay the same capital gains tax rate.
 
Porchev said:
If the so-called Buffett rule happened it would be better at that 28% amount (as in we should go back to 1988 Reagan tax rates). Although I don't see the point of the rule anyway, because Warren Buffet pays the same capital gains tax rate as his secretary. We all pay the same capital gains tax rate.
Click to expand...

and Buffett artificially pays himself a paltry salary while his secretary gets 300K or so
 
TurtleDude said:
1) you keep braying that wait till november. BFD-Come november you will still be whining about the rich no matter who wins. You have been whining about the rich when Obama had complete control of both houses so why is anything going to change even if your beloved Messiah is reelected and his pathetic minions retake congress (not likely

2) you continually lie about reality. The tax code YOU LOVE when it makes the rich pay not only more dollars but higher rates on earned income than those who use most of the government's services, is the SAME tax code that treats investment income differently. You don't like that because you labor under the parasitic delusion that the rich should pay higher rates on EVERY TAX available and if they get most of their income from investments it is not parasitized as if they have earned income

3) those who pay a higher EFFECTIVE RATE (yes I understand that issue-your posts demonstrate you do not or you ignore it) of federal income taxes than the 15% the billionaires' pay are still in the top 2%. They are not the ONES whining about investment income because people who are earning 200K or more a year are almost always investing some of that EARNED INCOME. they are also people who tend to be targeted by the parasite pimps in office for higher taxes on earned income as well

4) since the wealthy pay more than their share its moronic to claim your low taxes are subsidizing them. People like me pay for some of what you use. Not the other way around. What you are really whining about is that you want people like me to subsidize even more handouts to people like you
Click to expand...


I don't know how many times I have to tell you that your far right opinions carry no more weight when you number them then when you don't.
 
Catawba said:
I don't know how many times I have to tell you that your far right opinions carry no more weight when you number them then when you don't.
Click to expand...


no matter how I lay them out, you are unable to rebut them. Calling them far right doesn't help your point either.
 
In Senate, Republicans Block Debate on ‘Buffett Rule’

"WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans on Monday blocked a move to open debate on the so-called Buffett Rule, ensuring that a measure pressed for months by President Obama and Senate Democrats to ensure that the superrich pay a tax rate of at least 30 percent will not come to a decisive vote.

But the fierce debate preceding the 51-45 vote — the Democrats were nine votes short of the 60 they needed — set off a week of political wrangling over taxes that both parties insist they are already winning.

Senate Democrats intend to return repeatedly to the legislation, named after the billionaire investor Warren Buffett, who has complained that he pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary. On Thursday, House Republicans will counter with a proposed tax cut for businesses that they say would spur job creation but would cost the Treasury almost exactly what the Democrats’ tax increase would raise.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/17/us/politics/buffett-rule-debate-blocked-by-republicans.html


The difference between the parties on taxes could not be more clear for voters to see!
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
In Senate, Republicans Block Debate on ‘Buffett Rule’

"WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans on Monday blocked a move to open debate on the so-called Buffett Rule, ensuring that a measure pressed for months by President Obama and Senate Democrats to ensure that the superrich pay a tax rate of at least 30 percent will not come to a decisive vote.

But the fierce debate preceding the 51-45 vote — the Democrats were nine votes short of the 60 they needed — set off a week of political wrangling over taxes that both parties insist they are already winning.

Senate Democrats intend to return repeatedly to the legislation, named after the billionaire investor Warren Buffett, who has complained that he pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary. On Thursday, House Republicans will counter with a proposed tax cut for businesses that they say would spur job creation but would cost the Treasury almost exactly what the Democrats’ tax increase would raise.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/17/us/politics/buffett-rule-debate-blocked-by-republicans.html


The difference between the parties on taxes could not be more clear for voters to see!
Click to expand...
\

true, the dems position is based on lies and dishonesty
 
Catawba said:
In Senate, Republicans Block Debate on ‘Buffett Rule’

"WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans on Monday blocked a move to open debate on the so-called Buffett Rule, ensuring that a measure pressed for months by President Obama and Senate Democrats to ensure that the superrich pay a tax rate of at least 30 percent will not come to a decisive vote.

But the fierce debate preceding the 51-45 vote — the Democrats were nine votes short of the 60 they needed — set off a week of political wrangling over taxes that both parties insist they are already winning.

Senate Democrats intend to return repeatedly to the legislation, named after the billionaire investor Warren Buffett, who has complained that he pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary. On Thursday, House Republicans will counter with a proposed tax cut for businesses that they say would spur job creation but would cost the Treasury almost exactly what the Democrats’ tax increase would raise.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/17/us/politics/buffett-rule-debate-blocked-by-republicans.html


The difference between the parties on taxes could not be more clear for voters to see!
Click to expand...
Right. Since the Buffet rule collects next to nothing in comparison to overall spending and the deficit, it is an insignificant, partisan plan that can in no way be confused with a serious proposal. Obama is an empty suit with no substantive ideas and the Buffet rule makes that clear to everyone except the blindly partisan.
 
Fletch said:
Right. Since the Buffet rule collects next to nothing in comparison to overall spending and the deficit, it is an insignificant, partisan plan that can in no way be confused with a serious proposal. Obama is an empty suit with no substantive ideas and the Buffet rule makes that clear to everyone except the blindly partisan.
Click to expand...


As noted above, the Republican plan:

"would cost the Treasury almost exactly what the Democrats’ tax increase would raise."

Thanks, but no thanks!
 
Catawba said:
As noted above, the Republican plan:

"would cost the Treasury almost exactly what the Democrats’ tax increase would raise."

Thanks, but no thanks!
Click to expand...

I have a great idea-why don't you pay the same rates as you want the rich pay on their income
 
TurtleDude said:
I have a great idea-why don't you pay the same rates as you want the rich pay on their income
Click to expand...

I would have to get a cut in my total tax rate for that to happen. I already pay a higher total tax rate on my entire income than Romney does on his income.
 
Catawba said:
I would have to get a cut in my total tax rate for that to happen. I already pay a higher total tax rate on my entire income than Romney does on his income.
Click to expand...

stop lying, the buffett BS applies to federal income tax rates. Time for you to start paying 30%

Romney pays more tax in a year than you will in your lifetime and you have the nerve to claim he doesn't pay enough?
 
Catawba said:
I would have to get a cut in my total tax rate for that to happen. I already pay a higher total tax rate on my entire income than Romney does on his income.
Click to expand...

you are in the top 3% of Americans?
 
cpwill said:
you are in the top 3% of Americans?
Click to expand...

He claims that his total tax rate

state sales taxes
taxes on his smokes and booze
property taxes
FICA forced contributions
gasoline taxes
hotel taxes
airport taxes
internet taxes
car registration fees
fishing licenses

etc take a larger percentage of his income than the tax Romney pays on investment income

completely dishonest since the Buffett rule only applies to income
 
I just heard Buffett has stage one (low risk) Prostate cancer. will Obama try to claim we need to pass the Buffett rule for Buffett (the dems did the same thing with the Brady Bill in reference to maimed Hinckley victim James Brady)
 
so his TOTAL tax rate is less than ONE of Romney's tax rates?

:lamo


My Knee Is Shorter Than Catawba's Head - Redistribute Catawba's Unfairly Concentrated Height!!!

:lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom