1. Post #1
    MBB

    February 2012
    356 Posts
    Obama’s solution to health care costs? Raising taxes on tanning salons and medical device manufacturers.

    Obama’s solution to high gas prices? Raising taxes on oil companies.

    Obama’s solution to a struggling economy? Raising taxes on investors through the “Buffett Rule.”

    Notice a pattern here?

    Of course, even if the “Buffett Rule” were enacted, the amount of revenue to the government is miniscule compared to both the annual deficit and our accumulated debt.

    Savings from instituting the “Buffett Rule” in one year, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation: $5.1 billion.

    By 2022, the committee estimates the Buffett Rule could be generating an additional $7 billion in revenue.

    Savings from cutting federal spending from its fiscal 2011 level by one percent: $33.6 billion.

    In other words, asking every federal agency and department to get by with 99 percent of what it received last year would generate six times the savings of the Buffett Rule.
    Source
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Informative Informative x 10Late Late x 1 (list)

  2. Post #2
    Gold Member
    Buck.'s Avatar
    February 2007
    2,170 Posts
    Doesn't take a genius to figure this one out.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Agree Agree x 2Disagree Disagree x 1Informative Informative x 1 (list)

  3. Post #3
    Tuba Player Extraordinaire
    Funcoot's Avatar
    January 2006
    3,592 Posts
    You're not going to be able to put a dent in the deficit without raising taxes. You would have to cut nearly everything to reduce the deficit.

    That isn't to say cuts aren't beneficial. We're going through hard times, taxes are going to go up, and certain cuts need to be made. People need to stop fishing for excuses as to why we don't need to raise taxes on the upper tiers. I don't think they should be astronomical, but there is no reason for them to be as low as they are at times like this.


    Republicans are very guilty of being misleading on this subject. Even my economics professor who was an extreme conservative who wanted to impeach Obama says that if someone tells you they're going to reduce the national debt and cut taxes, they're a damned liar. And you can't reduce the national debt without eliminating the budget deficit.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 33Winner Winner x 1 (list)

  4. Post #4
    Don't lose your way
    Limed00d's Avatar
    February 2011
    5,723 Posts
    The word Buffett Rule makes me hungry for some reason.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Norway Show Events Funny Funny x 22Agree Agree x 4 (list)

  5. Post #5
    Gold Member
    Pace.'s Avatar
    September 2010
    1,355 Posts
    thats cause it sounds like buffet bro
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Disagree Disagree x 4Informative Informative x 2Useful Useful x 1 (list)

  6. Post #6
    What about a compromise where we both cut spending and raise taxes? I say cut defense expenditures.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Mac Denmark Show Events Agree Agree x 3 (list)

  7. Post #7
    I'M A SHAAARK!
    Lambeth's Avatar
    October 2009
    14,832 Posts
    You know who controls spending? Congress.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Canada Show Events Informative Informative x 1Winner Winner x 1Zing Zing x 1 (list)

  8. Post #8
    Tuba Player Extraordinaire
    Funcoot's Avatar
    January 2006
    3,592 Posts
    What about a compromise where we both cut spending and raise taxes? I say cut defense expenditures.
    If we cut defense, we aren't going to do it responsibly. Our soldiers paychecks and benefits are going to be the first targets, which simply isn't right. So generally, I'm not a big fan of politicians talking about cutting our defense budget, because I know it's not going to be in the right areas.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 6Informative Informative x 1 (list)

  9. Post #9
    Governor Goblin's Avatar
    December 2011
    2,782 Posts
    This article isn't really brining up an issue as it is pointing out the obvious and not proposing any reasonable solution.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows Vista Canada Show Events Agree Agree x 6 (list)

  10. Post #10
    Tuba Player Extraordinaire
    Funcoot's Avatar
    January 2006
    3,592 Posts
    Also, I don't like to downplay the national debt, because it is serious, but a lot of people get the misconception that we owe all of our debt to foreign countries, which simply isn't the case. America owes most of its debt to American citizens.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 5 (list)

  11. Post #11
    Sexist
    person11's Avatar
    July 2006
    6,913 Posts
    Everyone knows the Buffet rule will not solve the debt problem. That is not the point. The point is keeping the rich from getting away with paying less relative taxes than poorer people. It is about income redistribution and justice.

    Edited:

    Also, I don't like to downplay the national debt, because it is serious, but a lot of people get the misconception that we owe all of our debt to foreign countries, which simply isn't the case. America owes most of its debt to American citizens.
    Massive Debt is not even a problem until people lose faith in the institution holding the debt.

    Greece, Italy, Spain, Ireland, and Portugal are all having crises because the world is on the brink of losing all faith in the Governments' ability to pay anyone back.

    People have misgivings about the US Government, but they at least know that the USA is perfectly capable of paying back its debt over the long term, and will be around for a long time.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Mac United States Show Events

  12. Post #12
    MBB

    February 2012
    356 Posts
    Everyone knows the Buffet rule will not solve the debt problem. That is not the point. The point is keeping the rich from getting away with paying less relative taxes than poorer people. It is about income redistribution and justice.
    So it's a pointless symbolic move, essentially punishing the rich.

    Whatever floats your boat man, but I'm pretty sure that a couple months ago you guys were all championing it as the solution to all our problems.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete United States Show Events Dumb Dumb x 1Zing Zing x 1Funny Funny x 1 (list)

  13. Post #13
    Sexist
    person11's Avatar
    July 2006
    6,913 Posts
    So it's a pointless symbolic move, essentially punishing the rich.

    Whatever floats your boat man, but I'm pretty sure that a couple months ago you were all championing it as the solution to all our problems.

    I never said it was a solution.

    Getting the rich to pay their fair share (I am actually using those words, yes) is simply returning to normality, and adding a bit of extra income as well. There is no downside. This cannot possibly punish the rich, they will shrug this off.

    Edited:

    I hate how people argue against this modest tax increase because they say it will not raise a ton of funds. It really is not the point. The point is to have a tax system that makes sense.

    I would be ok with the rich paying what they pay now if we reduced the tax rate for everyone else.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Mac United States Show Events Agree Agree x 5 (list)

  14. Post #14
    MBB

    February 2012
    356 Posts
    I never said it was a solution.

    Getting the rich to pay their fair share (I am actually using those words, yes) is simply returning to normality, and adding a bit of extra income as well. There is no downside. This cannot possibly punish the rich, they will shrug this off.
    I don't understand why we need to punish investors any more than we already do. Ideally investments shouldn't even be taxed because they are already taxed when the money originally reaches the investor and to tax the returns would be taxing the same money twice.

    Edited:

    You seem to think that wealthy people pay less in taxes than the rest of people. This is false, the top income tax bracket is already at 38%. The Buffet Rule raises the capital gains tax rate, which applies to all investors, no matter how rich they are.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete United States Show Events Dumb Dumb x 5Funny Funny x 1 (list)

  15. Post #15
    Sexist
    person11's Avatar
    July 2006
    6,913 Posts
    I don't understand why we need to punish investors any more than we already do. Ideally investments shouldn't even be taxed because they are already taxed when the money originally reaches the investor and to tax the returns would be taxing the same money twice.
    Taxes are not fucking punishments. Taxes are payments to the government to keep it running.

    The most effective and moral way to tax people is to tax rich people more than anyone else, which is not how things are done right now. The Buffet rule would help with that.

    Also, the posts you make sound frighteningly Reaganomics/trickle-down -ish.

    You realize that entire ideal is bullshit, right?

    Edited:

    Even if trickle down economics worked, it is essentially a glorified way of saying that the poor can eat the table scraps of the rich.

    Taxing the rich slightly more (and still much less than most other Western Nations) will not harm their ability to invest in things or "create jobs".
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Mac United States Show Events Agree Agree x 2 (list)

  16. Post #16
    I don't understand why we need to punish investors any more than we already do. Ideally investments shouldn't even be taxed because they are already taxed when the money originally reaches the investor and to tax the returns would be taxing the same money twice.

    Edited:

    You seem to think that wealthy people pay less in taxes than the rest of people. This is false, the top income tax bracket is already at 38%. The Buffet Rule raises the capital gains tax rate, which applies to all investors, no matter how rich they are.
    http://www.american.com/archive/2007...pays-the-taxes
    http://www.kiplinger.com/features/ar...stacks-up.html
    http://visualizingeconomics.com/2010...lass-and-rich/
    http://www.theburningplatform.com/?p=14698
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_971388.html
    http://www.joshuakennon.com/how-much...united-states/
    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...47-503544.html
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Zing Zing x 2 (list)

  17. Post #17
    MBB

    February 2012
    356 Posts
    Taxes are not fucking punishments. Taxes are payments to the government to keep it running.

    The most effective and moral way to tax people is to tax rich people more than anyone else, which is not how things are done right now. The Buffet rule would help with that.

    Also, the posts you make sound frighteningly Reaganomics/trickle-down -ish.

    You realize that entire ideal is bullshit, right?

    Edited:

    Even if trickle down economics worked, it is essentially a glorified way of saying that the poor can eat the table scraps of the rich.

    Taxing the rich slightly more (and still much less than most other Western Nations) will not harm their ability to invest in things or "create jobs".
    Wow, just wow. I support progressive taxation, calm down. What I don't support is a meaningless increase in the capital gains rate that will only hurt investment.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete United States Show Events

  18. Post #18
    Sexist
    person11's Avatar
    July 2006
    6,913 Posts
    Stop acting like taxing the rich slightly more is some sort of morally abhorrent thing to do. If you hate taxes so much, why not try getting them cut for the poor, who barely have a voice in this country? Why defend the rich? I am not saying that all rich people are evil or something, far from that. I am just saying that the rich are not victims of anything here, and certainly won't be, even if the Buffet rule passes.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Mac United States Show Events Agree Agree x 7 (list)

  19. Post #19
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete United States Show Events Disagree Disagree x 1 (list)

  20. Post #20
    Sexist
    person11's Avatar
    July 2006
    6,913 Posts
    Wow, just wow. I support progressive taxation, calm down. What I don't support is a meaningless increase in the capital gains rate that will only hurt investment.
    In that light, I have not seen any proof that raising taxes slightly will hurt investment.

    Progressive taxation dictates that the rich should pay a higher relative tax rate than everyone else. That is not the case right now. The Buffet rule takes care of that.

    I can't be any more clear on that.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Mac United States Show Events

  21. Post #21
    MBB

    February 2012
    356 Posts
    Stop acting like taxing the rich slightly more is some sort of morally abhorrent thing to do. If you hate taxes so much, why not try getting them cut for the poor, who barely have a voice in this country? Why defend the rich? I am not saying that all rich people are evil or something, far from that. I am just saying that the rich are not victims of anything here, and certainly won't be, even if the Buffet rule passes.
    The poor don't even pay taxes, that's why I'm not fighting for lower taxes on them. 48% of Americans don't pay income taxes. I support keeping taxation the way it is for the upper and lower classes and then dropping the rate for the middle class.

    Edited:

    In that light, I have not seen any proof that raising taxes slightly will hurt investment.

    Progressive taxation dictates that the rich should pay a higher relative tax rate than everyone else. That is not the case right now. The Buffet rule takes care of that.

    I can't be any more clear on that.
    The Buffet Rule is about capital gains though, which is the same rate for everyone. You're raising taxes on all investments, including the lower class' investments.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete United States Show Events

  22. Post #22
    I'M A SHAAARK!
    Lambeth's Avatar
    October 2009
    14,832 Posts
    The reality is that the bush tax cats have been around for years and they haven't actually grown the economy. Where are those investors investing? Probably overseas.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Canada Show Events Agree Agree x 8Winner Winner x 1 (list)

  23. Post #23
    Sexist
    person11's Avatar
    July 2006
    6,913 Posts
    The poor don't even pay taxes, that's why I'm not fighting for lower taxes on them. 48% of Americans don't pay income taxes. I support keeping taxation the way it is for the upper and lower classes and then dropping the rate for the middle class.
    The poorest people who pay taxes*

    And there are only two sensible options to keep a good progressive taxation system:

    1: Raise taxes on the rich so that they have the highest relative tax rate on all total earnings, including capital gains.
    2. Lower taxes for everyone else, so that the rich pay the same amount, but more than anyone else.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Mac United States Show Events

  24. Post #24
    MBB

    February 2012
    356 Posts
    The reality is that the bush tax cats have been around for years and they haven't actually grown the economy. Where are those investors investing? Probably overseas.
    Bush tax cuts were on income not capital gains
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete United States Show Events

  25. Post #25
    Gold Member
    Furioso's Avatar
    October 2006
    4,637 Posts
    why not

    you know

    raising taxes proportionally as well as cutting spending

    but fuck compromise
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 2 (list)

  26. Post #26
    Sexist
    person11's Avatar
    July 2006
    6,913 Posts
    The theory behind the tax cuts was still the same flawed trickledown ideal: with extra money, the rich would invest more.

    This is not necessarily true. Even if they did invest more, it probably did not result in any raising up of the poor.

    Edited:

    why not

    you know

    raising taxes proportionally as well as cutting spending

    but fuck compromise
    Well, the Obama administration also wants to cut spending on certain things, but all we hear about is this Buffet rule.

    I am hungry for some sort of buffet now
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Mac United States Show Events Agree Agree x 2 (list)

  27. Post #27
    I'M A SHAAARK!
    Lambeth's Avatar
    October 2009
    14,832 Posts
    why not

    you know

    raising taxes proportionally as well as cutting spending

    but fuck compromise
    Obama has been cutting spending. Congress controls most of the budget though.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Canada Show Events Agree Agree x 2 (list)

  28. Post #28
    Awesome Member
    Dennab
    January 2006
    40,352 Posts
    Obama’s solution to health care costs? Raising taxes on tanning salons and medical device manufacturers.
    oh come on the National Review isn't even trying anymore.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 8 (list)

  29. Post #29
    Proudly supporting the JIDF
    Dennab
    July 2010
    22,111 Posts
    Curses, I won't be able to afford that extra servant anymore.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Funny Funny x 1 (list)

  30. Post #30
    Couldn't he reduce military funding? I mean christ.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows XP United Kingdom Show Events

  31. Post #31
    VengfulSoldier's Avatar
    March 2011
    1,744 Posts
    oh come on the National Review isn't even trying anymore.
    Since when did they try?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  32. Post #32
    Thoughtless's Avatar
    September 2011
    689 Posts
    thats cause it sounds like buffet bro
    No it's because of Buffett-Einstein sandwiches, they are sandwiches that have a half on on each side of a wormhole, meaning you can have the same sandwich in two different times and places.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows Vista United Kingdom Show Events Funny Funny x 1 (list)

  33. Post #33
    Gold Member
    Ericson666's Avatar
    May 2011
    3,418 Posts
    Couldn't he reduce military funding? I mean christ.
    Okay, so this is a totally fucking awesome robot thing that kills shit. It's costs $200 million for one.

    *next year*

    No, that's way out of date. We have this new military robot that costs $400 mil a pop
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete United States Show Events

  34. Post #34
    Gold Member
    Raidyr's Avatar
    February 2007
    23,595 Posts
    Nation Review, obviously Conservative, is missing the long picture here. The Buffett rule isn't about reducing national debt on it's own, it's about equalizing the wealth and enabling the lower/middle classes to spend money to get out of a recession.
    So it's a pointless symbolic move, essentially punishing the rich.

    Whatever floats your boat man, but I'm pretty sure that a couple months ago you guys were all championing it as the solution to all our problems.
    "Punishing" the rich by making them pay their fair share. There's no reason why people making over $1 million a year should be paying less taxes than middle and lower income households. That's not progressive at all.

    For the record I hadn't even heard of the Buffet rule before today. No one on the left nor on Facepunch has extolled it as the "solution to all our problems".

    Wow, just wow. I support progressive taxation, calm down. What I don't support is a meaningless increase in the capital gains rate that will only hurt investment.
    It will hurt investment? It was higher during the Clinton years when we had economic prosperity.

    The poor don't even pay taxes, that's why I'm not fighting for lower taxes on them. 48% of Americans don't pay income taxes. I support keeping taxation the way it is for the upper and lower classes and then dropping the rate for the middle class.

    Edited:



    The Buffet Rule is about capital gains though, which is the same rate for everyone. You're raising taxes on all investments, including the lower class' investments.
    The poor don't even pay taxes, that's why I'm not fighting for lower taxes on them. 48% of Americans don't pay income taxes. I support keeping taxation the way it is for the upper and lower classes and then dropping the rate for the middle class.
    The working poor don't pay federal income taxes but they pay on average higher FICA and sales tax than the rich.
    This "48% of Americans are freeloaders" crap coming from the far right was proven to be nothing but bullshit wordplay months ago please stop parroting it.


    The Buffet Rule is about capital gains though, which is the same rate for everyone. You're raising taxes on all investments, including the lower class' investments.
    You seem to think that wealthy people pay less in taxes than the rest of people. This is false, the top income tax bracket is already at 38%. The Buffet Rule raises the capital gains tax rate, which applies to all investors, no matter how rich they are.
    Nope, it's only on investors who make $1 million a year. And most of these investors (81%) make their income from capital gains, not income taxes.

    I don't understand why we need to punish investors any more than we already do. Ideally investments shouldn't even be taxed because they are already taxed when the money originally reaches the investor and to tax the returns would be taxing the same money twice.
    Haha we punish investors? How? With our significantly less market regulation? With less taxes?

    Edited:

    You're not going to be able to put a dent in the deficit without raising taxes. You would have to cut nearly everything to reduce the deficit.

    That isn't to say cuts aren't beneficial. We're going through hard times, taxes are going to go up, and certain cuts need to be made. People need to stop fishing for excuses as to why we don't need to raise taxes on the upper tiers. I don't think they should be astronomical, but there is no reason for them to be as low as they are at times like this.


    Republicans are very guilty of being misleading on this subject. Even my economics professor who was an extreme conservative who wanted to impeach Obama says that if someone tells you they're going to reduce the national debt and cut taxes, they're a damned liar. And you can't reduce the national debt without eliminating the budget deficit.
    Exactly right. I'm glad someone here understands basic economics, because it sure ain't OP.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows Vista United States Show Events Winner Winner x 2Agree Agree x 1Dumb Dumb x 1 (list)

  35. Post #35
    I once worked at a sperm bank, the food was terrible
    The Baconator's Avatar
    April 2011
    9,103 Posts
    In other words, asking every federal agency and department to get by with 99 percent of what it received last year would generate six times the savings of the Buffett Rule.
    This is so much easier said than done. There's a reason why agencies and departments of government are hated so much, they are seemingly impossible to downsize or abolish. They are wasteful and are more loyal to themselves than the country or their political party. Heck a political science class I took even had an entire chapter/section on departments/agencies, and how difficult they are to deal with.

    The ironic part of this is the fact that that conservative site brought this up, when Bush made yet another (very criticized) department, the Department of Homeland Security, something even some guy on the same station as Rush Limbaugh heavily criticized and had disdain for.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 8 United States Show Events

  36. Post #36
    Gold Member
    GoDong-DK's Avatar
    November 2009
    14,497 Posts
    I don't see how higher gas prices is an overall problem. The raising prices is just something that shows how the US hasn't built up a working public transit system well enough. I feel sad for people relying on their car without a lot of money, but the US should make themselves less dependable on what's going on in the middle east.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Denmark Show Events

  37. Post #37
    Gold Member
    Earthen's Avatar
    February 2008
    1,766 Posts
    You're not going to be able to put a dent in the deficit without raising taxes. You would have to cut nearly everything to reduce the deficit.

    That isn't to say cuts aren't beneficial. We're going through hard times, taxes are going to go up, and certain cuts need to be made. People need to stop fishing for excuses as to why we don't need to raise taxes on the upper tiers. I don't think they should be astronomical, but there is no reason for them to be as low as they are at times like this.


    Republicans are very guilty of being misleading on this subject. Even my economics professor who was an extreme conservative who wanted to impeach Obama says that if someone tells you they're going to reduce the national debt and cut taxes, they're a damned liar. And you can't reduce the national debt without eliminating the budget deficit.
    The thing is that we need to increase federal spending in an economic recession. The government needs to get the people money so they can spend it. When that happens, the economy can pick up again. Austerity measures never work and have never worked. The government needs to ensure that people get jobs, then when the economy picks up again, the government can relax a bit.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Agree Agree x 2Disagree Disagree x 1 (list)

  38. Post #38
    Tuba Player Extraordinaire
    Funcoot's Avatar
    January 2006
    3,592 Posts
    The thing is that we need to increase federal spending in an economic recession. The government needs to get the people money so they can spend it. When that happens, the economy can pick up again. Austerity measures never work and have never worked. The government needs to ensure that people get jobs, then when the economy picks up again, the government can relax a bit.
    The problem is, stimulus packages cost money and they only shrink unemployment rates for a very short period of time. In addition, most jobs generated by the Federal government at times like these do not last more than a year, as funding is gradually withdrawn and cities run out of work.

    As much as some FP members would hate to admit it, our economy does depend on the success of the private sector. If the private sector is crumbling, things are going to go to shit, no matter what the government does.

    Am I saying the Federal government shouldn't create some jobs? No. I'm just saying we can't depend on the Federal government at the end of the day to give us a job. They should honestly spend more time fixing the market rather than creating federal jobs that won't be there a year from now, but that is just my opinion.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 2 (list)