0
wlsc

The Buffet Rule

Recommended Posts

Quote

Should be called the Obama rule. He only paid about 20% while his secretary paid closer to 35%

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/14/us/politics/obamas-release-tax-returns.html?_r=1



The IRS accepts voluntary contributions. I wonder how many supporters the Buffet/Obama Rule are going to voluntarily write a check to the IRS?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/buffett-rule-perspective

An interesting perspective on the Buffet Rule



No it isn't.



Yes it is. It shows that this is a feel-good measure with a negligible effect on the bottom line and .



Nope. A tax system like the one we have in the USA depends for its effectiveness on a sense of fairness. The Buffett rule is a way of eliminating the perception and reality of UNfairness that allows billionaires to pay tax at a lower rate than middle class workers.



Using examples from this thread

65,000 AGI, 6.9% due in income tax
100,000 AGI, 10.6% due in income tax

and Mitt Romney

20,900,000 AGI, 15.4% due in income tax

.



Another example:

I paid 21% in federal income tax for 2011. Mitt Romney pays 13.9% and makes more than 100x what I make.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Should be called the Obama rule. He only paid about 20% while his secretary paid closer to 35%

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/14/us/politics/obamas-release-tax-returns.html?_r=1



Which is EXACTLY WHY the system is unfair and needs to be fixed.

I'm glad you recognize that the current system is grossly unfair.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Should be called the Obama rule. He only paid about 20% while his secretary paid closer to 35%

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/14/us/politics/obamas-release-tax-returns.html?_r=1



Which is EXACTLY WHY the system is unfair and needs to be fixed.

I'm glad you recognize that the current system is grossly unfair.



I don't see anything unfair about this. The Obama's donated about 20% of their AGI to charity. So yes, their tax rate on the AGI would be low. They still paid about 30% of their TAXABLE income in Federal taxes.



And Buffett and Romney, both far wealthier than Obama's secretary, got to keep a greater fraction of their income than the secretary kept of hers.

Even GOP Saint Ronald Reagan thought that sort of thing was wrong.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/buffett-rule-perspective

An interesting perspective on the Buffet Rule



No it isn't.



Yes it is. It shows that this is a feel-good measure with a negligible effect on the bottom line and .



Nope. A tax system like the one we have in the USA depends for its effectiveness on a sense of fairness. The Buffett rule is a way of eliminating the perception and reality of UNfairness that allows billionaires to pay tax at a lower rate than middle class workers.



Using examples from this thread

65,000 AGI, 6.9% due in income tax
100,000 AGI, 10.6% due in income tax

and Mitt Romney

20,900,000 AGI, 15.4% due in income tax

.



Another example:

I paid 21% in federal income tax for 2011. Mitt Romney pays 13.9% and makes more than 100x what I make.



yep you are correct it is unfair, they paid millions more than you and employ many people, you need to start paying more and or hire more people to make it fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I'm sure Romney didn't account for more volume of Federal expenses Obama did either. So why should he pay more?



This can only be taken to mean that you prefer user fees to taxes.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...Just how much of a windfall are tax cuts for the wealthy? The extension of the Bush tax cuts passed last year will provide $146,000 in annual tax savings, on average, to each of the wealthiest 0.1% of Americans...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I'm sure Romney didn't account for more volume of Federal expenses Obama did either. So why should he pay more?



This can only be taken to mean that you prefer user fees to taxes.



Ultimately, I'd like to see the federal budget divided by the number of citizens and everyone pay the same amount as a base. Then user fees could be charged for specific activities like those who fly and use airports etc.

Why should I subsidize Polce protection, military protection etc. for someone just because they make less money? Are they not recieving equal benefit? If the argument is going to be that someone making less can't afford it, then perhaps we shouldn't spend more than the poorest citizen can afford. If I seek greater protection, then I should have to pay for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

I'm sure Romney didn't account for more volume of Federal expenses Obama did either. So why should he pay more?



This can only be taken to mean that you prefer user fees to taxes.



Ultimately, I'd like to see the federal budget divided by the number of citizens and everyone pay the same amount as a base. Then user fees could be charged for specific activities like those who fly and use airports etc.

Why should I subsidize Polce protection, military protection etc. for someone just because they make less money? Are they not recieving equal benefit? If the argument is going to be that someone making less can't afford it, then perhaps we shouldn't spend more than the poorest citizen can afford. If I seek greater protection, then I should have to pay for it.



Why should I have to pay for stuff I disapprove of? Like a military that costs more than the next 10 nations combined? We could cut the military by 50% and still outspend France, Russia, China and Germany combined. The defense budget exceeds all other federal discretionary spending combined.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'm sure Romney didn't account for more volume of Federal expenses Obama did either. So why should he pay more?



This can only be taken to mean that you prefer user fees to taxes.



Ultimately, I'd like to see the federal budget divided by the number of citizens and everyone pay the same amount as a base. Then user fees could be charged for specific activities like those who fly and use airports etc.

Why should I subsidize Polce protection, military protection etc. for someone just because they make less money? Are they not recieving equal benefit? If the argument is going to be that someone making less can't afford it, then perhaps we shouldn't spend more than the poorest citizen can afford. If I seek greater protection, then I should have to pay for it.



Why should I have to pay for stuff I disapprove of? Like a military that costs more than the next 10 nations combined? We could cut the military by 50% and still outspend France, Russia, China and Germany combined. The defense budget exceeds all other federal discretionary spending combined.



Not a question of paying for things you disapprove of. That's why we have elected officials empowerered to make those decisions. Don't like what they vote for, then help elect someone who will not vote for them.

My point is that when elected officials approve more Police, Military, roads bridges etc. why should I have to pay a higher dollar amount of taxes when I'm not getting any more or less benefit than someone who pays less taxes? Isn't this the same argument used to justify forcing everyone to buy into Obamacare? That deadbeats without insurance are being subsidized by those who have it?

Maybe people in lower income brackets would side with you if they had to pay more to support wars etc. since they would be more affected by polticians who support unbridled spending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

If the Obama administration *really* wanted to do something to help the middle class, they'd get rid of the AMT.



If he really wanted to help the middle class, he and Crazy Joe would resign.



Good point.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'm sure Romney didn't account for more volume of Federal expenses Obama did either. So why should he pay more?



This can only be taken to mean that you prefer user fees to taxes.



Ultimately, I'd like to see the federal budget divided by the number of citizens and everyone pay the same amount as a base. Then user fees could be charged for specific activities like those who fly and use airports etc.

Why should I subsidize Polce protection, military protection etc. for someone just because they make less money? Are they not recieving equal benefit? If the argument is going to be that someone making less can't afford it, then perhaps we shouldn't spend more than the poorest citizen can afford. If I seek greater protection, then I should have to pay for it.



Why should I have to pay for stuff I disapprove of? Like a military that costs more than the next 10 nations combined? We could cut the military by 50% and still outspend France, Russia, China and Germany combined. The defense budget exceeds all other federal discretionary spending combined.



In this regard me and the professor are simpatico. Being a former Army Ranger, and part of the "community" I have seen firsthand the excesses and abuses of the military industrial complex. That said it pales in comparison to the "suck of the teat of the government" social/academic welfare programs. The solution in my humble opinion is to shrink the beast. It seems easy,' ask very little from the government and in return the government should ask very little of you. I harken back to what my great granddaddy Teddy Roosevelt Hutchings used to say, "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


If Buffett's secretary paid much more than that she either needs to fire her tax preparer or quit doing them herself.



The numbers for Buffet's secretary have a disproportionate influence from pay directed to our mandatory retirement savings plan (Social Security), disability insurance (Social Security), and medical insurance (for people who've grown too old to be profitable for private companies with a pre-payment when we're young).

Social Security has dejure benefit and contribution caps which is a fair combination. Warren neither makes contributions beyond the 100K and change cap nor will receive higher payouts.

Medicare has a dejure benefit cap (the delta between private insurance and medicare costs) but no cap on what the benefit costs which is un-fair, although capping the secretary's contributions so her costs are a smaller multiple of the average worker's is more fair than making Warren pay an even more disproportionate amount for the benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Not a question of paying for things you disapprove of. That's why we have elected officials empowerered to make those decisions. Don't like what they vote for, then help elect someone who will not vote for them.



That's not possible.

1. The Democrats and Republicans collude with each other to Gerrymander the districts to keep their piece of the pie. In the 2004 elections no California legislative seats (Federal or State) changed parties. In 2006 people got pissed enough at one Republican to throw him out. We finally changed things and it will be interesting to see how that works in 2012.

2. In America the politician with the largest plurality generally takes a geographically defined district which effectively disenfranchises significant minorities that don't live in the same area. With the inevitable result of a first-past-the-post electoral system being two parties nearly alike many of us don't get a real choice.

3. The largest media outlets limit coverage of candidates which don't serve their corporate interests. Ron Paul in the current debates, paper editors directed not to put a candidate's picture on a lower numbered page than Bush 43, it's a mess.

We might stand a chance in jurisdictions where citizens have legislative powers which could be used to gain proportional representation although that's still unlikely in a post-litereate age where it's against the interests of the people who own the media.

Quote


My point is that when elected officials approve more Police, Military, roads bridges etc. why should I have to pay a higher dollar amount of taxes when I'm not getting any more or less benefit than someone who pays less taxes?



That's not fair.

Quote


Maybe people in lower income brackets would side with you if they had to pay more to support wars etc. since they would be more affected by polticians who support unbridled spending.



I agree. We're almost at the point where half the American electorate has no skin in the income tax game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Another example:

I paid 21% in federal income tax for 2011. Mitt Romney pays 13.9% and makes more than 100x what I make.



If true (things like retirement savings and health insurance aren't counted in Adjusted Gross Income, and the exemptions and deductions aren't part of Taxable Income) dropping your tax rate would be more fair than increasing Romney's to nearly 50% more.

With the 1913 income tax introduction even robber barons weren't punished with a tax rate over 7%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


I still don't see a problem.



Right.

Quote


95%+ of Buffett's income is long-term capital gains.



Right. A lower rate on capital gains is needed to make it fair since the tax code does not include an adjustment for inflation. With 3% inflation you're earning nothing before taxes when you're money isn't doubling in 18 years.

A lower rate on interest is also fair for the same reason; although the fair answer is to make interest elligible for a lower rate so all savers benefit instead of increasing the rate on capital gains so people who can afford to loose some benefit less while the rest of us continue to get screwed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I understand from this thread is:

Our vote does not count
Our tax system sucks
Our military is overspending
Our president and vp are worthless

Yet last time I looked we are still the number one economy and military in the world by far and people are lining up by the thousands to come here. Go Figure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Yet last time I looked we are still the number one economy



We're seventh using GDB per capita which accounts for population unless you use the CIA's numbers which rank us eigth.

This also ignores the validity of relativism. American exceptionalism is about being as good as we can be in absolute terms, not sucking less than the other guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

What I understand from this thread is:



The usual suspects have shut their eyes and opened their mouths to make a lot of noise - but the poll shows that by a two to one majority here the Buffet Rule is considered a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

... and we do not have a 'majority rules' in this country.



Right, we have 'golden rules'. Those with the gold make the rules and the rest have no say. The disproportionate influence of people like John Paulson and the Kochs is clear for all to see. Also see the A.L.E.C. thread.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0