Buffett Rule
 

Can anyone explain why we should not tax millionaires 30 percent?

Re: Buffett Rule
 

Well, that seems awfully generous; Roosevelt got 91%.

Re: Buffett Rule
 

Can you expound as to why we should?

Do you understand who the taxes go to?

Re: Buffett Rule
 

Because our problem is not a tax problem. Our problem is a spending problem. Jeffery Neely at the GSA took 131 trips costing taxpayers $100,000. He threw a conference in Las Vegas that cost $825,000. We give Solyendra $500 million dollars and they go bankrupt. We throw money at solar power that produces bankrupt companies, throw money at "shovel ready" jobs that never materialize (Obama admitted that himself), we force Obamacare on the American public against overwhelming numbers that say Americans are against it and it is projected to add another trillion dollars to the national debt, we add $5 trillion to the national debt in less than four years (a record).

AND YOU THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO GIVE OBAMA AND THE FEDS MORE MONEY? The blind loyalty to this man and this party makes absolutely no common sense.

Re: Buffett Rule
 

agree
:highfive

when your outgo
exceeds your income
then your upkeep
is due for a let down.

the only way the guvmint can give money to one person
is to take it from another person

Re: Buffett Rule
 

What would happen if everyone who received income of any amount --from $1.00 a year to a gazillion dollars a year --paid the same rate on that income and NO deductions, loopholes, etc. were allowed to bring it down to "taxable income" to compute taxes on?

Re: Buffett Rule
 

Forget how money is squandered by government for a minute. I don't think that is the question here. I have the same question. Can anyone explain in logical, simple terms why the wealthy should not pay at the same rate as others. I am not an economist, so I don't claim to know the answer here.
Also explain why so many people who are not in that category are so adamant that the wealthy do not pay at that level.

Re: Buffett Rule
 

All those IRS agents and Tax Accountants would be out of a job.....:nod

Re: Buffett Rule
 

At a campaign rally Wednesday afternoon, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich blasted the “Buffett Rule” President Obama proposed in his State of the Union address Tuesday night.

“I watched the president and … he said one thing which I want to directly challenge the White House about today because I’m not sure he understood what he was saying,” Gingrich said at the beginning of his address to a crowd of several hundred people.

“I know you could say that about large parts of his speech, but I want to focus on one part. When he proposed a 30 percent minimum tax, if he actually means it, that would double the tax on capital gains. That would drive the stock market down. It would affect every pension plan in the country. It would affect every 401k in the country. It would lead people to invest outside the United States. It would stop capital formation. It would block the development of new companies and it would be about as big a job killing proposal as any president has ever made.”

“Now I’m hoping the White House is going to clarify today that 30 percent didn’t mean 30 percent because if it meant 30 percent that would be so stupid even they couldn’t defend it,” Gingrich added.

“But if in fact it does mean 30 percent, every American needs to understand the president last night proposed doubling the tax on capital gains which is the engine which drives job creation in the United States so he is talking killing job creation in America — something he’s been really good at doing for three years and now wants to continue.”

http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/25/gi...d-it%E2%80%99/

Re: Buffett Rule
 

Forget the actual number or percentage and forget Warren Buffett and his rule. My question is what is the argument for the wealthy to not pay at the same rate as those not wealthy?

Re: Buffett Rule
 

Actually I think they do, if their income is derived proportionately from the same sources. (Salaries vs investment income)

I think those in the lower middle class actually pay less than the "rich" because of earned income tax credits.

Re: Buffett Rule
 

That was not my understanding, but I do desire to learn more.

Re: Buffett Rule
 

what i understand is that wealthy people pay high rates if their income is from salary and the low rates if their income is from stock investments/dividends. Income is income whether it is capital gains/dividends or salary. totally unfair.

Re: Buffett Rule
 

po. I am not a financial expert, but this claim sounds totally bogus. if the stock market goes down because capital gains taxes go up, then stock prices are artificially high and less wealthy investors are being prevented from owning more stock. the value of stock has nothing to do with whether rich people have more money to invest. (just thinking without knowing) whaddya respond to that?:winkgrin

Re: Buffett Rule
 

\
And not every one that makes millions is responsible for starting up new businesses or adding jobs.

However, I have a recommendation. If Warren Buffett and other rich people want to pay more in taxes, then why not volunteer to pay more? Make it so they can willingly pay a higher rate or just take less deductions

Re: Buffett Rule
 

volunteerism doesn't address fairness issue.

Re: Buffett Rule
 

My Buffet Rule is to quit eating when I feel full.....:LoL:

Re: Buffett Rule
 

Maybe it is unfair. Unless there are purposeful incentives to encourage investment and groweth... If that is the case, then your pursuit of "fairness" would discourage investment and hurt retirees, and factory workers in a very serious way!

At any rate, the not so rich have the same incentives available to them. So they are charged the same rates on their investments.

Re: Buffett Rule
 

Fairness? "Fairness" is a Progressive code word for socialism. Jesus said we'd have the poor always, why didn't He address fairness?

Re: Buffett Rule
 

Okay stew and DM I'll play your game. But before I answer your question, answer this question: is it "fair" for people who pay ZERO taxes get a refund check from the govt?

Re: Buffett Rule
 

LOL. Actually, I'm not playing any game. I said earlier that I don't pretend to know the answers to this or be an expert. I don't think it's wrong to ask a genuine question like this.

The answer to your question seems pretty easy to me with my limited knowledge. No, that doesn't seem fair to me and I cannot even imagine the scenario in which that happens.

Re: Buffett Rule
 

It does happen for millions... it is very common. I'll let the Deacon take it from there.

Re: Buffett Rule
 

My response is that you need to think about knowing first. :winkgrin

Re: Buffett Rule
 

As far as less than wealthy individuals being adamantly against taxing the rich is concerned it's because we understand basic economics. We understand that wealth is created by wealth and their wealth creates more opportunities for more people to earn money and create more wealth. I earn a living because people in my church have good jobs and give their tithes to the Lord. I in turn hired more people which in turn gave them the ability to earn a living and we all spend our money at businesses all over that are owned by wealthy people and entrepreneurs who hire more people. The rich are the job creators in this country. Do you work for a poor man? Does a $50K a year guy own the business you work for? Has a lower income person ever hired you to work for him? You tax the rich and you know what he does? He maintains his lifestyle, he just stops hiring, expanding, investing, promoting, giving raises, providing insurance, benefits. It's a stupid proven to be worthless endeavor to burden the rich with more taxes.

And you can't say, "forget about govt waste for a moment". That's the whole point! The richest man in the world is worth less than $100 billion dollars. Do you know how far that much money lasts in the world of the federal govt? Less than 18 days!

The Feds take in over a TRILLION dollars every year and it's NEVER enough!

So, you tell me, what would be more FAIR? Rich people having less of THEIR OWN MONEY that they've EARNED? Or a FAT, BLOATED, OVERINDULGED federal government CUTTING back so they try to operate on less and allowing Americans to live with more freedom?

Trickle-down economics, although castigated by the left, actually works. Only Reagan implemented it as it should be, George W. didn't. The record shows the second greatest expansion of the American economy in peacetime history began under Reagan's policies. In 1981, Reagan significantly reduced the maximum tax rate, which affected the highest income earners, and lowered the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 50%; in 1986 he further reduced the rate to 28%. The federal deficit fell from 6% of GDP in 1983 to 3.2% of GDP in 1987. The Federal deficit in Reagan's final budget fell to 2.9% of GDP. The rate of growth in Federal spending fell from 4% under Jimmy Carter to 2.5% under Ronald Reagan. The unemployment rate declined from 7% in 1980 to 5.4% in 1988. The inflation rate, 13.5% in 1980, fell to 4.1% in 1988. During the Reagan administration, the American economy went from a GDP growth of -0.3% in 1980 to 4.1% in 1988. A net job increase of about 21 million also occurred through mid-1990. Reagan’s administration is the only one not to have raised the minimum wage.

During the Reagan administration, federal receipts grew at an average rate of 8.2% (2.5% attributed to higher Social Security receipts, 4.5% inflation, 1.0% population growth), and federal outlays grew at an annual rate of 7.1%. According to a 1996 report of the Joint Economic Committee of the United States Congress, during Reagan's two terms, and through 1993, the top 10% of taxpayers paid an increased share of tax revenue to the Federal government, while the lowest 50% of taxpayers paid a reduced share of the tax revenue. Personal income tax revenues declined from 9.4% GDP in 1981 to 8.3% GDP in 1989, while payroll tax revenues increased from 6.0% GDP to 6.7% GDP during the same period.

The American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years. Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years. Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.

The statistics and the history are undeniable. What was the formula for economic success?

1. Reduce the growth of government spending (Obama is increasing it).
2. Reduce income tax and capital gains tax (Obama wants to increase taxes).
3. Reduce government regulation of economy (Obama has increased regulations).
4. Control money supply to reduce inflation (Obama has been printing money like it's Monopoly money).

My other question is this: why the defense of and support of Obama when he has made ZERO progress on unemployment, deficit reduction, debt reduction, gas prices, etc.? Are you a fair-minded voter and can you admit he has and is failing to help fix this economy? And what has he done to EARN your vote and support?

Re: Buffett Rule
 

Sorry Stew, I sometimes get kind of passionate about politics. I don't really believe you're playing a game. That was something a friend of mine used to say when you'd ask him a question, "Hey Michael, where has Joe Schmoe been? I haven't seen him at church in a while." Mike would say, "I'll play your game, where HAS he been?"

The Earned Income Credit portion of the tax code allows for people who pay no taxes to get a refund every year. A lady here in Memphis got arrested recently for gaming the system for herself and her friends so that they were receiving thousands in refund checks that they weren't supposed to be receiving using the EIC.

Re: Buffett Rule
 

:thumbsup

Re: Buffett Rule
 

Thanks for the info. My statement about forgetting how money is squandered for a minute is not me saying that squandering money is not a huge problem, I'm just saying that in the context of this conversation it was not my question.
I've read equally compelling arguments about how trickle down does not work and how much the economy thrived under Clinton's approach. It all becomes confusing and seems like slant and propaganda at some point. It's difficult to tell what from what.
As to the end of your post, I'm not sure there is a politician alive who has done enough to earn my support.

Re: Buffett Rule
 

The numbers are the numbers and one can't deny them. Reagan became president when the economy under Carter was a mess. By the time he left office the economy was roaring. It peaked into the mid 90s with only a few years of Clinton as president. Eight years of Reagan and four years of Bush I should be given the lion's share of credit.

And Clinton continued Regean's fundamentals. He cut taxes, he trimmed spending, he revamped Welfare and other government programs. After leaning to the left in 1993-1994 and summarily getting his butt kicked in the '94 midterms, he spent the rest of his presidency leaning back to the right and worked with the Republican led Congress to further promote supply side economics. Under his administration however the seedbed for the 2008 banking collapse took place.

In 1999, Fannie Mae came under pressure from the Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans to low and moderate income borrowers by increasing the ratios of their loan portfolios in distressed inner city areas. Additionally, institutions in the primary mortgage market pressed Fannie Mae to ease credit requirements on the mortgages it was willing to purchase, enabling them to make loans to subprime borrowers at interest rates higher than conventional loans.

In 1999, The New York Times reported that with the corporation's move towards the subprime market "Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980s." Alex Berenson of The New York Times reported in 2003 that Fannie Mae's risk is much larger than is commonly held. Nassim Taleb wrote in The Black Swan: "The government-sponsored institution Fannie Mae, when I look at its risks, seems to be sitting on a barrel of dynamite, vulnerable to the slightest hiccup. But not to worry: their large staff of scientists deem these events 'unlikely'". In his 2006 book, America's Financial Apocalypse, Mike Stathis also warned about the risk of Fannie Mae helping to trigger the financial crisis: “With close to $2 trillion in debt between Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae alone, as well as several trillion held by commercial banks, failure of just one GSE or related entity could create a huge disaster that would easily eclipse the Savings & Loan Crisis of the late 1980s. This would certainly devastate the stock, bond and real estate markets. Most likely, there would also be an even bigger mess in the derivatives market, leading to a global sell-off in the capital markets. Not only would investors get crushed, but taxpayers would have to bail them out since the GSEs are backed by the government. Everyone would feel the effects. At its bottom, I would estimate a 30 to 35 percent correction for the average home. And in ‘hot spots’ such as Las Vegas, selected areas of Northern and Southern California and Florida, home prices could plummet by 55 to 60 percent from peak values.”

The critics of Reaganomics are Keynesian economists like Paul Krugman who criticizes Obama for NOT SPENDING MORE MONEY! Krugman believes deeper debt and higher deficit spending would fix this economy. He touted the wonderful European socialist governments for years. Countries that in some places tax people as high as 70% of their income and where the average taxpayer pays 35-45% of their income all of the many government social programs. Now that Europe is on the verge of financial ruin, Krugman spends a lot of his time writing in the NY Times criticizing the Europeans for cutting spending on government programs. AND THE WORLD GIVES GUYS LIKE KRUGMAN NOBEL PRIZES FOR ECONOMICS! Insane.

You can't argue with the results, even if you have critics. The Patriots may win lots of Super Bowls, but a lot of people still don't like Belichick or Brady and they still get criticized. But you can't deny they are winners. Like Reagan or not, the facts are the facts, America's economy THRIVED under his policies.

Re: Buffett Rule
 

Sounds like a good rule. I may try it, some day. :lol

Re: Buffett Rule
 

That was a good one. My Buffet Rule is don't go to them. The food is usually awful.

Re: Buffett Rule
 

Okay, seriously. A down market does effect investment. If the market is down it's difficult to sell new stock and in turn delays businesses from expanding, ie., hiring new employees and buying new product. So, really, a rich person is not able to expand his business and it does also affect his investing just as much as the unwealthy investor. Of course, there are tricks to investing in a down market for either investor.

Re: Buffett Rule
 

My problem is that Democrats will use facts argue that specific things Clinton did is what actually led to the success under him.

You say the economy peaked in the mid 90's before he really had much to do with it, but in reading about his presidency just now I read these bullet points among others:

• The poverty rate also declined from 15.1% in 1993 to 11.8% in 1999, the largest six-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years. This left 7 million fewer people in poverty than there were in 1993.[68]
• The surplus in fiscal year 2000 was $237 billion—the third consecutive surplus and the largest surplus ever.[67]
• Clinton worked with the Republican-led Congress to enact welfare reform. As a result, welfare rolls dropped dramatically and were the lowest since 1969. Between January 1993 and September 1999, the number of welfare recipients dropped by 7.5 million (a 53% decline) to 6.6 million. In comparison, between 1981–1992, the number of welfare recipients increased by 2.5 million (a 22% increase) to 13.6 million people.[69]

It's just confusing tit-for-tat to me.

Re: Buffett Rule
 

Bad poll. It assumes too much! I am in favor of treating them the same as non millionaires. Where is that choice?

Re: Buffett Rule
 

Marx's idea of redistribution of wealth will not make poor folks rich. Look at Russia and it's soviet satellites. Look at Cuba look, at South America. Can you show us one Country were Communism/Socialism works well and eliminates poverty?

Re: Buffett Rule
 

Well, but we have yet to see one that includes God? I've always wondered why...I think maybe they are "types" given to show that they will not work w/o God. Seemed to work pretty good in Acts?

Re: Buffett Rule
 

Not sure if you're applauding Clinton, or excoriating him, lol.
I'm kind of at a loss to see how anyone might dislike the guy-
-I would make him king.

Re: Buffett Rule
 

Act 6:1 And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.

Re: Buffett Rule
 

I think it does. If Democrats want to raise taxes they must be willing to PAY those taxes. If that is the case, why wait for a law change?

It's like the dad that says he wants to provide more child support but was waiting for a court order...huh?

Re: Buffett Rule
 

Earned Income Tax credit but those receiving it are practically earning "poverty" level

Re: Buffett Rule
 

Not every rich person is a job creator. A CEO of a company is not going to hire one more person because his pay-check is better...The ability to hire is not based on how much a CEO makes but how much the Corporation makes

Some Actor or Actress making Millions is only supporting the economy by spending their millions on expensive cars and other things. About the best we can hope for is they hire a house servant that is not an illegal. Even that is hardly "creating jobs"

Most companies reinvest the company profit after paying off debt like employees including CEOs/Owners. So it's not every day that millionaires are investing their own money in job creation directly or reinvestment into the company to hire more.