Krauthammer blows up Obama and the FOLLY of "The Buffett Rule"

Neither of you really care how much this sort of unprincipled tax raises; you just want to stick people about whom you're jealous, and have constructed bogeymen that have become so real in your mind that they cannot be dissipated - to the point that it's "all wealthy people" who are "gaming the system".

You disgust me.

Conservatives operate on principle. If you're so concerned about the corruption taking place in Washington, why would you want to give it more money, exactly? How stupid are you? How unAmerican?

Part of the reason that this "doesn't raise much money" is because higher taxes alter behaviour. Mud grovelling nincompoops should have figured that out based upon past attempts to raise taxes - but not you two. You think the wealthy are simply going to let you take their assets? Pure imbecilic notion to think so.

Our spending levels are so incredible, that the Buffett Rule couldn't collect in 250 years what it would take to simply square the deficit that Obama has created THIS year! Are you so stupid as to not understand that? Money and wealth that was earned by others - not you - doesn't justify being legally STOLEN from others simply because you and yours cannot control yourselves.

Sick twisted stupid enemies of this country. Both of your ideologies disgust me.

 

The problem is the politicians, not the rich.

If I offer you a bribe, you don't have to take it.

There should be laws in place which keep corporations from MAKING as much money as they do. One good example is not shipping jobs out of the country. That should be illegal. It would keep unemployment down, it would keep prices of American-made goods down, and it would not allow the rich CEOs to get so rich.

The businesses in America OVER-achieve. That's why we have so many garage sales.

Capitalism is not at fault, commercialism is. But politicians could fix that. (if they'd stop taking "bribes" from the rich) You can't exactly blame the rich for "bribing" the politicians though, as long as it remains legal to "bribe" them.

"bribe"= lobbying, persuasion, etc.

 

It appears to me that Barack Hussein Obama is the closest thing to flat out dishonest as a person could be.

Get him out of here. Hillary would have been incomparably better.

 

American collectivists are wracked with envy and begrudgement for those who've navigated capitalism more succussfully than they....
so to boost their self esteem, they seat representatives who will endeavor to punish success...
to lessen sting of their own inadequacies.

They cloak this moral defect in the completely arbitrary and mythical notions of "equality" and "fairness"

It's become so transparent, I can only laugh and shake my head.

 

These are excellent observations webrockk.

The Democrats and their friends, the leftists are very good at "class envy".

Most of them never finished high school, and they truly believe they should be paid as much for their menial labor (which anyone can do!) as an economist or a medical doctor!

 

Sure I care, which is why I posted data that shows tax receipts would be much larger. Millionaires and billionaires take about 15% of the gross income of about $13 trillion in this country, or about $2 trillion trillion dollars. And your telling me imposing a minimum 30% tax is only going to raise $5 billion?

You don't care whether it helps the deficit or not. You and your ilk are just so (*)(*)(*)(*)ed greedy and selfish that the country can go to hell as long as you keep your special rich privileges and your wealth. Because no matter how much you take, it's never enough, is it?

You are pathetic, a disgrace to our country, and you sicken me.

 

I don't think it is unprincipled at all. I don't see why people pulling in millions from capital gains ought not to pay at least as much as they would had they earned that through salaries. Why should a person making a million dollars from a salary pay 35% while the person who makes that from selling stocks only pays 15%? Correcting that discrepancy would not be "unprincipled" in my book, it would be called fair. A solution like the buffet rule prevents this sort of tax from crushing small businesses, many of whom operate as S corporations subject to personal tax rates. You conservatives yourselves have often pointed out how harshly changes to the capital gains rate would apply to small business owners. The buffet rule protects them from that.

Back here in reality, you're just opposing it because you oppose all tax increases.

I think it is unfair that a person earning a million dollars from a salary pays 35% while some investor who sold some stock only pays 15% on a million. I think that is unfair. This is not about rich vs. poor, that is unfair even between rich people. Even people making the same amount would pay different rates depending on how that is earned, and I think that is wrong. I think it is wrong to give people earning money from wages and salaries a higher tax rate than people earning their money from capital gains. The buffet rule may not correct that problem in its entirety, but it would at least help some of the most excessive abuses of the capital gains rate.

I think it's disgusting that you would have someone who earned $500,000 from a salary pay more taxes than someone who earns $1 million from capital gains.

No you don't.

The tax code is part of the corruption! Something like the buffet rule helps to address some of the worst excesses of that corruption.

Which is why capital flight ought to be criminalized like it is elsewhere in the civilized world. The South Koreans have the right approach--capital flight ought to be a capital offense. If we're going to have private ownership, we had (*)(*)(*)(*) well better have it structured in a sane way. If people are going to insist on fascism, it ought to at least be somewhat more efficient fascism.

In what way is this relevant? I don't think anyone has claimed that the buffet rule would raise enough to solve our deficit problems. This is not a tax increase on the wealthy, it's merely making sure that people earning huge amounts from capital gains pay about as much as people who earn a huge amount from salaries. It's patching a tax loophole. You're literally saying that we ought to make sure that some people pay way less than other people making the same amount of money. And you're trying to make that argument on principle.

You're talking to someone who's never saved less than 10% of his income, and usually saves around 28%. A lack of fiscal control is not one of my problems. This is not about increasing people's taxes, this is about making sure that people earning similar amounts of money pay roughly similar tax rates. I don't see how you could possibly claim that it was fair to let some people pay 15% and others pay 35% when both make the exact same amount of money.

Yours disgusts me. Yours is an ideology of corruption and nepotism where some succeed rather than others based on favoritism and exploitation. You and people like you are the real enemies of this country.

 

Do you really believe the ridiculous horse(*)(*)(*)(*) you regularly spew?

Feel free to prove your claim by citing any posts by any Democrat here that argues that folks who did not finish high school should be paid as much as an economist or doctor.

 

Only when corporate welfare pays multimillion dollar bonuses.

 

Unlike many Republicans, I’m not tax-aphobic . I accept the need for taxes and I don’t mind raising them when necessary. The problem is that there is a world of difference between what I think is necessary and what Democrats think of as necessary. Especially considering the poor record of deals the Republicans have made with Democrats where we raise taxes now for spending cuts later… only later never comes, and taxes and spending both continue to increase.

But since this tax is just a stunt, and we all know it, how would you feel about a Republican counter stunt? Would you accept one year of the Buffett Rule in exchange for 5 billion in tax cuts from the remaining 2012 fiscal budget?

 

Which "deals" are you talking about?

I don't know it is a stunt. Millionaires and billionaires take about 15% of gross personal income of $13 trillion, or about $2 trillion. I have a very hard time believing that increasing their tax to a minimum 30% level is only going to add $5 billion in revenue.

That doesn't make sense. And it also doesn't make sense why conservatives are so apoplyctic about the tax increase, if it is really so trivial.

I don't understand you offer. You mean $5 billion in spending cuts?

 

I read your earlier post in which you expressed some disbelief that the tax would only increase revenues by 5 billion by raising millionaire tax rates to 30%, but I think you are forgetting how few million plus taxpayers there are. I think I read it was under 250,000 out of about 140 million taxpayers. So you are starting with a very small pool. Secondly, it depends on what tax rate they are paying now as to whether it will be a big tax increase on them or not. Depending on their individual tax situations, one may go from 15% to 30%, but someone else may only be moving from 28% to 30%.

As an experiment, try to figure out how much more Warren Buffett would pay under the Buffett Rule? Not that much more I think.

That's why this is just a stunt. It's effecting too few people to be much of a revenue enhancer. You guys need more Emmanuel Goldsteins to demonize. Why don't you try to impose this tax on the top 1%? Then you are imposing it on people with taxable incomes of around $380,000 or so; a much broader pool. Or back to the President's old standby? $250,000?

And yes, I mean 5 billion in spending cuts in the remaining 2012 fiscal year. You have a tax increase for 5 billion, offer the Republicans real tax cuts of 5 billion. Throw in NPR and Planned Parenthood funding and you are sure to seal the deal!

 

Very wise words indeed, Lil Mike.

Everything Barack Obama tells us turns out not to be true.

As two shining and persistent examples:

"At the beginning of his presidency, Barack Obama argued that the country’s spiraling debt was largely the result of exploding health-care costs. That was true. He then said the cure for these exploding costs would be his health-care reform. That was not true. Now we know. The Congressional Budget Office’s latest estimate is that Obamacare will add $1.76 trillion in federal expenditures through 2022. And, as one of the Medicare trustees has just made clear, if you don’t double count the $575 billion set aside for the Medicare trust fund, Obamacare adds to the already crushing national debt."

And there is more.

"Okay. Let’s do the math. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates this new tax would yield between $4 billion and $5 billion a year. If we collect the Buffett tax for the next 250 years — a span longer than the life of this republic — it would not cover the Obama deficit for 2011 alone.

As an approach to our mountain of debt, the Buffett Rule is a farce. And yet Obama repeated the ridiculous claim again this week. “It will help us close our deficit.” Does he really think we’re that stupid? "

 

The number isn't what matter, but the amount of income they have. What percentage of the total national income do they take?

How much?

No problem with that. Writen your congressman. But until them, millionaires and billionaires is a good first step.

If you mean $5 billion in spending cuts, why do you keep talking about $5 in tax cuts?

But if you mean spending cuts, I'd take that deal in a second. Let's write our representatives and you tell yours you support a tax increase with the Buffet rule and I'll tell mine I support cutting spenidng by $5.

 

This is all the equivalent of Nero fiddling while Rome burns.

Instead of fighting over changes to the current tax code, lets move to a flat tax and sales and be done with it. Then you are taxed on what you spend. The rich buy more expensive stuff, so they'll pay for it that way.

Oh wait...I forgot. No one will ever go for it. Right? That's what everyone says when its something they dont' feel like doing.

Well, if we all decided to get together, quit fighting to get just ONE thing passed/accomplished...it could happen. It would mean forsaking laziness for a day and losing old hatred, but it could happen.

 

A flat tax generally refers to an income tax. Are you talking about that, or a consumption tax like a VAT?

 

What you did was post a pipedream that the receipts would be much higher. There is no evidence that you're correct about that. Taxes change behaviour; you seem to live in denial of that, and I know why: you pay little in taxes.

I am much more focused on controlling the asinine spending which causes such deficits. I'm more concerned with enriching the people of this country than enriching their government.

It is probable that I give to charity more than you earn. Beyond that, my view of policy is on the overall effect on the economy, not first on how it affects me. What affects me is when the rest of the economy is not as healthy.

Not allowing people to keep as much of what they earn as possible is unhealthy for an economy.

Now you're talking about liberal tax raising again. I am part of the group in this country which pays the majority of this country's tax burden. When is it enough for you liberal money grubbers?

Sorry that I am unwilling to give you something you did not earn. My grandmother used to call that 'smart'. Your grandmother used to call that 'begging'.

 

I'm going to stop right here because it is all that matters: your ignorance of the differences in motivation for this sort of income is key here, so I'll snip the rest of your comment.

Earning a wage is a return for labor and skill; it doesn't require an influx of your assets as well. When one puts their assets at risk, one should expect a higher rate of return, as the prospect of losing that asset always exists.

Why would you favor suppressing the desire to invest? The higher the tax; the higher the suppression - the less the activity is appealing.

Do you know what would happen to us economically if investment into our economy wasn't coddled and protected by the appeal of gain? Have you ever taken $100,000 or some similar figure, and put it into an investment, and lost it all?

You don't get to get that money back; the most you can do is write it off against other costs. I am here to tell you that your lack of understanding of this very basic human motivation is the reason that dividend gains cannot and should be taxed at the same level as wage income.

 

Both. We spend to much to do only consumption. Low flat tax and then a consumption tax.

 

Subdermal,

first I hope that you realize that I respect and adore you for your marvelous work on that other thread. Second, most of the CEOs did not start the businesses they are now running and therefore this "risk" of which you speak is minimal.

 

I posted the evidence, showing that millionaires and billionaires take about 15% of national income of about $13 trillion.

You statement demonstrates your ignorance as to what a deficit is. It's common amongst conservatives here.

Then you must be thrilled how the economy has turned around since Obama took over.

Baseless conservative mythology and propaganda./

When we aren't running a deficit.

I call that a strawman. I've asked you to give me nothing.

 

OK.

A flat income tax coupled with a consumption tax is a great idea. If your goal is to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. If there hasn't been enough of that since the "Reagan revolution".

 

Funny coming from the same people who say planned parenthood wich costs 1/10the of the buffet rule is too expensive.