The buffet rule

[gumOnShoe]

The buffet rule would require anyone who makes a million to pay at least 30% of their income to taxes.

Rublicans blocked this rule about a week ago saying it would hurt job creators. They didn't admit of course that if the money stayed in the companies it came from then it would never be taxed as income. Jobs could be created by the companies without the money ever being taxed.

The reason this rule is being made is because most citizens in this country have a tax rate of 30%. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to many of us that the richest get a lower tax rate. I mean, their companies use more of our infrastructure. Their business over seas can cause conflicts and requires our government to have foreign relations employees and whatnot. Having rich people around is frankly expensive. They hire truckers who ruin our high ways and residential rodes by transporting heavy loads. They create large businesses that require people to commute, straining our resources.

But they also give us a lot in return. Its just, it doesn't make sense that the people who often use government the most should be paying the lowest tax rate. Many of the rich people agree.

Do you? And if so, why not write your representative and tell them you support the buffet rule?

Why should a secretary pay a higher tax rate than her boss?

~gum

[Sense-Offender]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYqF_BtIwAU

[Korriken]

meh, always with more taxes. Why not cut out some of the wasteful spending?

oh, right... kinda hard to keep the vote farms going without a lot of unnecessary funding.

remember kids, though the government wastes your tax dollars, it's the rich man's fault we're in debt.

[Entice]

At 4/20/12 06:10 PM, Korriken wrote: meh, always with more taxes. Why not cut out some of the wasteful spending?

Why not do both?

oh, right... kinda hard to keep the vote farms going without a lot of unnecessary funding.

Implying that the rich don't influence elections?

remember kids, though the government wastes your tax dollars, it's the rich man's fault we're in debt.

[Warforger]

At 4/20/12 06:10 PM, Korriken wrote: meh, always with more taxes. Why not cut out some of the wasteful spending?

Do you think if it were that simple that it would not have been done already? For god's sake most of the spending goes into Healthcare to keep Old people alive, but because Old people are more likely to vote than all other demographics no one wants to cut their funds. The question is never to cut spending, it's deciding what to cut, that is what is keeping anything from getting done.

[All-American-Badass]

At 4/20/12 06:52 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 4/20/12 06:10 PM, Korriken wrote: meh, always with more taxes. Why not cut out some of the wasteful spending?

Do you think if it were that simple that it would not have been done already? For god's sake most of the spending goes into Healthcare to keep Old people alive, but because Old people are more likely to vote than all other demographics no one wants to cut their funds. The question is never to cut spending, it's deciding what to cut, that is what is keeping anything from getting done.

The thing is there's plenty of crap you can cut from government, the problem is that special interest groups lobby politicians to keep the money coming. I think we should cut the EPA by at least 67%, If we get the hell out of the middle east ASAP that'll put our defense spending down a couple hundred billion. If I had a line item budget for the US government I could probably round up another several hundred billion in waste. With that though you could also make the tax much simpler than the 70k pages of bureaucratic trash you have in the current tax code and also since I'm cutting the government i'll let the private sector grow unfettered by unnecessary regulations which will put our revenues at a level to where combined with all the cuts i made to the government should at least put our deficit at a manageable level

[RacistBassist]

At 4/20/12 12:59 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: The reason this rule is being made is because most citizens in this country have a tax rate of 30%. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to many of us that the richest get a lower tax rate. I mean, their companies use more of our infrastructure. Their business over seas can cause conflicts and requires our government to have foreign relations employees and whatnot. Having rich people around is frankly expensive. They hire truckers who ruin our high ways and residential rodes by transporting heavy loads. They create large businesses that require people to commute, straining our resources.

What do you mean most citizens have a tax rate of 30%? I'd like to see your source. Every single example you gave of them hurting our infrastructure and resources wouldn't even exist if they didn't create those jobs in the first place, and there would be zero use of them.

But they also give us a lot in return. Its just, it doesn't make sense that the people who often use government the most should be paying the lowest tax rate. Many of the rich people agree.

I'd argue that those paying the least are the ones who end up with the largest use vs pay towards ration. I'm all for a flat tax with no loopholes or deductions.

Why should a secretary pay a higher tax rate than her boss?

That's the problem with salaries and wages vs capital gains. It's apples to oranges.

[Iron-Hampster]

The thing Buffet doesn't know is that the problem doesn't rest in the rich being taxed too little, it is that the non rich are being taxed too much. The rich get less income stolen by the government than the poor do, proportionally, making it impossible for rich failures to fall and poor heroes to rise. It also gets topped off that what tax money is spent on goes to benefit the rich more than it goes to benefit the poor. If you are poor, welfare means bare minimum to survive, if you are the owner of a fortune 500 company, it means getting bailed out and given enough money to give your executives a nice bonus.

this is why income inequality is going up so fast, and why social mobility is going down. Even when I was a little misinformed grade 11 Socialist it came across as odd that under Roosevelt, you had to have a certain amount of money to start a bank and what a catch 22 it was that the only way to get rich was to already be rich under this idol of modern liberalism.

[aviewaskewed]

At 4/20/12 07:33 PM, All-American-Badass wrote: The thing is there's plenty of crap you can cut from government, the problem is that special interest groups lobby politicians to keep the money coming.

Ok.

I think we should cut the EPA by at least 67%,

Why and where? Why would you want to take money out of an agency that wants to keep our water clean, our food chemical free, and people generally alive without nasty cancers, poisons, and diseases? Or is this a case where you don't actually understand what the EPA's goals and function is supposed to be?

If we get the hell out of the middle east ASAP that'll put our defense spending down a couple hundred billion.

Not necessarily. It could help, but defense spending was way bloated before the wars, it was way bloated during (when Bush was able to correctly claim the wars weren't overburdening us because he was borrowing heavily from China to fund them), and it'd be way bloated after. The wars ending would be good...but it wouldn't solve the problems of bloated defense budgets. Politicians who aren't afraid to tell generals and other military personnel that they don't need to build new tech, spend money in new and weird research, and just generally actually focus on "defense" instead of what we're actually doing which smacks more of "offense" to me.

If I had a line item budget for the US government I could probably round up another several hundred billion in waste.

Like? I love how everybody says "I could make a budget that eliminates waste!" but then never get into specifics...makes me think they don't actually know what they're talking about.

With that though you could also make the tax much simpler than the 70k pages of bureaucratic trash you have in the current tax code and also since I'm cutting the government i'll let the private sector grow unfettered by unnecessary regulations which will put our revenues at a level to where combined with all the cuts i made to the government should at least put our deficit at a manageable level

More generalities, less specifics...looks like Conservative talking points 101...did you come up with this yourself or just copy paste it from somewhere? Come back when you actually have something to add to the discussion and not just regurgitated generalities.

[Camarohusky]

At 4/20/12 06:10 PM, Korriken wrote: oh, right... kinda hard to keep the vote farms going without a lot of unnecessary funding.

Let's fix this.

kinda hard to keep the vote farms going without a lot of tax breaks for those who don't need them/don't deserve them.

[Korriken]

At 4/20/12 06:52 PM, Warforger wrote:

Do you think if it were that simple that it would not have been done already?

yes, and no. Simple? yes. will it be done? hell no. both sides want their pet projects and to maintain their vote farms, and at the same time want to do away with the other side's pet projects and vote farms.

For god's sake most of the spending goes into Healthcare to keep Old people alive, but because Old people are more likely to vote than all other demographics no one wants to cut their funds.

Welfare eats a rather large chunk too. and how much of that goes to waste? Way too damn much. Only in the west do we have people living on welfare, sitting at home, smoking their joint while watching porn streamed over the internet to their computer while watching satellite/cable on a big screen tv.

The question is never to cut spending, it's deciding what to cut, that is what is keeping anything from getting done.

what's keeping anything from getting done? corrupt politicians wanting to put their name on buildings and bridges. corrupt parties keeping their vote farms going, threatening the people with "if we don't win the election, you may lose your benefits!"

politicians don't give a damn about "the people" instead "the people" are there to make sure they stay in power.

[digiman2024]

At 4/20/12 12:59 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: The buffet rule would require anyone who makes a million to pay at least 30% of their income to taxes.

Rublicans blocked this rule about a week ago saying it would hurt job creators. They didn't admit of course that if the money stayed in the companies it came from then it would never be taxed as income. Jobs could be created by the companies without the money ever being taxed.

the democrat controlled senate fail to pass the bill not just republicans.

The reason this rule is being made is because most citizens in this country have a tax rate of 30%. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to many of us that the richest get a lower tax rate. I mean, their companies use more of our infrastructure. Their business over seas can cause conflicts and requires our government to have foreign relations employees and whatnot. Having rich people around is frankly expensive. They hire truckers who ruin our high ways and residential rodes by transporting heavy loads. They create large businesses that require people to commute, straining our resources.

um no, in fact HELL NO do u even file taxes or work for a living 50% of americans pay no federal income taxes. ex. my brother with 2 kids and wife made $27k last year he had $3100 taken by the fed when he filed his refund/ overpayment was $9865.00, you tell me what percent of taxes did he pay??? and thats why i say no more tax increases. bring in a flat sales tax lets tax everyone on what they spend. then even the drug dealers and prostitues even have to pay taxes.

[All-American-Badass]

At 4/20/12 10:48 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 4/20/12 07:33 PM, All-American-Badass wrote: The thing is there's plenty of crap you can cut from government, the problem is that special interest groups lobby politicians to keep the money coming.

Ok.

I think we should cut the EPA by at least 67%,

Why and where? Why would you want to take money out of an agency that wants to keep our water clean, our food chemical free, and people generally alive without nasty cancers, poisons, and diseases? Or is this a case where you don't actually understand what the EPA's goals and function is supposed to be?

Because there;s no way you need $15 billion a year to tell companies, " hey clean up your act or we'll fine you or shut you down blah blah blah" I think $5 billion year will suffice for that.

If we get the hell out of the middle east ASAP that'll put our defense spending down a couple hundred billion.

Not necessarily. It could help, but defense spending was way bloated before the wars, it was way bloated during (when Bush was able to correctly claim the wars weren't overburdening us because he was borrowing heavily from China to fund them), and it'd be way bloated after. The wars ending would be good...but it wouldn't solve the problems of bloated defense budgets. Politicians who aren't afraid to tell generals and other military personnel that they don't need to build new tech, spend money in new and weird research, and just generally actually focus on "defense" instead of what we're actually doing which smacks more of "offense" to me.

If I had a line item budget for the US government I could probably round up another several hundred billion in waste.

Like? I love how everybody says "I could make a budget that eliminates waste!" but then never get into specifics...makes me think they don't actually know what they're talking about.

Well I did list two specific areas where we could cut waste, but if you want more. I'd get rid of the TSA and cut just about every regulatory agency out there except for OSHA, FRA, and the FAA and i would only fund them further to keep up with inflation also there's a bunch of useless entitlement spending also I'd make sure not a dime of the budget went to companies in the form of subsidies.
I think if you looked at a line item budget for the US government you'd likely question the purpose of the majority of things listed on there. like there could be $20 million going to a Bureau of road sign design and you'd likely see a lot of stuff like that on there

With that though you could also make the tax much simpler than the 70k pages of bureaucratic trash you have in the current tax code and also since I'm cutting the government i'll let the private sector grow unfettered by unnecessary regulations which will put our revenues at a level to where combined with all the cuts i made to the government should at least put our deficit at a manageable level

More generalities, less specifics...looks like Conservative talking points 101...did you come up with this yourself or just copy paste it from somewhere? Come back when you actually have something to add to the discussion and not just regurgitated generalities.

I do like RacistBassist's suggestion of a flat tax. Also I'd put the corporate tax at a level that can compete with the rest of the developed word perhaps at 25-28%. with how the economy sucks and will likely continue to suck and the current tax sysyem in place we've squeezed all we're going to get out of pout and corporations in the form of taxes, which is around 15-20% of GDP. The purpose of this though is to greatly expand the tax base to boost our GDP, that way the 15-20% isn't 2.5 trillion but perhaps 3-3.25 trillion

[bismuthfeldspar]

Government can't solve this problem. There are do-gooders in the government, the problem is they lose political capital when they propose measures which sacrifice the good of the political class for the good of the people and so never occupy very high echelons of state, in the government "people power" only ever amounts to a red flag waving gimmick.

True people power is individualistic, large political movements have to be organized by politicians and bureaucrats and end up just the same as the politicians and bureaucrats causing the problems in the first place, what is really needed is for millions of people to come to the same conclusion independently without any appeals to emotion, logical fallacies or dogma. The internet might be a good way to spread ideas around however it's also a good vehicle for the politicians to spread their doctrines, the solution might be to convince people to be wary of large organized groups though this will only result in more hipsters who confuse the validity of an idea with it's lack of popularity and claim to be non-conformists while conforming pretty hard to their own xenophobic sub-culture. So ironic.

Oh well, I don't know what we are going to do.

[Korriken]

At 4/21/12 01:13 AM, digiman2024 wrote: my brother with 2 kids and wife made $27k last year he had $3100 taken by the fed when he filed his refund/ overpayment was $9865.00, you tell me what percent of taxes did he pay???

-318%

[Camarohusky]

At 4/21/12 02:40 PM, Korriken wrote: -318%

Knee deep in a massive logical fallacy.

So what if the poorest don't pay any income taxes? Conservatives like to treat this as if the poor aren't paying their fair share, and as if everyone's costs are relative to theri income. Well that just ain't true.

A gallon of milk costs $3 bucks regardless of your income. A very cheap dwelling (a closet) costs $400 a month regardless of your income. Gas costs $4 a gallon regardless of your income.

That closet make up about 20% of the income of Bim's family member. That closet would make up less than two tenths of a percent of Romney's 2010 income. Now you tell me how Romney payia higher ratio of taxes than the other guy is fundamentally unfair.

[RacistBassist]

At 4/21/12 04:53 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 4/21/12 02:40 PM, Korriken wrote: -318%

Knee deep in a massive logical fallacy.

So what if the poorest don't pay any income taxes? Conservatives like to treat this as if the poor aren't paying their fair share, and as if everyone's costs are relative to theri income. Well that just ain't true.

If you aren't paying, or you are receiving, you are quite literally not paying any share whatsoever.

A gallon of milk costs $3 bucks regardless of your income. A very cheap dwelling (a closet) costs $400 a month regardless of your income. Gas costs $4 a gallon regardless of your income.

That closet make up about 20% of the income of Bim's family member. That closet would make up less than two tenths of a percent of Romney's 2010 income. Now you tell me how Romney payia higher ratio of taxes than the other guy is fundamentally unfair.

As I said, flat tax. Same percentage for all. It is fundamentally unfair because why should people end up being punished for making more money? We all use the infrastructure. You absolutely cannot argue that the rich use it more, considering that all of their employees also end up reaping the benefits.

[Camarohusky]

At 4/21/12 05:13 PM, RacistBassist wrote: As I said, flat tax.

But it's not really flat. If it costs $25000 (housing, food, transportation, and so on for family of 4) a year to live on the bare minimum and we have a flat tax at even just 10% Romney could afford to live, as well as field a small army. A doctor could afford to live and have a huge amount left over. An Accountant would have enough to live and have some comforts. But the $27000er we mentioned before? Yeah, he'd be better off selling one of his children. Bump the flaxt tax to a still not enough to fund basic services 30% and a family of four would need to make $35K just to pay the taxes.

That's not truly flat. If the bare cost of living were ajdusted for income then sure flat tax would clearly be the logical choice, but that's not how the world works.

It is fundamentally unfair because why should people end up being punished for making more money?

But the wealthy have more then enough money to pay for the taxes and a whole shit ton more. A flat tax would end up punishing the poor for being poor. So we have two options, punish the wealthy or punish the poor. Punish the poor and you not only hurt their ability to get the most basic of needs, but you don't make that much money. The bottom 50% of the country makes so little that taxing 30% of that would not create much revenue. On the other hand you can punish the wealthy and they will still have enough money for frivolous luxury, AND we will have a higher revenue than the other option.

We all use the infrastructure. You absolutely cannot argue that the rich use it more, considering that all of their employees also end up reaping the benefits.

I have yet to see anything that actually correlates lower taxes with more jobs and higher pay. Taxes have been going down for the past 20 some years and yet the average income has dropped along with it. I mean if this correlation held any water, with taxes so low, wages should be skyrocketting.

[Gario]

At 4/21/12 06:00 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I have yet to see anything that actually correlates lower taxes with more jobs and higher pay. Taxes have been going down for the past 20 some years and yet the average income has dropped along with it. I mean if this correlation held any water, with taxes so low, wages should be skyrocketting.

The theory is that with fewer taxes to punish companies for hiring more employees then jobs will be generated. And you know what, I actually still hold that would be the case - tax breaks for employment purposes is still a nice thing to have, as those taxes can be incredibly prohibitive for smaller companies, and jobs actually could be created by such breaks.

Unfortunately, most breaks are for things that companies need in order to function, anyway, and while companies will be able to expand faster without them, that doesn't necessarily mean that more jobs will be generated than if they were taxed (more tools =/= more jobs - it very well could just mean that the company is making products or selling services more efficiently). Companies will pay for these expenses no matter how much or little of a break they get (if any at all) - it has NO impact on their investment choices, save for the fact that profitable investments will be a little more profitable and losses will be less painful. It's a waste, in terms of trying to 'generate jobs'; it only serves to make life easier for the companies at the expense of every tax payer (hey, someone's got to pick up the slack, there).

Generally, lower taxes is incredibly reckless and overall ineffective, but I could still see one or two places for it.

[Warforger]

At 4/20/12 11:30 PM, Korriken wrote:

For god's sake most of the spending goes into Healthcare to keep Old people alive, but because Old people are more likely to vote than all other demographics no one wants to cut their funds.

Welfare eats a rather large chunk too. and how much of that goes to waste? Way too damn much.

No it doesn't. In fact it's a rather insignificant portion of the budget.Healthcare is way worse because now the Baby Boomers are retiring, and now they're calling for more benefits, thus each year the cost of it rises and the amount of income for the government does not. This is why we have such a huge mess with the debt, it's not because most of that is unnecessary spending or pet projects, it's simply because it was a problem that became unavoidable. Of course it wouldn't be so bad had the Bush administration not taken out so much money from SSA for the Iraq War (and here we go to that pointless disaster) as the SSA had prepared for the new retiree's and stepped up payments.

Only in the west do we have people living on welfare, sitting at home, smoking their joint while watching porn streamed over the internet to their computer while watching satellite/cable on a big screen tv.

Nope. The West actually has the lowest amount of people on welfare. The region of the US which has the most tends to be the South specifically the Appalachian region.

Keep in mind welfare does not pay for that much, and people on it don't want to stay on it they want to rise, but can't because they can't acquire too many skills. In fact during JFK/LBJ's administrations they had a program to train specifically these people, and in fact as these people moved up the income brackets and off of welfare they were basically making the program pay for itself as they payed higher income taxes, except when they were looking to cut the budget to expand the military again they looked at this job program as one of the programs to cut and now it doesn't exist as powerful as an entity ( oh look another unwinnable war that screwed over programs that would've been fine had it not happened ).

The question is never to cut spending, it's deciding what to cut, that is what is keeping anything from getting done.

what's keeping anything from getting done? corrupt politicians wanting to put their name on buildings and bridges. corrupt parties keeping their vote farms going, threatening the people with "if we don't win the election, you may lose your benefits!"

politicians don't give a damn about "the people" instead "the people" are there to make sure they stay in power.

Yah what is the "people" again? They're not a unified group with common ideal's, they're incredibly diverse and have so many different backgrounds.

[digiman2024]

so ok lets try this because this country is alwasys gonna need more money for these social programs, as the cost is gonna always go up.
let say we tax the those making $1,000,000 or more 70% tax rate. what do u think would happen?

and please explain your thinking.

my thoughts is that they will up root from the US entirely they will move to another country with lower taxes, or they will find a couple of they thousands of loopholes in the tax code and hide thier money to avoid paying the taxes. (look at Hollywood there are several actors and actresses that owe millions in taxes they never paid.)

[bismuthfeldspar]

At 4/22/12 01:14 AM, digiman2024 wrote: so ok lets try this because this country is alwasys gonna need more money for these social programs, as the cost is gonna always go up.
let say we tax the those making $1,000,000 or more 70% tax rate. what do u think would happen?

and please explain your thinking.

my thoughts is that they will up root from the US entirely they will move to another country with lower taxes, or they will find a couple of they thousands of loopholes in the tax code and hide thier money to avoid paying the taxes. (look at Hollywood there are several actors and actresses that owe millions in taxes they never paid.)

As tax increases initially very few rich move away so you get more tax income, at a certain point however the rich start moving away or dodging tax in greater numbers and instead of getting more tax income you get less, the trend kind of looks like a y=-x^2 graph where y represents tax income and x represents tax rate.

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=y%3D-4x%5E2%2B4x

So if you wanted to maximize tax income you would be looking for the "vertex" of this trend and not trying to push tax rates as high as possible, that's not the real issue though, raising tax income to it's highest amount is not the purpose of government.

We need to be looking at things in the wider context right here. What kind of economy do we want? One where 20% are unemployed or underemployed, school are hellholes, the elderly wait to die in prison-like care homes and everyone with a job is heavily taxed and in debt while we struggle with massive government debt, endless war, overpopulation, resource depletion and climate change?

[gumOnShoe]

At 4/21/12 09:02 PM, Gario wrote: The theory is that with fewer taxes to punish companies for hiring more employees then jobs will be generated. And you know what, I actually still hold that would be the case - tax breaks for employment purposes is still a nice thing to have, as those taxes can be incredibly prohibitive for smaller companies, and jobs actually could be created by such breaks.

That's a shitty idea. Tax breaks are generally on INCOME. Meaning that unless the head hancho is collecting INCOME from the company there are NO TAXES TAKEN OUT OF THE COMPANIES HOLDINGS that wouldn't normally be taken out.

AS STATED IN THE ORIGINAL POST.

SO, if you don't collect a higher income as the BIG CHEESE, your company HAS MORE MONEY to HIRE PEOPLE.

Beyond that most CORPORATIONS PAID $0 IN TAXES OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS DUE TO TAX BREAKS. You can't cut taxes any more than that.

SO IT LOOKS LIKE YOUR ENTIRE THEORY SUCKS ASS. THANK YOU.

[CAPSLOCK FOR EMPHASIS]

Also cause I'm cool like that.

[stinkychops]

Australia taxes millionares around 50%.

Trickle down effect is absolute bullshit.

[Feoric]

This "Buffet Rule" is like the mushiest progressive tax plan ever. Rather than just adding new brackets or raising rates, we're going to arbitrarily link it to the middle class and wage earners and make it really hard to understand and thus easier to game. It's not even a tax plan, it's a campaign plan. Obama's trying to appeal to his progressive base and independents by pretending to get tough on the rich, while avoiding any "class warfare" accusations by advocating only that they pay the same tax rate as everybody else. The problem, of course, is that he doesn't actually HAVE a proposal beyond "include this in a future reform of the tax code, leave the details to Congress". Which is, of course, a joke. Obama understand that taxing the rich is popular and is a political winner. Question: why not just raise capital gains rate? Answer: because the Buffet Rule is intended to highlight Republican intransigence on raising taxes on the rich even in a case where the current system is clearly unfair. Discussing raising the capital gains rate allows it to be bogged down in discussions over wise financial policy: the Buffet Rule pretty much requires the conversation to be about fundamental fairness since there's a real lack of good ways to muddy the issue.

[gumOnShoe]

At 4/29/12 12:38 PM, Feoric wrote: This "Buffet Rule" is like the mushiest progressive tax plan ever. Rather than just adding new brackets or raising rates, we're going to arbitrarily link it to the middle class and wage earners and make it really hard to understand and thus easier to game.

I don't think its very arbitrary, but you're right that its good policy for campaigning.

I favor a much much higher rate, something inches closer to 55% as you get over 200,000. I also support raising capital gains and business taxes.

But that's just me. I'm well aware it won't be the silver bullet, but in an options machine gun of you need every bullet you can lay your hands on, and this one isn't a particularly bad one. A draw down on defense and a fix for medicare/medicaid would go a long way to fixing everything. SS is funded well enough if we go back to the tax rates that Obama frankly should have never lowered.