The Buffet Rule

[Gravitymaster 0]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/former-dem-congressman-kennedy-alleges-quid-pro-quo-access-white-house_637051.html

Quote

Former Dem. Congressman Kennedy Alleges 'Quid Pro Quo' for Access to White House

8:42 AM, Apr 15, 2012 • By DANIEL HALPER

Access to the Obama White House is in direct correlation to the amount of money donated to the president's reelection effort and the Democratic party, the New York Times reports today.

The Times reports: "those who donated the most to Mr. Obama and the Democratic Party since he started running for president were far more likely to visit the White House than others. Among donors who gave $30,000 or less, about 20 percent visited the White House, according to a New York Times analysis that matched names in the visitor logs with donor records. But among those who donated $100,000 or more, the figure rises to about 75 percent. Approximately two-thirds of the president’s top fund-raisers in the 2008 campaign visited the White House at least once, some of them numerous times."

But the most explosive allegation in the news story comes from former Democratic congressman Patrick Kennedy, son of the late Ted Kenney, who calls what the Obama White House is doing "quid pro quo."

Patrick J. Kennedy, the former representative from Rhode Island, who donated $35,800 to an Obama re-election fund last fall while seeking administration support for a nonprofit venture, said contributions were simply a part of “how this business works.”

“If you want to call it ‘quid pro quo,’ fine,” he said. “At the end of the day, I want to make sure I do my part.”

Mr. Kennedy visited the White House several times to win support for One Mind for Research, his initiative to help develop new treatments for brain disorders. While his family name and connections are clearly influential, he said, he knows White House officials are busy. And as a former chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, he said he was keenly aware of the political realities they face.

And Kennedy admits that folks in the White House are checking out the donor records:

“I know that they look at the reports,” he said, referring to records of campaign donations. “They’re my friends anyway, but it won’t hurt when I ask them for a favor if they don’t see me as a slouch.”

Literally translated, "quid pro quo" means "something for something." As in, if you want something from the Obama White House, then give something (e.g., cash).

Say it isn't so. I guess this is what Obama means when he says the wealthy need to "pay their fair share".

[kallend 1,623]

Another absurd post from you.

So how many homeless indigent people did President George W. Bush entertain at the White House?

...

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

[Gravitymaster 0]

So your defense is BDIF?

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

So your defense is BDIF?

Nope. Presidents have been favoring the rich for generations. Bush most certainly did NOT do it first.

Just pointing out the HYPOCRISY of the individual who brought it up in the first place. It's a "Dog Bites Man" story.

...

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

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

So your defense is BDIF?

Nope. Presidents have been favoring the rich for generations. Bush most certainly did NOT do it first.

Just pointing out the HYPOCRISY of the individual who brought it up in the first place. It's a "Dog Bites Man" story.

Exactly. In Obama's case it's just part of his "paying their far share" schtick.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So your defense is BDIF?

Nope. Presidents have been favoring the rich for generations. Bush most certainly did NOT do it first.

Just pointing out the HYPOCRISY of the individual who brought it up in the first place. It's a "Dog Bites Man" story.

Exactly.

Well, you are the individual who brought it up first, so you are admitting to your hypocrisy. Very cool of you.

...

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

[Gravitymaster 0]

I think you must be getting dizzy from spinning. The fact others did something makes one no less of a hypocrite when they do the same.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

I think you must be getting dizzy from spinning. The fact others did something makes one no less of a hypocrite when they do the same.

Sorry, but you have been forked.

...

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

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

I think you must be getting dizzy from spinning. The fact others did something makes one no less of a hypocrite when they do the same.

Sorry, but you have been forked.

What's the Spanish word for that?

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I think you must be getting dizzy from spinning. The fact others did something makes one no less of a hypocrite when they do the same.

Sorry, but you have been forked.

What's the Spanish word for that?

Pillado con los pantalones abajo

...

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

[Southern_Man 0]

The "Buffett Rule" is pretty much the exact same concept as the Alternative Minimum Tax. Of course we keep changing that every year because it is unpopular, was written poorly, and was never indexed to inflation.

It would make more sense to change any structural parts of the tax code that led to such a situation in the first place rather than to put another "patch" in like the AMT.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

The "Buffett Rule" is pretty much the exact same concept as the Alternative Minimum Tax. Of course we keep changing that every year because it is unpopular, was written poorly, and was never indexed to inflation.

It would make more sense to change any structural parts of the tax code that led to such a situation in the first place rather than to put another "patch" in like the AMT.

Correct - the whole edifice needs overhaul. But even Band-Aids have their uses.

...

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

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

The "Buffett Rule" is pretty much the exact same concept as the Alternative Minimum Tax. Of course we keep changing that every year because it is unpopular, was written poorly, and was never indexed to inflation.

It would make more sense to change any structural parts of the tax code that led to such a situation in the first place rather than to put another "patch" in like the AMT.

Correct - the whole edifice needs overhaul. But even Band-Aids have their uses.

well, ignoring the fact that this proposal is DOA, let's make sure we index it this time so it won't be another big fuckup like the AMT.

[wlsc 0]

...The figures show that almost a thousand UK taxpayers earning over £1m a year are paying less than 30 per cent of their income in tax, while 12 of the 200 taxpayers earning over £10m are paying less than 10 per cent in tax...

[billvon 2,400]

>It would make more sense to change any structural parts of the tax code
>that led to such a situation in the first place rather than to put another
>"patch" in like the AMT.

Agreed. AMT? Buffett rule? Nice in concept, don't work well in reality.

Changing tax brackets/percentages while eliminating deductions is a better solution overall if you want to plug the hole.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Perhaps our focus should be on actually collecting back taxes instead of bills that are proposed for nothing more than political purposes of class warfare.

Quote

Sen. Brown: Bill targets tax scofflaws in Congress

Updated: Friday, 13 Apr 2012, 8:41 PM EDT
Published : Friday, 13 Apr 2012, 8:40 PM EDT



BOSTON (AP) - U.S. Sen. Scott Brown is pushing a new bill that he said would make it easier to collect back taxes from federal workers and members of Congress.

The Massachusetts Republican said that a recent report by the Internal Revenue Service showed that in 2010, 98,000 federal employees owed a combined $1 billion in back taxes.

Brown said members and employees of the U.S. Senate alone owed over $2 million.

The bill would require members and employees of Congress and federal employees who file financial disclosures forms to report any delinquent tax liability to the appropriate ethics office and come up with a plan to pay off the taxes.

Those who fail to arrange a payment plan with the IRS within a year could have those back taxes taken directly out of their wages.

http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/politics/sen-brown-bill-targets-tax-scofflaws-in-congress-20120413

[wlsc 0]

...More than two-thirds of Americans believe the revenue system benefits the wealthy while being unfair to average workers, according to a new CNN/ORC poll.

There is a distinct political divide in how Americans view the tax system. (Reuters) Released today, the morning after a vote in the US Senate failed to attract enough support to pass a rule that would guarantee millionaires and billionaires pay at least as much in taxes as those in the middle class -- the so-called "Buffett Rule" -- the poll revealed that "68% of respondents said the current tax system benefits the rich and is unfair to ordinary workers, compared with 29% who disagreed with that view."...

[Gravitymaster 0]

Hopefully, but I seriously doubt it, you realize that the Buffet Rule would do very little to increase revenues to the Treasury. It's main purpose was for political purposes for the upcoming campaign. It's just the latest example of class warfare and obviously enough politicians had the intellect to see it for what it was and the fortitude to vote against it.

[DanG 1]

Quote

...the Buffet Rule would do very little to increase revenues to the Treasury. It's main purpose was for political purposes for the upcoming campaign.

Which is different from Sen. Brown's bill, how?

- Dan G

[matthewcline 0]

Quote

Quote

...the Buffet Rule would do very little to increase revenues to the Treasury. It's main purpose was for political purposes for the upcoming campaign.

Which is different from Sen. Brown's bill, how?

One has a "D" the other an "R"? What did I win? oh, the Gold medal "DUH" award huh? Oh well.

Matt

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

...the Buffet Rule would do very little to increase revenues to the Treasury. It's main purpose was for political purposes for the upcoming campaign.

Which is different from Sen. Brown's bill, how?

Do you even read posts before you respond?

The Buffet Rule is pure political class warfare.

Browns bill actually addresses a problem with those who like to vote on bills like the Buffet Rule but don't like to pay their own income taxes. It also sets up for collection, those who are required to file disclosures.

If we would start actually using the tax collection resources we already have instead of constantly looking for new ways to wage class envy, then we might be able to pay for things politicians like to spend money on.

[DanG 1]

Quote

Browns bill actually addresses a problem with those who like to vote on bills like the Buffet Rule but don't like to pay their own income taxes. It also sets up for collection, those who are required to file disclosures.

Right, Brown's bill adds additional reporting and monitoring requirements, and will likely cost more to implement than it collects. Very smart, and totally apolitical.

- Dan G

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

...the Buffet Rule would do very little to increase revenues to the Treasury. It's main purpose was for political purposes for the upcoming campaign.

Which is different from Sen. Brown's bill, how?

it targets law violators, for starters. Geither should never have been allowed to head Treasury. When the head of the income collection agency isn't doing it himself, it sets a lousy example. Same with members of Congress.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Quote

...the Buffet Rule would do very little to increase revenues to the Treasury. It's main purpose was for political purposes for the upcoming campaign.

Which is different from Sen. Brown's bill, how?

Do you even read posts before you respond?

The Buffet Rule is pure political class warfare.

The Josef Goebbels debate tactic, accuse your opponent of what you do yourself.

The class warfare is taxing the very rich at a rate lower than the middle class. The Buffett rule is an attempt to fix that. It's a Band-Aid fix, but a fix nonetheless.

...

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

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The class warfare is taxing the very rich at a rate lower than the middle class. The Buffett rule is an attempt to fix that. It's a Band-Aid fix, but a fix nonetheless.

The first statement is [sort of] correct. But the second statement is not.

The population of millionaire (income) earners is paying right at the 30% level, well above the middle class. You have to go to a much more exclusive definition of "very rich" along with a fairly restrictive definition of [lower] middle class, in order to get the discrepancy.