Obama intensifies push for ‘Buffett Rule’

[Ridgerunner]

Seems to me that before taking something from someone (in this case “the rich”) we need to ask ourselves what we hope to accomplish by doing it.

I think everyone agrees that it wouldn’t raise much in revenue, and Obama himself admits it would have negative effect. So it could be the overall effect would be negative to revenue. Obama said, though, that the objective is not revenue but “fairness”.

What does that really mean? “Fairness” is a subjective judgment in the mind of whoever is making the judgment. Fair relative to what? If it doesn’t increase revenue and might even decrease it, whose version of “fairness” are we to adopt, and on the basis of what?

To me, a negative revenue would be “unfairness” to me, even though I’m not a target of the tax, because it would tempt the administration to find other ways of taxing me or imposing even greater debts on my children and grandchildren. So to me it is grossly “unfair” to do that just to express in a tangible way one’s dislike of “the rich”, because there is no counterbalancing merit to it.

Frankly, I find little to recommend a tax whose sole purpose is to punish, and particularly if it punishes more people than the intended targets of leftist dislike.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Seems to me that before taking something from someone (in this case “the rich”) we need to ask ourselves what we hope to accomplish by doing it.

I think everyone agrees that it wouldn’t raise much in revenue, and Obama himself admits it would have negative effect. So it could be the overall effect would be negative to revenue. Obama said, though, that the objective is not revenue but “fairness”.

What does that really mean? “Fairness” is a subjective judgment in the mind of whoever is making the judgment. Fair relative to what? If it doesn’t increase revenue and might even decrease it, whose version of “fairness” are we to adopt, and on the basis of what?

To me, a negative revenue would be “unfairness” to me, even though I’m not a target of the tax, because it would tempt the administration to find other ways of taxing me or imposing even greater debts on my children and grandchildren. So to me it is grossly “unfair” to do that just to express in a tangible way one’s dislike of “the rich”, because there is no counterbalancing merit to it.

Frankly, I find little to recommend a tax whose sole purpose is to punish, and particularly if it punishes more people than the intended targets of leftist dislike.

Bravo!

 

[stinkcat_14]

As you state “if we want”.

And I think the answer for most people, democrats and republicans alike, is obvious.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

And I think the answer for most people, democrats and republicans alike, is obvious.

So we’ll have to raise taxes on everyone, including the 47% who do not currently pay any Federal Income tax.

 

[stevegravy]

Seems to me that before taking something from someone (in this case “the rich”) we need to ask ourselves what we hope to accomplish by doing it.

I think everyone agrees that it wouldn’t raise much in revenue, and Obama himself admits it would have negative effect. So it could be the overall effect would be negative to revenue. Obama said, though, that the objective is not revenue but “fairness”.

What does that really mean? “Fairness” is a subjective judgment in the mind of whoever is making the judgment. Fair relative to what? If it doesn’t increase revenue and might even decrease it, whose version of “fairness” are we to adopt, and on the basis of what?

To me, a negative revenue would be “unfairness” to me, even though I’m not a target of the tax, because it would tempt the administration to find other ways of taxing me or imposing even greater debts on my children and grandchildren. So to me it is grossly “unfair” to do that just to express in a tangible way one’s dislike of “the rich”, because there is no counterbalancing merit to it.

Frankly, I find little to recommend a tax whose sole purpose is to punish, and particularly if it punishes more people than the intended targets of leftist dislike.

So you’re saying the 3.2 billion a year isn’t really going to be 3.2 billion so instead of paying off the 2011 deficit in 400 years it may take longer?

Regarding fairness every American tax payer has a debt burden of 140,000 dollars what is unfair about a little more burden. Pick a number any number no number will be high enough for this Washington crowd.

 

[estesbob]

Seems to me that before taking something from someone (in this case “the rich”) we need to ask ourselves what we hope to accomplish by doing it.

I think everyone agrees that it wouldn’t raise much in revenue, and Obama himself admits it would have negative effect. So it could be the overall effect would be negative to revenue. Obama said, though, that the objective is not revenue but “fairness”.

What does that really mean? “Fairness” is a subjective judgment in the mind of whoever is making the judgment. Fair relative to what? If it doesn’t increase revenue and might even decrease it, whose version of “fairness” are we to adopt, and on the basis of what?

To me, a negative revenue would be “unfairness” to me, even though I’m not a target of the tax, because it would tempt the administration to find other ways of taxing me or imposing even greater debts on my children and grandchildren. So to me it is grossly “unfair” to do that just to express in a tangible way one’s dislike of “the rich”, because there is no counterbalancing merit to it.

Frankly, I find little to recommend a tax whose sole purpose is to punish, and particularly if it punishes more people than the intended targets of leftist dislike.

The Buffet rule is a disguised doubling of the Captial Gains rate for those making over 1 million dollars. We are already paying the price for this supidity as people dump their investments to lock in the 15% rate all the while driving the stock market down.

 

[He_Man]

Actually, in recent years Detroit has suffered from black flight. Is that racist too? If whites and blacks do exactly the same thing, then how could racism be a factor?

If the only race in Detroit is the race to get out, is that still racism?

 

[Pork_Roll]

Was it fair for the GOP to cut benefits to many middle class federal workers? Is it fair to raise taxes on the extremely wealthy? How can the GOP say yes to the first and no to the second?

 

[rlg94086]

…but less in percentage terms than people with lower incomes.

Nonsense.

 

[Balian]

Actually, the “Buffett Rule” is a step in the right direction. We’ll still have a long ways to go. But, we’ll finally be heading in the right direction.

I respectfully disagree. Actually it isn’t a step in the right direction. The facts are that only about half of Americans pay any tax at all. Personally I am retired and live on a modest pension. It is well less than 20,000 per year. But I am in the group that pays federal taxes every year. For too long the tax code has been used as a means of redistributing wealth and the Buffett Rule is yet another verse in that tired old song.

I have a friend, a single mother, with two children and helped her complete her tax return this year. She works and earned nearly twice my income but she qualifies for EIC so not only did she not pay any taxes she is getting a significant refund thanks to EIC. That is just ridiculous. It’s just another entitlement transfer payment. Why should retired people on modest fixed incomes be paying taxes to subsidize people who work? No, the Buffet Rule is not a step in the right direction. Just the latest example of how long overdue real tax policy reform in this country is.

 

[rlg94086]

The problem is that if we want the size of government we have now, we all will have to pay more in taxes. If we want to give highly subsidized health insurance to old people, if we want to pay able bodied old people not to work, if we want the government to pay for nursing home care for old people, then we all will have to pay more in taxes. This is something that neither democrats nor republicans seem to understand.

Agreed. We need to cut spending and/or raise taxes. Personally, I’m okay with both, but I think the first is more important. Broadening the tax base also needs to be done. Of course, we could just let all of the Bush tax cuts expire, but no one - Democrats nor Republicans - want that.

 

[He_Man]

Was it fair for the GOP to cut benefits to many middle class federal workers? Is it fair to raise taxes on the extremely wealthy? How can the GOP say yes to the first and no to the second?

Realistically, one side is not going to give if the other isn’t.

Raising taxes on anyone is generally a non-starter unless we cut way back on spending (social security, medicare/medicaid, defense are the three biggest pieces, but not necessarily the biggest wastes either). Look at the Dept of Education, EPA, Dept. of Energy for starters, IMO.

If taxes need to be higher because they are not high enough in terms of a “fair” number, I suppose that could be debated. Look at all incomes levels, look at changing the tax code, whatever.

Taxes should not be raised because the government needs more of my money to spend on a bloated budget that they have handled irresponsibly. How is that “fair?” That is not up for debate.

 

[stevegravy]

Was it fair for the GOP to cut benefits to many middle class federal workers? Is it fair to raise taxes on the extremely wealthy? How can the GOP say yes to the first and no to the second?

When did any fed workers pay package get cut?

 

[estesbob]

…but less in percentage terms than people with lower incomes.

How do you get less than 0 ?

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Was it fair for the GOP to cut benefits to many middle class federal workers? Is it fair to raise taxes on the extremely wealthy? How can the GOP say yes to the first and no to the second?

I think you are painting with a broad brush.

I don’t think all Republicans feel this way, and the Dems want to tax the rich more, without any correspoding budget cuts. In reality, both are needed and the Dems won’t budge.

 

[estesbob]

Was it fair for the GOP to cut benefits to many middle class federal workers? Is it fair to raise taxes on the extremely wealthy? How can the GOP say yes to the first and no to the second?

Where did they cut benefits? And since the Senate is controlled by Democarts h9w could the GOP have done anythung without Democrat support?

The top 25% of earners pay 87% of all federal income taxes. is that “Fair”

 

[LisaA]

White flight.

ATB

So you presume all the ills of Detroit result from whites not wanting to live in the same city as blacks? Why didn’t that happen in the South where the ratio of blacks is much higher?

No logic in your answer. Guess it’s not a serious attempt to respond
Lisa

 

[stinkcat_14]

Agreed. We need to cut spending and/or raise taxes. Personally, I’m okay with both, but I think the first is more important. Broadening the tax base also needs to be done. Of course, we could just let all of the Bush tax cuts expire, but no one - Democrats nor Republicans - want that.

I agree that our tax code seems to benefit those who have the better lobbiests, rather than encouraging sane economics. I was talking with a small business owner who is putting up a building on some commercial land he owns. If he were in agriculture, he could expense the whole building in the first year, because he is in another field he has to depreciate it. Who came up with such as silly tax law?

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Realistically, one side is not going to give if the other isn’t.

Raising taxes on anyone is generally a non-starter unless we cut way back on spending (social security, medicare/medicaid, defense are the three biggest pieces, but not necessarily the biggest wastes either). Look at the Dept of Education, EPA, Dept. of Energy for starters, IMO.

If taxes need to be higher because they are not high enough in terms of a “fair” number, I suppose that could be debated. Look at all incomes levels, look at changing the tax code, whatever.

Taxes should not be raised because the government needs more of my money to spend on a bloated budget that they have handled irresponsibly. How is that “fair?” That is not up for debate.

Many hard working folk in the private sector have gone years without raises and had benefits cut.

Yet you want to keep the status quo for goverment workers, who depend on tax revenues of the middle class in the private sector.

How is that “fair” as well?

 

[estesbob]

So you presume all the ills of Detroit result from whites not wanting to live in the same city as blacks? Why didn’t that happen in the South where the ratio of blacks is much higher?

No logic in your answer. Guess it’s not a serious attempt to respond
Lisa

The lack of logic is blameing people for fleeing high crime and substandard schools-regardless of their race.