Obama intensifies push for ‘Buffett Rule’

[LisaA]

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.

Obama is using the Alinsky playbook. He knows there is anger in America. He is simply re-directing away from his own contribution and substituting the “evil rich” or the “evil oil companies.” Sadly this has been shown to work in the past. We can only hope the American people won’t get fooled again…

Of course another irony is that the one shining star in the Obama economy is the stock market. Just how do we think the Buffet Rule would impact the ONE element that has shown some growth? One of the reasons people are willing to buy and hold investments is the more favorable rates on sale of these investments if held for a specific term (IOW we don’t want to encourage churning and burning). Once you change the tax rate from 15% to 30% suddenly those investments’ price adjust downward.

You have to admit, Obama knows how to spin but instead of straw into gold, it’s gold into rot. Everything he has done has been detrimental to this country’s economy, its reputation and its citizens.

Lisa

 

[stinkcat_14]

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?

When were those capital gains tax previously?

 

[LisaA]

Actually, I think a reasonable person can look at a situation and see that something is unfair even when his ox is not being gored. For example, I benefit from a loophole that is not available to most taxpayers. Because of my job, which is teaching at a state university, I can contribute to both a 403b and a 457 plan and put up to $17k in each. In other words, because of an arbitrary difference between my job and most people’s and can deduct up to twice as much for retirement savings. Is that fair? I cannot see how such a silly thing could be fair, even though it benefits me.

You see this is where we differ completely. Why is it unfair that you are allowed to choose whether or not to take your salary (which I assume you believe you have earned) and either pay taxes now or defer the salary and pay taxes later? Presumably you were qualified and hired for a specific job that had certain elements in order to attract a person of your knowledge and skill. Thus you are rewarded for having marketable skills that your employer valued. Other employees and employers are free to negotiate the kind of compensation package that works for them. Freedom is a good thing!

The ONLY way you could consider this unfair is to presume that everyone should have the exact same wages and benefits. Now I doubt if you believe this and history has demonstrated that economies with wage and price controls are total failures. I don’t consider your compensation package a loophole any more than a union employee who has a pension or an employer who provides a 401k plan.

In the long term I think that while governments used to offer better benefits because salaries were lower, now as government salaries are comparable or in many cases HIGHER than the private sector, they will have to adjust other elements of compensation accordingly. But I see nothing at all wrong or unfair that you have access to a deferred compensation package.

But there is no way you can establish that your version of unfairness is morally superior to the person who claims that it is unfair that Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.

I don’t see anyone effecting moral superiorty here. The whole Warren Buffet Secretary myth is little more than bumper sticker mentality that fails to acknowledge the different types of income earned, the double taxation element of receiving investment income and the reality that no one has actually seen this secretary’s tax returns. This silly slogan has taken on a life of its own that differs greatly from reality.

Of course, many of the people who dodge taxes completely are older people, who might actually have to pay taxes if we forced them to take responsibility for their own health care and retirement spending.

Why do you use the term “dodge taxes?” People over 65 get an extra personal exemption, a concept that has been in place for decades. And why wouldn’t people be responsible for their own retirement income and healthcare? Is there anything wrong with personal responsibility?

It is not just democrats who are guilty of this kind of thinking. How many republicans get government benefits as well? I know many republicans who receive medicare and never think of it as wasteful government spending.

My point on Buffetts stock giving is that if let anyone claim anything is unfair then we cannot criticize anyone else for criticizing something as unfair.

You know I haven’t heard that anyone thinks Medicare IS wasteful spending. I think a lot of us believe that it could be means tested and therefore will be a more viable program for the future.

I think we all agree that there IS a lot of waste in government, a lot of ineffective programs, a lot of departments that have lost sight of their mission and should either get on track or be defunded. I don’t think most of us resent paying taxes so much as we resent what is being done with the money.

As to your final sentence, I can’t understand your point. So you are saying that if I think one element of tax law is unfair then I can’t argue against someone else’s sacred cows?

Lisa

 

[Mickey_Finn]

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?

I believe the “Cash for Clunkers” money was taxed as income. That’s what my neighbor, who used the program said.

Otherwise, what I agree with this election cycle. Is getting rid of republicans.

ATB

 

[stinkcat_14]

You see this is where we differ completely. Why is it unfair that you are allowed to choose whether or not to take your salary (which I assume you believe you have earned) and either pay taxes now or defer the salary and pay taxes later? Presumably you were qualified and hired for a specific job that had certain elements in order to attract a person of your knowledge and skill. Thus you are rewarded for having marketable skills that your employer valued. Other employees and employers are free to negotiate the kind of compensation package that works for them. Freedom is a good thing!

The ONLY way you could consider this unfair is to presume that everyone should have the exact same wages and benefits. Now I doubt if you believe this and history has demonstrated that economies with wage and price controls are total failures. I don’t consider your compensation package a loophole any more than a union employee who has a pension or an employer who provides a 401k plan.

I agree that freedom is a good thing, but our government law does not give everyone the same freedom. If you work for one kind of employer you can shelter $17k per year, work for another you can shelter $34k, all because of a minor difference. If everyone could do $34k, I would say there is no unfairness. But the problem is that our tax code is riddled with these little arbitrary rules that change the rules from one group to another.

In the long term I think that while governments used to offer better benefits because salaries were lower, now as government salaries are comparable or in many cases HIGHER than the private sector, they will have to adjust other elements of compensation accordingly. But I see nothing at all wrong or unfair that you have access to a deferred compensation package.

Government compensation has gone up considerably, but it does vary a bit. In the high demand fields (such as accounting and computer science) it is still low relative to the market.

I don’t see anyone effecting moral superiorty here. The whole Warren Buffet Secretary myth is little more than bumper sticker mentality that fails to acknowledge the different types of income earned, the double taxation element of receiving investment income and the reality that no one has actually seen this secretary’s tax returns. This silly slogan has taken on a life of its own that differs greatly from reality.

I think part of the problem is that we have a really bad tax system. If you were to design a truly stupid tax system, you couldn’t get much better than what we currently have. Except for the tax code pre-1986. But we are working our way back towards those good old days.

Why do you use the term “dodge taxes?” People over 65 get an extra personal exemption, a concept that has been in place for decades. And why wouldn’t people be responsible for their own retirement income and healthcare? Is there anything wrong with personal responsibility?

Once again, we have arbitrary rules that treat people differently for no particular reason. We give people over 65 an extra exemption for what reason? None that I can think of except pandering. When the government gives people money and insurance that is not taking personal responsibility.

You know I haven’t heard that anyone thinks Medicare IS wasteful spending. I think a lot of us believe that it could be means tested and therefore will be a more viable program for the future.

I don’t know many people over 65 who are in favor of means testing. Ridgerunner might be an exception, but he might still be too young for medicare.

I think we all agree that there IS a lot of waste in government, a lot of ineffective programs, a lot of departments that have lost sight of their mission and should either get on track or be defunded. I don’t think most of us resent paying taxes so much as we resent what is being done with the money.

As to your final sentence, I can’t understand your point. So you are saying that if I think one element of tax law is unfair then I can’t argue against someone else’s sacred cows?

Lisa

My point is that there is no way to prove that your definition of unfairness is any better than anyone else’s definition of unfairness. So the question is: is fairness useful in discussing tax policy, or should it be ignored?

 

[estesbob]

I believe the “Cash for Clunkers” money was taxed as income. That’s what my neighbor, who used the program said.

Otherwise, what I agree with this election cycle. Is getting rid of republicans.

ATB

Not income taxes but states charged sales tax on the amount paid before the credit. The main thing the program did was get millions of Obama bumper stickers off the road.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I believe the “Cash for Clunkers” money was taxed as income. That’s what my neighbor, who used the program said.

Otherwise, what I agree with this election cycle. Is getting rid of republicans.

ATB

No. It was not taxable, except if you got more trade-in value for your previous vehicle than the new car ended up costing you, then you might have had a tax. If not, you didn’t.

I think we knew your political objective is to 'get rid of Republicans". The only unanswered question is “why?” Do you just hate them because you think they represent the rich or something and you hate rich people? Were you telling the truth when you said you hit their cars with your truck door on purpose?

Maybe you can give a better explanation, but so far, malice toward the rich and your belief (incorrect) that Repubs represent the rich is the only motivation I have seen. I’m willing to accept that there’s nothing more to it than that.

 

[mary_bobo]

When were those capital gains tax previously?

When they were paid as income.

 

[LisaA]

I agree that freedom is a good thing, but our government law does not give everyone the same freedom. If you work for one kind of employer you can shelter $17k per year, work for another you can shelter $34k, all because of a minor difference. If everyone could do $34k, I would say there is no unfairness. But the problem is that our tax code is riddled with these little arbitrary rules that change the rules from one group to another.

Government compensation has gone up considerably, but it does vary a bit. In the high demand fields (such as accounting and computer science) it is still low relative to the market.

I think part of the problem is that we have a really bad tax system. If you were to design a truly stupid tax system, you couldn’t get much better than what we currently have. Except for the tax code pre-1986. But we are working our way back towards those good old days.

Once again, we have arbitrary rules that treat people differently for no particular reason. We give people over 65 an extra exemption for what reason? None that I can think of except pandering. When the government gives people money and insurance that is not taking personal responsibility.

I don’t know many people over 65 who are in favor of means testing. Ridgerunner might be an exception, but he might still be too young for medicare.

My point is that there is no way to prove that your definition of unfairness is any better than anyone else’s definition of unfairness. So the question is: is fairness useful in discussing tax policy, or should it be ignored?

Gosh Stink Cat I guess your mama never told you life isn’t fair. For the vast majority of employees there are limits of deferral…16,000 or 22,000 regardless of the industry. Further there are limits of applicable compensation so deferrals and contributions are not unlimited. Apparently there is some carve out for your employer…OK but again do you suggest that everyone have the exact same compensation, benefit package, etc?

I agree that our tax law is pretty convoluted and the only way to fix it is to scrap the whole thing and start over. The real problem is that people cannot agree on the objective. Is the objective to raise revenue (IMO that should be the major issue) or is it to effect social engineering? Right now it’s both and they fight against each other.

Best thing to do is to support candidates that want to institute a simpler tax but there is no way to be fair to everyone. I think that term should be carefully considered if not tossed out because the idea of extracting ANY money is unfair IMO. We just have to do the best we can with what we have inherited.

Re the people over 65 not wanting the means test. THAT IS RYAN’S POINT THE CURRENT AND UPCOMING SENIORS WILL NOT HAVE MEANS TESTING. HELLO!!! How many times to we have to say this before it connects with the public? Ryan’s plan has everyone 55 and over under the old plan which alows a decade for people to get accustomed and adjust to a new system. The SS plan was created when people lived five not twenty five years after retiring. The simple answer is we cannot continue down this path or there wil be no money for anyone!

You are dead wrong in the relativism response to “your fair aint any better than my fair.” There are some eternal truths although they are seldom included in the tax law. I think one of the best quotes was by Justice Learned Hand who said “Logic and tax laws are barely even passing acquaintences.”

Lisa

 

[stinkcat_14]

When they were paid as income.

Capital gains are only paid out as income when they are realized, they are not paid out as income in any other way. So capital gains were never taxed before. Perhaps you are confusing capital gains with dividends.

 

[estesbob]

Capital gains are only paid out as income when they are realized, they are not paid out as income in any other way. So capital gains were never taxed before. Perhaps you are confusing capital gains with dividends.

Really? Where did people get the money they used to purchase capItal assets?

 

[stinkcat_14]

Really? Where did people get the money they used to purchase capItal assets?

From many places. From savings, from investors, from lenders.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Will the Buffet Rule help me not pay for someone else’s Chevy Volt?

 

[SamH]

Will the Buffet Rule help me not pay for someone else’s Chevy Volt?

No.

Volt subsidy is now part of the tax code.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Will the Buffet Rule help me not pay for someone else’s Chevy Volt?

No. Nor for the products liability suit resulting when batteries catch fire. That will be tacked onto the cost of your next Chevy, or perhaps it might simply delay GM repaying the government money it still owes and the interest you are paying on the money the government borrowed to give to GM.

 

[Brendan]

From many places. From savings, from investors, from lenders.

In other words, from sources that had already been taxed.

Or at least for the capital gains that someone claims on their personal taxes.

 

[iamrefreshed]

No.

Volt subsidy is now part of the tax code.

What a racket! The guberment owns a company then has purchases of their products subsidized by taxpayers!

 

[iamrefreshed]

No.

Volt subsidy is now part of the tax code.

No. Nor for the products liability suit resulting when batteries catch fire. That will be tacked onto the cost of your next Chevy, or perhaps it might simply delay GM repaying the government money it still owes and the interest you are paying on the money the government borrowed to give to GM.

I thought you guys got sarcasm?

 

[stinkcat_14]

In other words, from sources that had already been taxed.

Or at least for the capital gains that someone claims on their personal taxes.

Not necessarily.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I thought you guys got sarcasm?

I did. Just adding to it a bit.