What do you think of Obama's proposed Buffett Rule?

This is one point, that regardless of other political disagreements, where I believe there is agreement.

We need to reduce expendatures and increase taxes until we not only have a balanced budget but instead a surplus budget and pay down the national debt. We should literally leave our children no obligation to pay for expendatures we're making today or have made in the past.

 

Fair enough, my post should have said "many" middle income families pay a marginal rate twice as high not imply they all do.

 

I agree. I for one would love to see everything actually on the table for cuts. We DO need to reign in spending and look at the big three (Medicare, Medicaid, and Defense). There are plenty of places to cut money from. We need to stop playing partisan politics with this country's finances and start working together to do what needs to get done.

 

Is a man that can barely pay his bills and putting food on the table your boss, or a man that has money in the bank to spend. Last time I checked someone like Trump has more people working for him than someone in lower mid-class or in the lower-class.

 

Your point is irrelevant. It doesn't matter who is the boss, but whether there is demand for production. If there is demand, jobs will be created. If there is no demand, it doesn't matter who's the boss.

 

If there is no demand for products and services, it doesn't matter who the employer is. They aren't going to be hiring.

We've heard this argument that we need to cut taxes for the rich because they are the employers for decades now. We cut their taxes big time in 2001-03. The rich have gotten multiples richers while the middle/lower classes stagnated. But with all these additional riches the "employers" have, where are the jobs?

It a sham designed and promoted by those who are wealthy and control the right wing media, which dominates the financial media.

 

Deficit spending converts to debt so reducing deficit spending reduces potential debt.

IMO, no matter the scenario, no matter how small the tax rate increase is proposed, most people will say NO...

 

How much federal income tax did Romney and trust fund babies pay over their lives on the money they earned??

You act as though all they pay is capital gains tax yet you ignore the FACT that in order to have cash to invest in capital gains instruments that money must have been earned in some fashion and was taxed at the going income tax rates.

Romney and your trust fund babies who you are jealous, they pay the identical capital gains tax rates as you and me and all other Americans...

 

You are right. There does need to be a demand for production, but the people that are supplying this demand do not work for someone in the lower-class. The person that employees you needs to have the money in order to pay his employees and still make a profit. By taxing these people more, they're going to cut either their spending on employees or reduce their profit, and most businessmen do not want to see their profit to be reduced so they'll cut jobs.

 

No, I'm saying that it was misrepresented in the same respect as the "death panels" in Obamacare. Buffett's secretary received a paycheck (A.K.A. salary), and hence this income is taxed at an appropriate rate of taxation, depending on the amount of income, with marginal rates ranging from 10% to 35%. Warren Buffett did not take a salary (since he is among the world's richest people), and lived off his long term capital gains income, which is capped at 15%.

Years ago when Buffett was receiving an income, he was taxed at the highest marginal rates, unlike his secretary. Thus, it is nonsensical to compare Buffett's secretary's income tax with Buttet's personal long term capital gains tax, since these are two entirely different taxes. Again, like I said, it's apples and oranges.

I doubt it. I think it's a knee jerk reaction of those that are looking for any possible reason to continue class warfare rhetoric. Like I said before, the "Buffett Rule" targets those completely ignorant of the tax code.

Warren Buffet already paid income tax at the highest marginal rate. One cannot make money through investments unless they first received some form of income (and hence paid income taxes), so this appears to be a problem that has already been solved.

It is not discrimination if the same rule applies to everyone (the secretary's long term capital gain's investments are equally capped at only 15%). Actually, that's the definition of equality.

If someone is married or single and make more that $372,951, they aren't paying the top marginal tax rate? Why not? How do they get around this?

 

The Buffett rule is fine as long as it includes that Warren must pay the taxes he owes from as far back as 2002 , otherwise he is just a whitehouse suck up who is 2 faced
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/buffett-irs-back-taxes/2011/09/01/id/409520

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/buffett-irs-back-taxes/2011/09/01/id/409520

 

The same is true for jobs and wages. If there is demand for labor the number of 'qualified' individuals that can fill the position determines the wages for the job. If a person wants higher wages then they need to acquire the skills that are required which places them in a smaller pool of eligible candidates for the job. The fewer the applications for a job opening the higher the compensation will be for the job. Wages are market driven based upon supply and demand just as product and services costs are driven based upon supply and demand.

If a person wants higher wages then they need to earn those higher wages based upon knowledge and performance. Nothing prevents anyone from doing this.

 

What many seem to fail to understand is that this is nothing but smoke and mirrors. Anyone, excluding small business owners where this "rule" would impose negative consequences like reduced employment, that has this level of income can easily avoid it just like they avoid the Alternative Minimum Tax today.

It will have negative consequences related to small privately owned enterprises reducing jobs and will have virtually no impact on those that can afford to avoid paying the tax. It's smoke and mirrors with negative consequences.

 

Isn't just about everything a politician does, smoke and mirrors ?

Obama's class warfare is old already.

Fairness, equal outcomes, his Marxist tendacies are showing, even glowing in the dark. Since the top 10% pay roughly 70% of the taxes, and the bottom 50% pay nothing, even get money back, how is asking those top 10% for more supposedly "fair" ?

Another thing, since Obama likes to compare the rich to Buffets secretary. Romney paid 3 million in taxes, did Warrens secretary pay that ? So who paid more ? Obama would have you believe the rich pay only as much as a secretary but thats simply a lie.

Another thought, since obama is all about fairness. The rich are only paying 15% but you know, that secretary, she pays 25-30 %. Ok, in the spirit of fairness Mr. Prez, how about lowering the secretaries rate to 15%, that way they are both the same, as you so like things to be. Wouldn't that make more sense, help alot more voters ? You would think. How in the world would he fund all his government programs like that, welfare, send money to outfits that bundle for him ? No, you'll never see a flat tax if any liberal has anything to say about it.

 

How can you tell when a politician is lying: Their lips are moving!

In all of this political BS talk about the Buffett rule and Obama's class warfare and higher taxes on the wealthy, can anyone explain the purpose/goal for higher taxes on the wealthy?

What possible root problem can this solve?

 

Well if you define "social justice" as a problem, it would give that illusion that he's for the little guy. But anyone with a 3rd grade education would see thats all it is....an illusion.

 

Regardless of the specifics we must simply face the facts. We're spending too much and not collecting enough in taxes.

Republicans have to agree to raise taxes and Democrats have to agree to reduce spending. Republicans have to accept that spending cuts include military spending cuts and Democrats have to accept that spending cuts include social welfare spending.

Both sides are idiots and the deficits are driving the US into bankruptcy. Our current debt to income ratio, when only revenues used for servicing the national debt are used, is about 1000%. For the individual any debt to income ration over 100% is considered to be a serious financial problem and the US national debt is ten times greater than that.

 

Obama has already forecasted $20 trillion debt by 2020 so it's obvious that Obama and Congress have zero aspirations to become fiscally responsible.

As a nation we can't even reduce our deficit spending so any discussion about reducing debt prior to 2020 is 100% political BS.

On that $20 trillion in debt, if the US is paying 3%, this will require annual debt interest payments of $600 billion!

GDP 2005-2011

12,623.0 trillion
12,958.5
13,206.4
13,161.9
12,703.1
13,088.0
13,313.4

Personal consumption has barely increased in the past couple of years.

If GDP and personal consumption don't appear to be increasing in order to provide greater federal tax income, and if our idiots in Washington refuse to be fiscally responsible, the $20 trillion debt will become $30 trillion in short time! I'm not smart enough to know where this leads, but I can guess it will not be a fun place...

 

This gets back to my point of...people don't care. If the national debt is 5 trillion or 30 trillion, if it doesn't affect their daily lives, it goes way down on the list of things to worry about. When they see inflation at the grocery store, the gas pumps, then they worry but the reasons the public is always given is some political villian of the month someone wants to demonize.

I'm not in the camp of you have to raise taxes. Before you do that, you need to tell me whats the max a government should demand. 30%-50%, 70% even ? Unlimited ? How much of the fruits of ones labor must be taken away to support a government ? Has to be limits, or your just a slave then. You could easily cut government by a third, without touching the military.

Is there will to do it though from either side ? I think not. So the vicious cycle continues.

 

With the possible exception of Ron Paul a review of the Republican presidential candidates positions on the issues reveals that none of them support a balanced budget either as well as the Republicans in Congress. Not a single one actually supports a balanced budget.

Yes, they've proposed a Constitutional amendment, as has been done in the past, which would "mandate" a balanced budget but it's a smoke and mirrors amendment proposal that has such large holes in it that it would have literally no impact on the ability of Congress to deficit spend.

We can note that there are ligitimate reasons for deficit spending. A world war like WW II or a real national emergency such as a catastrophic meteor impact would certainly warrant deficit spending but most "national" emergencies, such as Katrina, are not national emergencies. Even the housing crash in 2007-8 was not really a national emergency.

Of course national emergencies can also be planned for by actually "saving" money and creating a surplus fund to pay for possible emergencies. That was a key element of Keynesian economics which has been corrupted by the US government. Obviously a "surplus" first requires eliminating the entire national debt first.

Any intelligent individual can see that neither Republicans or Democrats want a balanced budget. Even the "tea party" Republicans don't want it. They just want to eliminate spending for what they oppose but continuing deficits for what they support and they're hypocrites in this regard. If they opposed deficits they'd be calling for huge reductions in defense spending but they're not. They would also be calling for higher taxes to increase federal revenues and they're not.

 

Today we have a government that will not tell citizens the cold hard truths about these issues. Further, our government will not ask a single American to sacrifice anything...fear of losing votes. And politics won't touch it because neither side can do anything about it.

Some people like to fixate on extracting more tax income from the wealthy, but this cannot be more than $70-$100 billion per year, and with $1+ trillion deficits, this still leaves a $900 billion deficit, so unless the 125 million lower-income and middle-class Americans are going to pitch in and pay more taxes, if we wish to stop deficit spending, then we MUST reduce government.

BTW; when we extract more taxation from the wealthy, or anyone for that matter, all this does is take very productive money from the private sector and give it to a very inefficient government, with NO guarantees that government will cut back on spending...

 

I agree with you so the question becomes; How long can presidents and Congress dance around deficits and debt before the (*)(*)(*)(*) hits the fan?

At $20 trillion debt how can we afford a $600 billion debt interest payment?

If a person earns $100K and has debt of $1 million, with debt interest payments of $35,000 per year, it is obvious that this person won't have a dime left over to do anything but pay for essentials.

If this same person decides one option is to take on more debt, maybe up to $2 million, increasing the debt interest payment to $70K per year, it is obvious this person now cannot even afford the essentials.

Every one of us knows where this will lead for this person heavily in debt...bankruptcy! If every one knows this, in this scenario, why do we ignore the parallel and identical scenario happening in our own government?

The primary reason is our idiot leaders are chicken-(*)(*)(*)(*) to confront the American public with honest assessments. A second reason is tens of millions of Americans are so stupid that they believe the government just creates all the money they need. The third reason is that 90% of us greatly suffer from a self-serving and greedy behavior and we simply will not sacrifice and we won't pay more taxes!

All I can surmise is.....KABOOM!!!