Obama intensifies push for ‘Buffett Rule’

[rlg94086]

Some people think it is unfair that some people pay zero income tax. But is that really any less fair than Warren Buffett avoiding capital gains tax by giving away his stock? I mean how do we tell what is fair or unfair?

How is the “Buffett Rule” going to change that? Also, I understand that what it will do is cause many of those affected to sell enough of their stocks ahead of time and reinvest them in the non-taxable municipal and federal bonds. Is that “fair?”

Maybe Obama should just pull a Mugabe or Chavez and confiscate property from these greedy pigs. Maybe that would be “fair.”

 

[Mickey_Finn]

You are ambiguous here. Do you mean that the goal of the people leaving was to somehow force Detroit into a particular fate?

Or that the goal of providing safe housing, clean air and perhaps something more than a postage stamp backyard for their families was a bad thing?

I suspect you simply lack the cultural background to understand. That, our your just playing games.

ATB

 

[Mickey_Finn]

You are right again, it is Detroit’s problem. That what freedom and self-reliance means they make their own bed they get to lay in it.

Why don’t you strike up a conversation with Brendan.

ATB

 

[stinkcat_14]

How is the “Buffett Rule” going to change that? Also, I understand that what it will do is cause many of those affected to sell enough of their stocks ahead of time and reinvest them in the non-taxable municipal and federal bonds. Is that “fair?”

Maybe Obama should just pull a Mugabe or Chavez and confiscate property from these greedy pigs. Maybe that would be “fair.”

The Buffett rule is not going to change any of this. Nor, did I argue that the Buffett rule is desirable in any way. What I was just doing was pointing out that there are some who argue that it is unfair that some pay zero income tax and then criticize others for saying that it is unfair that Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.

 

[stevegravy]

How is the “Buffett Rule” going to change that? Also, I understand that what it will do is cause many of those affected to sell enough of their stocks ahead of time and reinvest them in the non-taxable municipal and federal bonds. Is that “fair?”

Maybe Obama should just pull a Mugabe or Chavez and confiscate property from these greedy pigs. Maybe that would be “fair.”

I do not believe anyone can continue to question dear leaders role in trying to close the 2011 deficit. This Buffet rule will only require 400 years give or take to accomplish that. What is not to love.

 

[Ridgerunner]

A lot of words there. I agree that the rules that govern SSI, and Medicaid should be revised. I liked that the Cash for Clunkers money was taxed. I didn’t like that it detroyed a lot of used cars that had many useful years ahead of them. I feel sorry for any person who took advantage of the program and bought a Hyundai. Then foolishly parked within range of my Trucks heavy doors.

ATB

I’ll try to use fewer words. With any luck, I might succeed.
Cash for Clunkers money was not “taxed”. It was a tax credit given to people who could buy brand new cars; in other words, the middle middle and upper middle class.

Seems to me, and perhaps you agree, that when it comes to giving transfer benefits to people, the very most needy should be served first, decently and perhaps exclusively. Unfortunately, that’s not how it’s working. Perhaps you agree with me that both SSR and Medicare should be means tested. If anyone thinks it’s reasonable to “tax millionaires”, why on earth does it make sense to hand them the earnings of working families? If the nation is rapidly approaching a point at which it can pay for neither, isn’t that the reasonable thing to do?

Possibly you would also agree with me that middle class welfare should not be expanded, but rather contracted if the nation cannot pay for it. Possibly you would also agree that handing money out to “too big to fails” is not reasonable, since someone would always pick them up in bankruptcy, and particularly if the handouts are to millionaire political cronies of the powerful. Would you agree with those propositions?

You surely aren’t saying you deliberately bang your truck doors against peoples’ Hyundais are you?

 

[rlg94086]

I do not believe anyone can continue to question dear leaders role in trying to close the 2011 deficit. This Buffet rule will only require 400 years give or take to accomplish that. What is not to love.

…probably longer than that after the millionaires move their money around and the economy worsens.

 

[stinkcat_14]

…probably longer than that after the millionaires move their money around and the economy worsens.

Getting at the behavioral effects of tax laws can be tricky. I know one guy who has no debt, lives in a house he built himself and has a very profitable business. If the government annoys him enough, he might just sell and retire. On the other hand, I have another friend who makes the same amount of money, but if the government taxes him more he just has to work harder because he is up to his eyeballs in debt. So the government will get more money from one with higher taxes and less from the other.

 

[Alan55]

Barack Obama “won” a peace prize shortly after escalating one war and while continuing to fight another.

…and then proceeded to remove troops from Iraq, is preparing to do the same in Afghanistan, and generally reduced tensions between the U.S. and the Arab world that were inflamed by the Bush administration

 

[stinkcat_14]

…and then proceeded to remove troops from Iraq, is preparing to do the same in Afghanistan, and generally reduced tensions between the U.S. and the Arab world that were inflamed by the Bush administration

Bush and Obama have one thing in common, neither one paid for the wars they were involved in.

 

[LisaA]

I’ll try to use fewer words. With any luck, I might succeed.
Cash for Clunkers money was not “taxed”. It was a tax credit given to people who could buy brand new cars; in other words, the middle middle and upper middle class.

Seems to me, and perhaps you agree, that when it comes to giving transfer benefits to people, the very most needy should be served first, decently and perhaps exclusively. Unfortunately, that’s not how it’s working. Perhaps you agree with me that both SSR and Medicare should be means tested. If anyone thinks it’s reasonable to “tax millionaires”, why on earth does it make sense to hand them the earnings of working families? If the nation is rapidly approaching a point at which it can pay for neither, isn’t that the reasonable thing to do?

Possibly you would also agree with me that middle class welfare should not be expanded, but rather contracted if the nation cannot pay for it. Possibly you would also agree that handing money out to “too big to fails” is not reasonable, since someone would always pick them up in bankruptcy, and particularly if the handouts are to millionaire political cronies of the powerful. Would you agree with those propositions?

You surely aren’t saying you deliberately bang your truck doors against peoples’ Hyundais are you?

Greatly appreciate this and your previous post. Another bit of “welfare for the rich” is those idiotic BRIBES to get people to buy Chevy Volts. Not only did we have to rescue this company that as you also noted could have continued to operate in bankruptcy just like all of our airlines, we now must pay people to buy their apparently rather defective and not very cost efficient products. The cost of the Volt and the limitations (size and range) puts it completely out of the hands of the average American family. Why are we talking about increasing taxes on anyone when as you said, we could reduce or eliminate these fluff programs that don’t serve to benefit the country, eliminate the deficit or help out the working American and his family. Oh and there are all the ‘green energy’ loans that serve to pay back political cronies and prevent them from losing money on these very risky operations. Again welfare for the rich…but because Obama likes green energy, he conveniently ignores that his policies have done just that.

Also agree in total that SS and Medicare should be means tested and that is the Ryan approach that has been demonized by the Democrats. Again, welfare for those who need it, not those who do not. Although SS and Medicare are paid by the eventual recipients in most cases, this is IMO a relatively painless way to assist those who do not have sufficient means for medical care and expenses after retirement.

Lisa

 

[stevegravy]

…and then proceeded to remove troops from Iraq, is preparing to do the same in Afghanistan, and generally reduced tensions between the U.S. and the Arab world that were inflamed by the Bush administration

Is this the alternative universe as presented by Biden Comics?

 

[Pork_Roll]

Republicans are the party of the rich. Why else do they demand cuts on middle class federal worker compensation and cry big crocodile tears when the wealthiest 0.1% are taxed like the rest of the highest 1% wage earners? I thought we all had to sacrifice in this economic downturn?

 

[LisaA]

Is this the alternative universe as presented by Biden Comics?

HOLY COW…I agree this is from an alternative universe. The US’s stock in world opinion, particularly in the Middle East has declined since Obama took office. We have Egypt going Islamist, holding our citizens, and threatening to re-escalate tensions with Israel. We have Syria continuing to slaughter its citizens while Mrs Clinton parties in Columbia. We have Obama offering to sell out America to the Russians. We have NoKo off the reservation again and all we do is pull back food aid.

Look at any poll and the approval of America has declined…everywhere but Kenya I guess.

As to Afghanistan…I have been supportive of this endeavor but we are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory with the Obama plan.

Good heavens where do these wild ideas come from?
Lisa

 

[Ridgerunner]

Republicans are the party of the rich. Why else do they demand cuts on middle class federal worker compensation and cry big crocodile tears when the wealthiest 0.1% are taxed like the rest of the highest 1% wage earners? I thought we all had to sacrifice in this economic downturn?

Oh? Wall Streeters overwhelmingly backed Obama in 2008, and likely still do. They have done quite well during his administration.

 

[rlg94086]

Republicans are the party of the rich. Why else do they demand cuts on middle class federal worker compensation and cry big crocodile tears when the wealthiest 0.1% are taxed like the rest of the highest 1% wage earners? I thought we all had to sacrifice in this economic downturn?

We all will sacrifice with the Buffet Rule. Economists mostly agree that it will have an adverse effect. The politics of envy are bound to do that.

What’s the big deal about cuts to middle class federal workers? Personally, I think thousands of them should be laid off. Like a business, our bloated, federal bureaucracy is in the red and trimming is what you normally do in those times.

 

[mary_bobo]

The Buffett rule is not going to change any of this. Nor, did I argue that the Buffett rule is desirable in any way. What I was just doing was pointing out that there are some who argue that it is unfair that some pay zero income tax and then criticize others for saying that it is unfair that Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.

But we must remember that Buffett’s secretary is paying the tax on her income. Buffett is paying the tax on capital gains, which has already been taxed as income before that. Just how many time do our liberal friends think it is “fair” to tax the same money?

 

[SamH]

…and then proceeded to remove troops from Iraq, is preparing to do the same in Afghanistan, and generally reduced tensions between the U.S. and the Arab world that were inflamed by the Bush administration

So it Nobel committee did a preemptive strike?

There are more troops in Iraq today then there were in 2005.

As for reducing tensions in Arab world - have you read a news paper lately?

Bush policy is more highly thought of by Arabs than policy conducted by Barack Hussein Obama.

Today’s eye-opening Zogby poll for the Arab American Institute Foundation should be a wake-up call to the White House on its failing foreign policy. After two and a half years of bashing Israel, appeasing rogue regimes such as Iran and Syria, and promising a new era of relations with the Muslim world, Washington is now less popular in major Arab countries than it was when George W. Bush was in the White House.

Read more: americanthinker.com/blog/2011/07/obama_more_unpopular_in_the_middle_east_than_bush.html#ixzz1sKAjkhFI

 

[SamH]

But we must remember that Buffett’s secretary is paying the tax on her income. Buffett is paying the tax on capital gains, which has already been taxed as income before that. Just how many time do our liberal friends think it is “fair” to tax the same money?

Actually we don’t know what Buffet’s secretary is paying. She’s keeping her tax records under wrap (for some reason). It astounds me how people seem willing to trash the economy over a gimmic that promises nothing.

 

[Brendan]

I suspect you simply lack the cultural background to understand. That, our your just playing games.

ATB

I am not playing games. Your statement was ambiguous. Could you please elaborate?

If you feel that the goal of those who moved out in the late 60’s, early 70’s was to some how some negatively impact the city of Detroit, I would be interested in hearing more about it.

Specifically, how does one research that point, are their widespread testimonies given by new homeowners in, say, Warren or Southfield from that time period?