Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

The Buffett Rule? Are you in favor?


  • Please log in to reply
94 replies to this topic

#1 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,353 posts

Posted 17 April 2012 - 03:16 PM

If so, why?

#2 melissaphish

melissaphish
  • VibeTribe
  • 1,736 posts
  • LocationHawleyville, MA

Posted 17 April 2012 - 03:20 PM

Yes. Loopholes and lower tax rates on dividends makes the current system very unfair.

#3 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,353 posts

Posted 17 April 2012 - 03:24 PM

What loopholes does it address?
It appears to be a federal income taxation raise on the million + crowd.

#4 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,616 posts

Posted 17 April 2012 - 03:43 PM

Dave, you know I don't like taxes at all. Taking anything by coercion offends me.

But it does seem to me that those who would fall under the Buffet rule have been unduly benefiting from the broken system we have, so I really don't mind it.

Still can't wrap my head around why people think a flat tax is unfair. Were it done without all of the current loopholes and giveaways, I reckon the most or many of the wealthy would end up paying more in absolute terms than they are now...
.

#5 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,353 posts

Posted 17 April 2012 - 04:01 PM

It may seem that they are, but really, are they?

http://money.cnn.com...-rule/index.htm

even without a Buffett Rule, most millionaires already pay more in taxes as a percentage of their income than those in the middle class, said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center. Not always as much as 30%, but a higher percentage of their income than the vast majority of the middle class.
And the Congressional Research Service notes that today's tax code doesn't violate the Buffett rule as egregiously as Warren Buffett and others have asserted. Using 2006 data, the CRS found the average tax rate among millionaires is almost 30% -- with about a tenth of them paying a rate higher than 35% and another tenth paying a rate below 24%.


So it seems they are already paying more than the middle class, which is th eentire basis of Obama's argument in favor of the rule based on this principle.

So, how much revenue will the rule bring in to put down on the deficit/debt?

How much revenue would it raise? The Joint Committee on Taxation, which analyzes tax legislation, has estimated that the "Paying a Fair Share Act" would raise $47 billion over 10 years, or an average of less than $5 billion a year, assuming the Bush tax cuts expire.

So, approximately 5 billion a year. With a yearly deficit in the 1.3 trillion range, that doesn't even cover one months worth of deficit spending in a yearly budget. So i fail to see how it promotes anything at all except a "feel good" notion.

#6 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,432 posts

Posted 17 April 2012 - 04:37 PM

Dave, you know I don't like taxes at all. Taking anything by coercion offends me. But it does seem to me that those who would fall under the Buffet rule have been unduly benefiting from the broken system we have, so I really don't mind it. Still can't wrap my head around why people think a flat tax is unfair. Were it done without all of the current loopholes and giveaways, I reckon the most or many of the wealthy would end up paying more in absolute terms than they are now... .

This. I don't think some people should be taxed more than others.

I don't claim to know a lot about this shit but to me a flat tax with no loopholes just seems like common sense and a fair way to go about it.

#7 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,616 posts

Posted 17 April 2012 - 04:37 PM

You've researched it far more than I have, clearly. Will just say when I think about "benefit" I also think about subsidies and the like which some industries receive...

#8 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,432 posts

Posted 17 April 2012 - 04:56 PM

So i fail to see how it promotes anything at all except a "feel good" notion.

Seems to help promote class warfare which would give his base a rallying point :bang:

#9 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,353 posts

Posted 17 April 2012 - 05:03 PM

A far more effective policy would be to reduce the corp tax rate significantly and raise the capital gains tax, while closing all loopholes on dividends. This would, presumably, entice venture with idle gains, while lowering the overhead on businesses. Leading to more jobs, less capital holdings and more federal revenue. Just my .02.

#10 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,616 posts

Posted 17 April 2012 - 07:15 PM

Prolly your right, prolly.

Honestly, I don't pay that much attention anymore. Fucked is fucked, and I'd prefer to smile and work on preparing for the inevitable.

#11 vic

vic
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,913 posts

Posted 17 April 2012 - 07:22 PM

i think we'd save a lot more money by cutting the defense budget, closing unneccessary military bases, and reintroducing the "war is making you poor act" that would keep your first 35k from income tax

i also think homeland security is overblown and costing us way too much

#12 vic

vic
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,913 posts

Posted 17 April 2012 - 07:24 PM

i think any loopholes that are to be closed should also become retroactive and people/corps who benefitted off them should have to pay them back at least in part

#13 vic

vic
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,913 posts

Posted 17 April 2012 - 07:25 PM

and here's where i may sound crazy, but i want to shut down the market based economy...it isn't working and it never did

#14 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,353 posts

Posted 17 April 2012 - 08:15 PM

Um, that is beyond crazy.

#15 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,353 posts

Posted 17 April 2012 - 08:17 PM

Prolly your right, prolly. Honestly, I don't pay that much attention anymore. Fucked is fucked, and I'd prefer to smile and work on preparing for the inevitable.


Oh, i know that. But hopefully, being that I enjoy such discussions, people are thinking about it more instead of just going along. Except vic, who wants to shut down the economy.

#16 Smiles

Smiles
  • VibeTribe
  • 1,920 posts

Posted 17 April 2012 - 09:24 PM

I think it's a good rule. Using a new plate every time you go up prevents the spread of pathogens. You don't want someone elses lip-gravy in the mashed potatoes right?

Unrelated, but I don't see why unearned income should be taxed any less than income you actually had to work for.

#17 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,353 posts

Posted 17 April 2012 - 10:12 PM

Well, that isn't what the buffet rule does.

#18 Smiles

Smiles
  • VibeTribe
  • 1,920 posts

Posted 17 April 2012 - 10:27 PM

I thought it made it so capital gains and dividends were taxed like regular income?

#19 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,353 posts

Posted 17 April 2012 - 11:03 PM

The Buffett Rule, named after billionaire Warren Buffett, is intended to ensure that those making more than $1 million pay a higher percentage of their income in federal income and payroll taxes than those who make less



#20 Smiles

Smiles
  • VibeTribe
  • 1,920 posts

Posted 17 April 2012 - 11:10 PM

I thought the richest people were already in the highest income tax bracket, and them paying less had to do with capital gain tax being capped at 15%.

Also, absolutely, positively no take home or "doggie bags" is BS, I do not support that Buffett rule.

#21 Tabbooma

Tabbooma
  • VibeTribe
  • 23,351 posts

Posted 18 April 2012 - 12:10 AM

Yes and because Tabbooma said so

#22 Julius

Julius
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,498 posts

Posted 18 April 2012 - 01:47 AM

We need revenues from somewhere. If you bitch about the deficit but don't support higher taxes on the super rich, I think you need to re-think your position.

#23 Eco

Eco
  • VibeTribe
  • 2,084 posts
  • LocationFoxboro MA

Posted 18 April 2012 - 02:07 AM

We need revenues from somewhere. If you bitch about the deficit but don't support higher taxes on the super rich, I think you need to re-think your position.


So punish the motivated to cure our collective issues? How about sharing that with the people that "work" 0-40 hours a week? Or maybe as you suggest putting that load on people that work 40-100+ hours a week giving up family life as we know it and many of the pleasures we know....yeach fuc them over so we can watch Montel, Judge Judy or whatever is on the TV during the day.

Fuc that IMO a flat tax on every man/ woman and child...pay up or your ass gets shipped to Cuba...can't pay = see the the fuc later, wanta have 10 kids=bless you for paying...have some more and keep paying.

It's time people stop looking at the people that busted their balls for the solutions of others.....exculding the elderly and handicap amonst others that might not be able to bust balls......of course exculdes the 40 hour a week TV watching people that want handouts.....or dream up ideas to tax people that work.... I hate P/R threads!

#24 Julius

Julius
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,498 posts

Posted 18 April 2012 - 02:11 AM

Eco, you're being philosophical. I'm just doing the math.

#25 Eco

Eco
  • VibeTribe
  • 2,084 posts
  • LocationFoxboro MA

Posted 18 April 2012 - 02:21 AM

Eco, you're being philosophical. I'm just doing the math.


Sorry, my dog ate my English to Eco dictionary.....he also ate my stash but shortly prior to him passing out he said something about selling all of our school buses and military to cure our budget issues....I think he also mentioned something about wondering about the actual gender of the members of Duran Duran...but he has a slight stutter.... WTF, I don't even have a dog....

#26 Smiles

Smiles
  • VibeTribe
  • 1,920 posts

Posted 18 April 2012 - 02:39 AM

I'm just saying, you're gonna throw the food away anyway, just let me eat this later.

People who make one million dollars can afford to have seven hundred thousand dollars instead.

#27 Eco

Eco
  • VibeTribe
  • 2,084 posts
  • LocationFoxboro MA

Posted 18 April 2012 - 03:29 AM

With that logic they should work 30% less and give 30% of that lesser sum? Fuc maybe they should not work at all and get 30% back for free.......help me out, I'm not seeing the logic.

#28 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,353 posts

Posted 18 April 2012 - 11:21 AM

Eco, you're being philosophical. I'm just doing the math.


The math is done above. $47 billion over a 10 year span, or 5 billion a year is not even worth discussing. It's less than one month of deficit spending. I dont think it is more revenue that they need, it's spending cuts.

This "rule" is useless. I'm not bitching about it, I'm exposing it for the lousy piece of legislation that it is.

#29 wonka

wonka

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 6,612 posts

Posted 18 April 2012 - 12:28 PM

I think Warren Buffett is a smart business man (the proof is in the pudding). Maybe he is on to something. Plus, I make far far less than a million a year, so the outcome for 'me' and 'my bubble' would seem at best beneficial (lower deficit) and at the worst will not affect me/my wallet.

Now, if the plan was to raise taxes on folks earning what I make and/or less, I would be up in arms!!

#30 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,353 posts

Posted 18 April 2012 - 12:57 PM

Lets put it in perspective by numbers. Maybe that will help.

Last years deficit was ~ $1,300,000,000,000.00
the buffet rule covers (per year) ~ $ 5,000,000,000.00
--------------------------------

*The federal deficit is the amount each year by which federal outlays in the federal budget exceed federal receipts. But the gross federal debt increases each year by substantially more than the amount of the deficit each year. That is because a substantial amount of federal borrowing is not counted in the budget. More http://american.com/...cial-experiment

#31 Shake Yer Bones

Shake Yer Bones
  • VibeTribe
  • 2,429 posts

Posted 18 April 2012 - 01:09 PM

.... The Joint Committee on Taxation, which analyzes tax legislation, has estimated that the "Paying a Fair Share Act" would raise $47 billion over 10 years, or an average of less than $5 billion a year, assuming the Bush tax cuts expire. So, approximately 5 billion a year. With a yearly deficit in the 1.3 trillion range, that doesn't even cover one months worth of deficit spending in a yearly budget. So i fail to see how it promotes anything at all except a "feel good" notion.


This is why I oppose it. It increases revenue, but not effectively. It doesn't resolve anything other than making some people "feel good," as you say.

#32 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,353 posts

Posted 18 April 2012 - 02:22 PM

I think Warren Buffett is a smart business man (the proof is in the pudding). Maybe he is on to something. Plus, I make far far less than a million a year, so the outcome for 'me' and 'my bubble' would seem at best beneficial (lower deficit) and at the worst will not affect me/my wallet. Now, if the plan was to raise taxes on folks earning what I make and/or less, I would be up in arms!!


http://www.foxnews.c.../#ixzz1sOlCCjX8


As many Americans were scrambling to get this year's taxes done, analysts were warning about a bigger tax day -- what some call a tax Armageddon, or "Taxmageddon," to characterize its potential effect on the U.S. economy.
At the end of the year, some $500 billion in tax breaks expire all at once, hitting American households with an average tax increase of $3,800 -- if Congress doesn't act.
The potential increases include $165 billion more from taxpayers as a result of expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts, which would push taxes from a bottom rate of 10 percent and a top rate of 35 percent to a bottom rate of 15 percent and a top rate of 39.6 percent.
"Taxmageddon is a $500 billion, one-year tax hike that hits the economy on Jan. 1, 2013," Curtis Dubay of the Heritage Foundation said.
It would cut the child tax credit by half, from $1,000 a child to $500.
The marriage penalty would return.
The tax on dividends, which many seniors rely on, would soar from 15 percent to as high as 39.6 percent.
A separate $124 billion cut in the payroll tax would end.
And a temporary fix to the alternative minimum tax would be erased. The tax originally was aimed at millionaires, but it could would hit some 34 million taxpayers next year.
"Almost the entire tax code has been put on a year-to-year lease, and in some cases, month-to-month lease, which is no way to run a tax system," Scott Hodge of the Tax Foundation said.
The expiring cuts would hit all income groups but those at low and middle incomes the hardest.
"Taxmageddon falls 70 percent on middle and low income families. That's because 60 percent of the Bush tax cuts were for middle- and low-income taxpayers," Dubay said. The payroll tax cut was aimed at the same taxpayers.
"No American will be unscathed at the end of this year," Hodge said. "Taxmageddon hits all of us."
And that could have a serious impact on the economy, including a drop in disposable income for individuals, which would put a damper on the overall economy.
Jim Capretta, a former official with the White House's Office of Management and Budget who now works for the Ethics and Public Policy Center, says it would mean "an economy that's about one to two percentage points points smaller than it otherwise would have been, and unemployment that's a full percentage point higher than it otherwise would have been."
With all that facing the economy, wouldn't Congress act? Ordinarily, yes -- but this is a presidential election year.
"It's my guess that nothing will happen on any of these issues until after the election," Hodge said. "Here we have a case where many in Congress will be retiring, maybe even a president. How do you fix system with that uncertainty?"
And Capretta adds, "it'd be hard for an old ... outgoing Congress to make decisions when a new Congress is about to come in. And I think the public might react a little badly to that as well."
Nevertheless, one congressional source says the chances of a lame duck session are 100 percent: Congress can't afford to take the end of the year off.
All this raises the stakes for the economy, because until Congress acts, businesses can't know what their tax rates are going to be, making it hard to hire more workers or plan for the future and leaving both taxpayers and the economy awash in uncertainty.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.c.../#ixzz1sOykvDyy



#33 vic

vic
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,913 posts

Posted 18 April 2012 - 03:47 PM

Um, that is beyond crazy.


maybe so, but this shit ain't working

we're not out of resources, the market just dictates who's in charge of them and who gets to have em

they are there for all nonetheless

#34 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,353 posts

Posted 18 April 2012 - 04:08 PM

I don't even want to know what you would replace a market economy with. A command one?

#35 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,353 posts

Posted 18 April 2012 - 04:09 PM

And the market does not "dictate" things as you say. That is false.. Resources are for everyone who has the know how and energy to procure them.

#36 deadheadskier

deadheadskier
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,032 posts

Posted 18 April 2012 - 06:48 PM

This is why I oppose it. It increases revenue, but not effectively. It doesn't resolve anything other than making some people "feel good," as you say.


Just because it doesn't generate a huge impact on balancing the budget, doesn't mean it shouldn't be looked at. All things should be on the table at this time both in cutting spending and raising revenue.

#37 seany

seany
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,766 posts

Posted 18 April 2012 - 07:18 PM

So... if you reach a certain point on the income and investment scale (like Buffet, Romney, Gates, ...) where you can basically just reinvest investment dividends for the rest of your life and make millions doing so, what should be the effective tax rate for doing that? It's not like the stock market and corporate profits aren't already propped up on trying to create efficiencies at the lower end of the labor and expenses scale to create even greater profits.

#38 vic

vic
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,913 posts

Posted 18 April 2012 - 07:31 PM

cutting corners by cutting welfare and labor and planned parenthood and education...why is that worth pursuing and this isn't?

something that affects the rich = feel good

making the poor poorer = has to be done

and i'm crazy :lol:

#39 vic

vic
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,913 posts

Posted 18 April 2012 - 07:34 PM

I don't even want to know what you would replace a market economy with. A command one?


how bout volunteer?

maybe some of those kids who are too poor to be considered for education can actually get educated and be useful

#40 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,353 posts

Posted 18 April 2012 - 07:34 PM

Just because it doesn't generate a huge impact on balancing the budget, doesn't mean it shouldn't be looked at. All things should be on the table at this time both in cutting spending and raising revenue.


OK, why is there so much focus from the president on this and yet he hasn't passed a budget (except the one rejected by every member of congress), has not signaled for any spending cut, federal govt. department cuts, military cuts, etc...or closed dividend loopholes or put forth anything except this LOUSY attempt at political theater in an election year?

The man is an epcot failure as a leader and constitutional scholar.

The rule is useless. There would be more revenue in the soda tax I read about the other day. This is policital pandering to plebs who have no idea what the buffett rule even does. It all sounds good from the leader, but in reality it means nothing. 5 billion a year in new revenue on 1.3 trillion deficit spends? C'mon! It's a joke. A lousy joke.

#41 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,353 posts

Posted 18 April 2012 - 07:39 PM

how bout volunteer? maybe some of those kids who are too poor to be considered for education can actually get educated and be useful


What? That just doesn't make any sense...

#42 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,353 posts

Posted 18 April 2012 - 07:41 PM

So... if you reach a certain point on the income and investment scale (like Buffet, Romney, Gates, ...) where you can basically just reinvest investment dividends for the rest of your life and make millions doing so, what should be the effective tax rate for doing that? It's not like the stock market and corporate profits aren't already propped up on trying to create efficiencies at the lower end of the labor and expenses scale to create even greater profits.


It could be treated as capital gains (which essentially it is) and taxed at 90% if idle. This would push for venture. However, it would be a bad move without lowering the corp. tax significantly. We need businesses to succeed, not fail. People too..

#43 deadheadskier

deadheadskier
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,032 posts

Posted 19 April 2012 - 05:09 AM

OK, why is there so much focus from the president on this and yet he hasn't passed a budget (except the one rejected by every member of congress), has not signaled for any spending cut, federal govt. department cuts, military cuts, etc...or closed dividend loopholes or put forth anything except this LOUSY attempt at political theater in an election year? The man is an epcot failure as a leader and constitutional scholar. The rule is useless. There would be more revenue in the soda tax I read about the other day. This is policital pandering to plebs who have no idea what the buffett rule even does. It all sounds good from the leader, but in reality it means nothing. 5 billion a year in new revenue on 1.3 trillion deficit spends? C'mon! It's a joke. A lousy joke.


You are right in that it is political theater. You are right that appropriate spending cuts have not been proposed.

It is a joke.

It is also a joke that the government takes a larger percentage of income of even low end middle class citizens like my wife and I who are scratching to get by than they do from the 1% like Romney. If people want to support that with such statements like, "50% of the population, the working poor and unemployed don't pay taxes at all" and want to argue a flat tax, I can respect that because at least there's fairness in theory because it says everyone should pay their way. The fact that the wealthy don't have to pay in as high a percentage of their income though has no fairness in it's concept at all.

There are greater issues to tackle out there, but let's at least get a fair income tax system in place. IMO, that means the more you make, the more you can afford to give because NO ONE gets to that ultra elite rich status by themselves. The community helps get them there and for that you pay it back to them and that includes social programs for the elderly or those in need.

It may not be the biggest aspect of dealing with large macro-economic issues, but solving it is important. It's socially divisive, which results in political divisiveness, which just makes it even harder to tackle those larger economic issues.

#44 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,353 posts

Posted 19 April 2012 - 11:13 AM

The top tier do pay more n taxes than the middle class. The super wealthy who earn capital gains off dividends are the ones who end up effectively paying "less" of their income than most others. The buffett rule does not address this disparage. It is for incomes of the million and plus. Those folks are already taxed at a higher rate than the lower tier incomes.

It's a false claim otherwise by the president to say that they don't.

#45 deadheadskier

deadheadskier
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,032 posts

Posted 19 April 2012 - 02:46 PM

The top tier do pay more n taxes than the middle class. The super wealthy who earn capital gains off dividends are the ones who end up effectively paying "less" of their income than most others. The buffett rule does not address this disparage. It is for incomes of the million and plus.


huh?

It doubles the Capital Gains tax to 30% for the super wealthy. The source of the income does not matter, whether wage, capital gains or dividend, you make a million in a year, you're taxed 30% minimum. That's a higher percentage then the middle class, depending on how you define that level. Tax payers making a few hundred grand plus that are not investing in tax sheltered investments would pay a higher rate than that, so I could see them seeing this policy as not fair. For everyone else though, I do think it's fair.

#46 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,353 posts

Posted 19 April 2012 - 02:56 PM

So, the Buffett Rule closes dividend loopholes? Because I did not read any of that after researching the topic. Can you point me to it?

#47 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,432 posts

Posted 19 April 2012 - 02:59 PM

Hell even Obama paid a lower tax rate than his own secretary

#48 deadheadskier

deadheadskier
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,032 posts

Posted 19 April 2012 - 03:10 PM

Bush cut dividend tax rates of top earners from 39% down to 15%. Buffett Rule raises it back to 30%. The argument is that this would stymie investment and reduce job creation. I don't buy that for a second. What are people going to do? Leave their money in a savings account earning 1.5% interest? They didn't 10 years ago and they wouldn't today.

http://www.taxfounda...show/27934.html

#49 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,353 posts

Posted 19 April 2012 - 03:22 PM

Bush cut dividend tax rates of top earners from 39% down to 15%. Buffett Rule raises it back to 30%. The argument is that this would stymie investment and reduce job creation. I don't buy that for a second. What are people going to do? Leave their money in a savings account earning 1.5% interest? They didn't 10 years ago and they wouldn't today. http://www.taxfounda...show/27934.html

Thanks. I doubt it will reduce investment since the real culprit of deteriorating business ventures is the corp tax rates, the highest in the world. Alright then, i say go for it. Although it doesn't do anything to reduce deficits in any real manner, it definitely will feel good to those stuck in the fair share paradigm.

#50 deadheadskier

deadheadskier
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,032 posts

Posted 19 April 2012 - 03:38 PM

You are right in that corporate tax rates are a problem. There should be greater incentive to lower corporate tax rates based upon hiring and wage increases; and penalties for layoffs. Not just a blanket "gift" of say dropping corporate tax rates 5-10% and trusting that it will result in reinvestment in the corporation. Make the employees the beneficiaries, not the stock holders.