Obama intensifies push for ‘Buffett Rule’

[Ridgerunner]

What else is he going to run on?Class envy is the ace card for the left…

But does envy even really describe it? Envy is a desire to have what another has. It might lead to theft, it might motivate one to make more money, it might lead one to imitate it in some way.

But this proposal doesn’t get anybody anything. Probably the additional revenue wouldn’t even cover the cost of enforcing it; to ensure that the rich haven’t somehow found a way around it, to litigate disputed interpretations of it, and so on. Nobody will get a farthing out of it. And even Obama admits that it probably would be harmful economically.

It’s not even greed. It’s just plain hate; the sort of thing that causes a man to slash his neighbor’s new tires just because the neighbor has them. No gain to it other than simply to satisfy a lust to harm.

It’s the same kind of thought process that can cause a politician to attempt to decree who the Lutheran Church can consider “ministers” and who it cannot. It’s the same kind of thought process that can cause a politician to go out of his way to force Catholic institutions to financially support contraception and abortion. It’s just hate.

There might be lower motivations the human mind can have, but it’s hard to think of any. And Obama is very good at appealing to the worst in human beings. Very good at it.

 

[Jerry_Miah]

But does envy even really describe it? Envy is a desire to have what another has. It might lead to theft, it might motivate one to make more money, it might lead one to imitate it in some way.

But this proposal doesn’t get anybody anything. Probably the additional revenue wouldn’t even cover the cost of enforcing it; to ensure that the rich haven’t somehow found a way around it, to litigate disputed interpretations of it, and so on. Nobody will get a farthing out of it. And even Obama admits that it probably would be harmful economically.

It’s not even greed. It’s just plain hate; the sort of thing that causes a man to slash his neighbor’s new tires just because the neighbor has them. No gain to it other than simply to satisfy a lust to harm.

It’s the same kind of thought process that can cause a politician to attempt to decree who the Lutheran Church can consider “ministers” and who it cannot. It’s the same kind of thought process that can cause a politician to go out of his way to force Catholic institutions to financially support contraception and abortion. It’s just hate.

There might be lower motivations the human mind can have, but it’s hard to think of any. And Obama is very good at appealing to the worst in human beings. Very good at it.

So Warren Buffett was motivated by greed and hate when he proposed that rich people like himself are not paying their fair share of taxes? Interesting. Buffett would even slash tires, he’s so motivated by the “lust to harm”. Really fascinating. It doesn’t really make sense to me, but it is a remarkable claim.
Edited to be more charitable.

 

[Ridgerunner]

So Warren Buffett was motivated by greed and hate when he proposed that rich people like himself are not paying their fair share of taxes? Interesting. Buffett would even slash tires, he’s so motivated by the “lust to harm”. Really fascinating. With respect, it’s total nonsense, but it is a remarkable way to look at things.

Oh, I doubt all that about Buffett, and I never said it about him. Seems to me he’s just one more liberal rich guy who doesn’t mind kicking down the ladder by which he ascended. He knows, too, that increasing taxes on high earners won’t affect him particularly because super-wealthy people can control their income. Besides, when he gave huge sums to the Gates Foundation, he got deduction carry-forwards that will probably last him the rest of his life no matter what income he decides to take. How much does the IRS says his company owes in back taxes? Wasn’t it a billion dollars? I don’t even know that he is motivated by greed in all that. Maybe he just thinks it’s a good business move to use the billion while he litigates it. He probably really does care what happens to Berkshire Hathaway, and not just because it represents billions of dollars of his wealth. As it was with John D. Rockefeller, sometimes the main thing is winning the game. That’s an altogether different thing from hate.

Besides, as far as I know, Buffett doesn’t care one way or the other whether Catholic institutions are forced by government to violate their religious principles, or whether Lutherans can really decide who their “ministers” are. At least I have never seen where he has any position on such things. So, there really isn’t a lot more about Buffett that bespeaks free-standing malice.

No. Not all liberals are motivated by hate. Just some.

 

[mary_bobo]

But does envy even really describe it? Envy is a desire to have what another has. It might lead to theft, it might motivate one to make more money, it might lead one to imitate it in some way.

But this proposal doesn’t get anybody anything. Probably the additional revenue wouldn’t even cover the cost of enforcing it; to ensure that the rich haven’t somehow found a way around it, to litigate disputed interpretations of it, and so on. Nobody will get a farthing out of it. And even Obama admits that it probably would be harmful economically.

It’s not even greed. It’s just plain hate; the sort of thing that causes a man to slash his neighbor’s new tires just because the neighbor has them. No gain to it other than simply to satisfy a lust to harm.

It’s the same kind of thought process that can cause a politician to attempt to decree who the Lutheran Church can consider “ministers” and who it cannot. It’s the same kind of thought process that can cause a politician to go out of his way to force Catholic institutions to financially support contraception and abortion. It’s just hate.

There might be lower motivations the human mind can have, but it’s hard to think of any. And Obama is very good at appealing to the worst in human beings. Very good at it.

Once again, Ridge, you have hit the nail on the head. Congratulations!

 

[ComputerGeek25]

What are you talking about? Top marginal rate under Reagan was 50% for most of this term. It is now 35%. Of course, many of the extremely wealthy find ways to pay even less.

But the “poor” had a higher tax burden as well. Is that what you want as well?

 

[SamH]

So Warren Buffett was motivated by greed and hate when he proposed that rich people like himself are not paying their fair share of taxes? Interesting. Buffett would even slash tires, he’s so motivated by the “lust to harm”. Really fascinating. It doesn’t really make sense to me, but it is a remarkable claim.
Edited to be more charitable.

Yes. What better way to dodge his billion dollar tax bill than to kiss up to the man that can make it go away?

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Yes. What better way to dodge his billion dollar tax bill than to kiss up to the man that can make it go away?

What I find ironic about the whole Buffet thing is he can give away most of his money and still live better that most people. So, it’s easy for him to say “raise taxes.”

What about all the small business owners out there? Or people who work hard to make a good living? The issue I have with the “raise the taxes on the rich” arguments - no matter how well intentioned they may be - they could have unitended long term consequences.

 

[Ridgerunner]

What about all the small business owners out there? Or people who work hard to make a good living? The issue I have with the “raise the taxes on the rich” arguments - no matter how well intentioned they may be - they could have unitended long term consequences.

It’s simple. The radical left doesn’t think small business people or the average middle class high earner will vote for Obama anyway or contribute to Obama’s campaign. So they don’t care. The truly rich won’t pay it anyway and will “pay to play” with power for gain. So they don’t care about offending them either, because (like Buffett) it won’t affect them.

It’s like going after the Catholic organizations to force them to provide contraceptives, sterilizations and abortifacients. They know faithful Catholics won’t like it, but they figure faithful Catholics aren’t going to support Obama anyway. So they don’t care.

And they most assuredly don’t care about negative consequences to the economy. Obama has already said he knows there will be. He doesn’t care, because he figures (probably correctly) that he’ll gain more votes and financial support by inciting hatred and malice against “the rich”. It’s a more bland and socially acceptable version of blaming “the Jews” for every national ill in Germany long ago or in the Middle East today.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

It’s simple. The radical left doesn’t think small business people or the average middle class high earner will vote for Obama anyway or contribute to Obama’s campaign. So they don’t care. The truly rich won’t pay it anyway and will “pay to play” with power for gain. So they don’t care about offending them either, because (like Buffett) it won’t affect them.

It’s like going after the Catholic organizations to force them to provide contraceptives, sterilizations and abortifacients. They know faithful Catholics won’t like it, but they figure faithful Catholics aren’t going to support Obama anyway. So they don’t care.

And they most assuredly don’t care about negative consequences to the economy. Obama has already said he knows there will be. He doesn’t care, because he figures (probably correctly) that he’ll gain more votes and financial support by inciting hatred and malice against “the rich”. It’s a more bland and socially acceptable version of blaming “the Jews” for every national ill in Germany long ago or in the Middle East today.

I agree with your analysis.

Instead of actually building a society where people can get rich, he simply blames the rich and promises no strings attached welfare.

 

[Suudy]

Instead of actually building a society where people can get rich, he simply blames the rich and promises no strings attached welfare.

Bah. Don’t you get it? “Rich” is a relative term. There should be no “rich” people, since that implies someone has more than another. Rather, we should all be equally poor.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

And then there is the matter of the earned income tax credit, where 49% of our citizens who do not pay income taxes get a rebate. Now I ask you, is that fair?

Everyone who works and earns a paycheck pays income taxes but it can be returned in part or full because their income falls below the taxable wealth threshold. Its fair because the bottom 50% of income earners only possess 2% of the nation’s taxable wealth. Trickle-down economics is a quid-pro-quo arrangement for the top 50% which possesses 98% of the nation’s taxable wealth. They get tax cuts and, in exchange, they are expected to use that money to create jobs and disperse taxable wealth to increase the taxpayer base and offset the loss in revenue. If you want the bottom 50% to pay more in taxes then the top 50% will have to provide them with a means of earning taxable wealth. We’ve had these tax cuts in place for over 10 years now and, so far, the top 50% haven’t lived up to their end of the bargain. I ask you, is it fair that the top 50% have been using tax breaks intended for job creation to consolidate the nation’s within their own ranks instead?

 

[JMJSHJ]

Trickle-down economics is a quid-pro-quo arrangement for the top 50% which possesses 98% of the nation’s taxable wealth. They get tax cuts and, in exchange, they are expected to use that money to create jobs and disperse taxable wealth to increase the taxpayer base and offset the loss in revenue.

It is ridiculous for some people who belong in that top 50% threshold to use their net pay to create jobs for other people. Job creation belongs to owners/entrepreneurs. Since they make up a small percentage it is ridiculous to expect a teacher, engineer, or nurse (professions that are in the top 50%) to be expected to use their net pay to create jobs for others.

 

[estesbob]

How is returning the tax code to Reagan levels “class warfare”?

You will do much better in life if you avoid Michele Malkin’s parade of hate and deception.

That is not what the Buffet rule does-it basically doubles the capital gains tax on anyone who makes over 1 million dollars It will hurt immensely people who have spend a lifetime building up their business and suddenly have t\o pay twice as much on the proceeds.

 

[Jerry_Miah]

That is not what the Buffet rule does-it basically doubles the capital gains tax on anyone who makes over 1 million dollars It will hurt immensely people who have spend a lifetime building up their business and suddenly have t\o pay twice as much on the proceeds.

Yes, I was referring generally to raising the top tax rate to Reagan-era levels, not just the Buffett rule.

I doubt that it would hurt extremely wealthy person to pay more in taxes.

I am not even advocating tax hikes on the rich, I am saying stop giving them tax breaks, and just go back to the rate before the madness started and leave it there. 1980 or a compromise at 1985.

 

[estesbob]

Yes, I was referring generally to raising the top tax rate to Reagan-era levels, not just the Buffett rule.

I doubt that it would hurt extremely wealthy person to pay more in taxes.

I am not even advocating tax hikes on the rich, I am saying stop giving them tax breaks, and just go back to the rate before the madness started and leave it there. 1980 or a compromise at 1985.

The top rate is already higher than it was under reagan. the problem is when you go after the wealthy you hurt a substantial number of people who are wealthy for only a year-mainly people who sell off assets they have been building up for decades.

 

[scipio337]

The top rate is already higher than it was under reagan. the problem is when you go after the wealthy you hurt a substantial number of people who are wealthy for only a year-mainly people who sell off assets they have been building up for decades.

Uber-rightists at WaPo are calling out Obama and his Reagan exaggerations.

washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/president-obama-quoting-reagan-out-of-context/2012/04/11/gIQAaOsZBT_blog.html

 

[Jerry_Miah]

The top rate is already higher than it was under reagan.

What? Maybe you are referring to 1988, when it was 28%. But for all the other years, it was from 69% to 38%, and it was 50% in 1982-1986, all higher than the current 35%. So it was higher under Reagan and I think we should compromise and return it to the Reagan levels of the mid-1980s.

About Buffett, he said:

The “mega-rich” pay about 15 percent in taxes, while the middle class “fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot.”
…
As an example, Buffett said he paid an effective tax rate of 17.4 percent, while people who worked in his office made much less but paid higher effective tax rates of between 33 percent and 41 percent, averaging 36 percent.
…
So when it comes to Buffett’s statement, there are two categories: the rich and the really rich. And the evidence tends to point to the conclusion that the really rich pay less in taxes as a percentage of income then their merely well-to-do counterparts – if their income comes primarily from investments. **Overall, we rate Buffett’s statement True. **

 

[Ridgerunner]

Everyone who works and earns a paycheck pays income taxes but it can be returned in part or full because their income falls below the taxable wealth threshold.

No. The Earned Income Credit can (and usually does) pay the taxpayer more than he actually paid in. That was a Reagan enactment.

 

[Ridgerunner]

.

Instead of actually building a society where people can get rich, he simply blames the rich and promises no strings attached welfare.

Except, of course, that so far, all of his “welfare” has been to the middle class and the extremely wealthy. Nothing for the poor. Not enough poor voters…remember the Alinsky primer book? You can’t create a revolution with the poor in the U.S. because there are not enough of them. You have to convince (or cause) middle class people to consider themselves deprived, oppressed by the better off, and dependent on the government. And Obama was the acolyte of Alinsky. Alinsky created “Community Organizing” in Chicago, one recalls. Yes, and to whom did Alinsky dedicate his primer? Oh, who???

 

[scipio337]

Except, of course, that so far, all of his “welfare” has been to the middle class and the extremely wealthy. Nothing for the poor. Not enough poor voters…remember the Alinsky primer book? You can’t create a revolution with the poor in the U.S. because there are not enough of them. You have to convince (or cause) middle class people to consider themselves deprived, oppressed by the better off, and dependent on the government. And Obama was the acolyte of Alinsky. Alinsky created “Community Organizing” in Chicago, one recalls. Yes, and to whom did Alinsky dedicate his primer? Oh, who???

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/btb/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/church-lady.jpg