Forum Post: please remind me how the Buffet Rule a) grows the economy & b) pay's down the debt
Posted 1 year ago on April 21, 2012, 8 p.m. EST by chatman
(-478)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
This is eluding me
It is just election year nonsense that really fixes nothing.
Did you ever notice that Obama never ties his name to anything tax related.
how about tax everyone that makes a million or more by 30 % without exemptions
that should bring in revenue
that's not near the level upper income had been charged in the past
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#History_of_top_rates
looks like another half assed effort by the dem
great point !!!! I never noticed it like that. He knows the word tax is a dirty word.
Thank you for such an important question.
I hope this helps you understand-
Just to pick an arbitrary number, lets say the Buffet rule could add $10,000,000,000 in a year,
this would drop the debt $5,000,000,000 & hire
10,000 infrastructure workers at $50,000 / year
I read it would add 5 billion in tax revenues.
The Washington Post had a good OpEd on this the other day http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-buffett-rule-does-damage-to-a-good-cause/2012/04/17/gIQAT96HOT_story.html
5 Billion when the deficit is 1.5T is a .3% help.
In a 76000 page tax code, it would be meaningless. This is just a way for both parties to avoid the people really looking into it.
I agree. I think the Buffet Rule is just a drop in the bucket. And I did some more research and they say its actually sbout 10 billon. Funny thing is that all news outlets say that the 1% already pay about 30% on average in taxes. While there are some anomalies like Buffet who has a 15% tax rate due to his investment vehicles (bonds etc.). What do we think would be fair for them to pay in taxes? I know what I pay and it's less than 30%. And the average American pays substantially less than that?
I honestly think we should be paying these idiots as little as possible. I'd put the rate at what the gov needs to function.
I personally get torn sometimes between the gradual increases vs a flat rate. I would be for them just keeping the rates right now, but eliminating all the deductions. For everyone.
yea - the only problem is - the Buffet rule according to CBO will only bring in 4.7 billion a year. The feds spend that much every 11 hours. It's strictly a symbolic gesture to get us fighting class warfare. It does nothing for the deficit or the 15trillion in debt.
We should have a drinking game involving how many times can chatman say "every 11 hours" like a retarded broken record. You can say good bye to your liver.
only because you refuse to answer the question. Another deflection
Have to start somewhere. How do you propose to wipe out our entire debt in one fell swoop?
there is no way you are going to pay down the debt by trying to tax people with higher rates. you need to grow the economy which generates a lot more revenue than increasing rates ever did. Plus we need to do something about these entitlement programs. for younger people medicare & ss need to be optional. stop the use of force.
"grow the economy" Everyone says that these days but offer no idea on how. Eliminating 'entitlement programs' is no different then raising taxes in the short and long run. Why not eliminate corporate entitlement and close all tax loopholes?
"the Buffet rule according to CBO will only bring in 4.7 billion a year" Only? I see no problem with chipping away at the debt with this method because you certainly offer no better ideas on how to clear the debt.
Our economy needs massive investment in human capital, scientific research, and infrastructure (the three pillars of a successful economy). Obviously, an economy cannot thrive with a dysfunctional financial system or in an environment of political corruption, just as it doesn't make much sense to invest in human capital (through education) if we don't also invest in human health.
So the solutions are straightforward, it's just that conservatives obfuscate the issue because they're not really interested in solutions (or they're either not sophisticated enough, or too heavily indoctrinated, to understand things that should be obvious to any reasonably intelligent person).
I have to agree with everything you said. You named quite a few worthy targets of investment that would lead to a much more robust economy and future. You are spot on with the broken financial system, political corruption and the current senseless conservative mindset.
And I fit all that stuff into two short paragraphs :)
the federal govt spends 4.7 billion every 11 hrs - so the Buffet rule wont even "chip away" at the debt. it's a freaking gimmick to create class warfare. are u kidding?
Here you go again. Your same blind tired bullshit argument. So what if the federal government spends that much every 11 hrs? That is NO EXCUSE to not chip away at the debt. What is this bullshit about it won't even chip away at the debt when it does generate revenue? You offer no better solutions and talk shit about the Buffet rule only to suck on the phallus of the 1%.
This world would be a far better place without you and your kind.
thanks for the insults. I just won the argument. 4.7B wont even chip away at the interest. It's a gimmick to make you feel good about punishing the rich who you loath so much. Class envy will get you nowhere. Misery loves company. Keep it up.
You still offer no solutions and repeated your same disproved argument. You lost the argument based on those parameters.
"It's a gimmick to make you feel good about punishing the rich who you loath so much." How do you propose to punish the 1%?
Do you think anyone here will listen to you with the 1%'s phallus in your mouth? What do you think you will accomplish by clinging around here? You remind me of a party where there was one guy that no one likes. He decided to hang around anyways. An outcast that couldn't take a hint.
Here is another hint: Your absence won't be missed here.
another deflection. So if you cant answer the question what is your point of existing? to throw a pointless collective temper tantrum with no other basis than you aren't happy? Children do that and that is why the govt treats you like children - you deserve it.
So I'm deflecting now? Yet you are the one who keeps repeating the bullshit that 4.7B won't chip away when it does chip away. You offer no solutions except sound like a broken record.
"So if you cant answer the question what is your point of existing" How dumb can you be? I am not obligated to answer anything to justify my 'existing'. If you want an answer to how 4.7B can help the economy, look at Misaki's post.
"to throw a pointless collective temper tantrum with no other basis than you aren't happy?" And what did you base this on? Because I won't suck the 1%'s dick like you are doing? I find it quite obscene unlike you.
"Children do that and that is why the govt treats you like children - you deserve it." Retards repeatedly rehash the same debunked bullshit and that is why we treat you like a retard - you deserve it.
Again, a world without someone like you would be a much better world.
another deflection - keep it going - lets see how many times you can not answer the question. Or if the 4.7Billion helps tell me how long it will take to pay down the debt with the addition 4.7B as opposed to without it.
What's that sound? Oh its chatman slurping up the cum of 1%ers again! How absolutely repulsive!
"http://www.cbo.gov/publication/21227
The chart is informative but it's only the short term effects; the most significant difference tho is just investing in infrastucture which has its effects backloaded.
So compare "reducing income taxes" at the very bottom of the chart to the options at the top of the chart, which either lead to money going to the unemployed or to the average worker (since payroll taxes have a cutoff and don't apply to capital gains by the rich)."
There is your solid answer. Now let's see you make a better answer to paying off the debt instead of your 4.7B deflection Mr. Broken Record.
which chart there are 6 documents? Regardless - what is your plan? So far the left has not put one on the table other than the meaningless Buffet Rule. It looks like increasing aid to the unemployed is the plan lol! good luck
how about tax everyone that makes a million or more by 30 % without exemptions
that should bring in revenue
Thank you for admitting defeat. There may be 6 documents but certainly not 6 charts. And all the charts show valuable information. This proves you are blindly indoctrinated and won't even look at hard factual evidence. This is why this world is better off without you and your kind.
"So far the left has not put one on the table other than the meaningless Buffet Rule." Look at your pathetic attempts to grasp on this weak weak argument. What plan did the right put on the table? nothing?
"It looks like increasing aid to the unemployed is the plan lol! good luck" It looks like chatman doesn't even have a single plan lol! good luck.
When you are gone, all I'll say is good riddance.
[Removed]
Sorry I beg to differ with your assessment.
The Buffet rule would make a difference - immediate difference would be the addition of those billions of dollars per year - another difference would be tying the wealthy more closely to the performance of society and operation of government proper operation of government. How? Because it puts them back on equal footing with what the rest of the population is doing is living with. It provides missing revenue for supporting existing programs - no it is not the end all be all of healing a sick economy - but it is a step in the right direction. One of many steps that NEED to be taken.
4.7 billion a year would be generated by the Buffet rule. the feds spend that every 11 hrs lol! It's a political gimmick - nothing more. Fairness you say? If you double the long term cap gains tax to 30% - all that will do is encourage people not to sell their assets. There will be more transferring in kind & borrowing against ones assets. There are many ways to avoid paying the punitive taxes. All will discourage the economy from growing just so OWS feels good.
Chatman, I've argued with most of these folks just as you have. You will just get questions, deflections, and changing of subject. They simply cannot bear the reality that 9.4 out of the 13.3 trillion in income is made by percentages 2 thru 50 in our society, right down to a level of $32,000 in income. You will not get much more from the poor and not much more from the rich, as you describe. Yes, you could get incremental amounts, 10-20 billion or so I'd imagine. You could get some further amount in corporate taxes by lowering the rate and broadening the base, but not an incredible amount as well. You basically have $1.1 trillion in personal income taxes out of a total of $2.3 trillion in receipts, and $3.6 trillion in expenditures. It is a mathematical certainty that taxes are going to rise on everyone in the future, and even more certain that spending is going to have to be slowed and in some cases cut. You can talk about military spending all you want, there isn't enough money in it to cut the deficit, along with increased taxes on the rich by nearly enough money to cut into the deficit by much, let alone the debt. It's truly insanity, seeing a certain outcome in the future, and doing nothing to avoid it.
Obviously, many things have "eluded" you in the last 30+ years of supply-side, trickle-down, creditor-to-debtor RayGunomics, and Powell Memo doctrine, redistribution of national wealth to the top 1% and national bankruptcy. Why don't you remind us which of the Republicon policies that crashed this economy will now save it. More sacrifices to the great "Job Creators?"
I'm still waiting to hear your plan. Until I do - all I have to go with the supply siders that include Clinton & Kennedy by the way.
OK, be right with you.
First, the Buffet rule is not a comprehensive plan and it may very well be a political ploy. Either way, I agree with it in principle, because I'm tired of hearing how the rich don't pay shit for taxes.
Second, a comprehensive Ryan budget plan from the right will not grow the economy with its austerity bullshit and it most certainly will not pay down the debt by trying to suck the blood from the poor. However, a comprehensive progressive tax plan will accomplish both, and won't rile up the moral compasses of the catholic bishops either.
Anyone interested, check it out.
http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=70
awesome - why aren't the dem's & Obama talking about this brilliant plan? Oh yea - they'd prefer to just spend 1.5 trillion a year in deficit spending without a budget. Much easier that way.
why isn't Obama putting your plan on the table then?
I'm sure you already have a fixed opinion on the subject. Why would you ask for another one? Is something wrong with yours.
so you cant answer the question so you ask another one. Thanks - I've got my answer.
If I answer, will you consider it objectively and make an honest attempt to see my perspective?
sure - just use credible sources & dont just blast me a link from some hack site.
Obama is just a watered down version of Bush. A Bush Lite if you will. He does not give all that big of a hoot about the deficit anymore than anyone else of prominence in Washington does. Obama does care about getting reelected. This Buffet Rule (whether for or against) is nothing but an election tool to meant to show people he is fighting for their interests of fairness, a feel good battle.
Paraphrasing from the mouth of Buddy Roemer - 'Goldman Sachs is Obama's largest campaign contributor'. Like they say, follow the money.
Where is talk of Campaign Finance Reform in all of this? Isn't it convenient that this issue almost never sees the light of day. And yet we hear all about the Buffet Rule.
Thats interesting - I look at Bush as a watered down version of Obama lol! GWB was a big government Neoconservative = "Liberals who have been mugged by reality" as Irving Crystal coined the term.
you permalinked your comment earlier so I am replying on this one - Is there inadequate demand? Where is your backup? If digging a hole with shovels & filling it is productive - why not give everybody spoons? All government spending on projects etc is move the money around - no growth occurs.
You are either too new here (or are flying under false colors) to deserve a serious answer. In the mean time, try the google machine.
Here try this thread:Forum Post: Recent tax cuts have saved the top 1%, more in taxes than the rest of us have received in wages.
you're ducking the question. How does the Buffet rule grow the economy. It is scored to only take in 4.7Billion per year. the govt spends that much every 11 hrs. So I ask you again...
Maybe your hearing is defective. I owe you nothing.
just what I thought. Zip.
Thinking and you don't go in the same sentence, Mr. Troll.
you make a good argument for how the Buffet rule helps solve the problem. Nice going.
troll, the contraction of "you are" is "you're", not "your". That is third grade English, and you want to discuss economics? troll
You still haven't answered the question. Yet another deflection lol!
Your right ............... we've got bigger fish to fry ............ Like making corporations pay their fair share!
One of the driving forces behind the ongoing Occupy Wall Street protests is the fact that corporations have not been paying their fair share in taxes. A new report from Citizens for Tax Justice will no nothing to alleviate the protesters’ frustration.
CTJ looked at 280 companies, all of them members of the Fortune 500, and found that “while the federal corporate tax code ostensibly requires big corporations to pay a 35 percent corporate income tax rate, on average, the 280 corporations in our study paid only about half that amount.” And those who paid even half the statutory corporate tax rate paid far more than many of their competitors.
In fact, in the last three years, 78 corporations had at least one year where they paid no federal income tax at all, while 30 corporations paid not a dime over the entire three years. Those 30 corporations paid nothing, even though they made $160 billion in profits over that period:
Seventy-eight of the 280 companies paid zero or less in federal income taxes in at least one year from 2008 to 2010…In the years they paid no income tax, these companies earned $156 billion in pretax U.S. profits. But instead of paying $55 billion in income taxes as the 35 percent corporate tax rate seems to require, these companies generated so many excess tax breaks that they reported negative taxes (often receiving outright tax rebate checks from the U.S. Treasury), totaling $21.8 billion. These companies’ “negative tax rates” mean that they made more after taxes than before taxes in those no-tax years.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/11/03/360185/30-corporations-no-taxes/?mobile=nc
REVEALED: The 30 American Companies That Paid Less Than $0 In Income Tax Over The Last 3 Years
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/these-are-the-30-american-companies-that-paid-less-than-zero-income-tax-from-2008-2010-2011-11#ixzz1suqXBAhr
The Buffet rule applies to personal income and capital gains. focus. You are off topic. And you realize - you are making the case for the Ryan plan. lower the rates and broaden the base. Eliminate deductions.
mr chatman - as to your original question the buffet rule does not do much to solve our economic problems. that is why we should be moving back to the tax rates of 1959 (remember ike the gop president?) - look it up and you might also find that this was called the golden age of capitalism - look it up again since i know you don't know the answer but try to find out why it was called that! think david knew you - at least he seems to be talking about you here - DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: Well, it’s covered mostly through talking points. In fact, I have a piece in Nieman Reports from Harvard University out today about how much that I’m reading of economic news that is just nonsense. I mean, it accurately quotes what politicians are saying, but it’s economic nonsense, because the reporters writing about it — our very best papers, at the Washington Post, at the New York Times, at the Wall Street Journal — often do not know what it is that they’re writing about. And this I find to be one of the most troubling aspects of this, because, after all, as the great conservative commentator Edmund Burke wrote in 1793, the revenue of the state is the state. Taxes are the system by which we distribute the burden of being able to live in a free society. And to not understand how they work, it results in all sorts of manipulations by people who make ridiculous claims about the tax system.. and while not exactly on the buffet rule this does apply to any discussion of the tax code - Johnston: The Romneys gave $100 million to their sons and paid not one penny of gift tax. They were able to take assets they have that are producing enormous income and, under the law, give that money to their children and not pay any taxes on it.
your sources are all left wing institutions so I am not surprised at your comments. Again - the post is about the Buffet rule because that is what is on the table. everything else you are talking about is just noise. If you'd like to make a specific proposal - submit it to the president because he seems to be out of ideas that work.
and why would it matter where the ideas come from - left or right - what matters is do they work or not - are you one of those right wing, gop loving, tea party guys? why are you here? to educate the bewildered heard (look it up - i'll wait) - you will be looking up lots of things if you keep this up - oh i forgot - you have no interest in the truth - just want to serve your rich, white, corporate masters - quisling - look that up also! last question - are you rich and white or just a wanna be?
Chatman is as much a part of the 99% as anyone. Pay attention to him and you might learn something.
i have paid too much attention to him - he is speaking for the 1% - i assume you are also if you think he makes sense. time to learn about the economy - read the comments and make one yourself - or better yet leave me alone
Don't be such a cry baby. I've read hundreds of comments, including many of yours. You make a little sense, sometimes, but not very often and not very much.
cry baby - ok, consider the source i guess - i feel better knowing i do not make sense to you.
[Removed]
no doubt he is out of ideas since he is in the pocket of wall street - his biggest financial backers - or didn't you notice. did you mistake me for an obama man - silly of you. so we can only speak to the buffet rule - ok so it would raise 47 billion over 10 years. as i said lets go back to the rates of 1959 - oh, sorry that is noise - you are the only one who is making sounds that are actually words - go away quisling or do some reading - you know nothing about economics - here is a bit of max neef to begin your education - MANFRED MAX-NEEF: Oh, almost everything. We are simply, dramatically stupid. We act systematically against the evidences we have. We know everything that should not be done. There’s nobody that doesn’t know that. Particularly the big politicians know exactly what should not be done. Yet they do it. After what happened since October 2008, I mean, elementally, you would think what? That now they’re going to change. I mean, they see that the model is not working. The model is even poisonous, you know? Dramatically poisonous. And what is the result, and what happened in the last meeting of the European Union? They are more fundamentalist now than before. So, the only thing you know that you can be sure of, that the next crisis is coming, and it will be twice as much as this one. And for that one, there won’t be enough money anymore. So that will be it. And that is the consequence of systematical human stupidity.
AMY GOODMAN: So, to avoid another catastrophe, collision, if you were in charge, what would you say has to happen?
MANFRED MAX-NEEF: First of all, we need cultured economists again, who know the history, where they come from, how the ideas originated, who did what, and so on and so on; second, an economics now that understands itself very clearly as a subsystem of a larger system that is finite, the biosphere, hence economic growth as an impossibility; and third, a system that understands that it cannot function without the seriousness of ecosystems. And economists know nothing about ecosystems. They don’t know nothing about thermodynamics, you know, nothing about biodiversity or anything. I mean, they are totally ignorant in that respect. And I don’t see what harm it would do, you know, to an economist to know that if the bees would disappear, he would disappear as well, because there wouldn’t be food anymore. But he doesn’t know that, you know, that we depend absolutely from nature. But for these economists we have, nature is a subsystem of the economy. I mean, it’s absolutely crazy.
And then, in addition, you know, bring consumption closer to production. I live in the south of Chile, in the deep south. And that area is a fantastic area, you know, in milk products and what have you. Top. Technologically, like the maximum, you know? I was, a few months ago, in a hotel, and there in the south, for breakfast, and there are these little butter things, you know? I get one, and it’s butter from New Zealand. I mean, if that isn’t crazy, you know? And why? Because economists don’t know how to calculate really costs, you know? To bring butter from 20,000 kilometers to a place where you make the best butter, under the argument that it was cheaper, is a colossal stupidity, because they don’t take into consideration what is the impact of 20,000 kilometers of transport? What is the impact on the environment of that transportation, you know, and all those things? And in addition, I mean, it’s cheaper because it’s subsidized. So it’s clearly a case in which the prices never tell the truth. It’s all tricks, you know? And those tricks do colossal harms. And if you bring consumption closer to production, you will eat better, you will have better food, you know, and everything. You will know where it comes from. You may even know the person who produces it. You humanize this thing, you know? But the way the economists practice today is totally dehumanized.
Can you walk me through how higher taxes grow the economy please ? I'd like to understand this from your own words. Dont send me a link, or make reference to the 1950's greatness with high taxes. explain to me how it works.
Specifically - how do high tax rates on the 1% (earnings over 367K) grow the economy?
more tax revenue for gov't infrastructure projects - fixing roads and bridges and providing jobs (more money for the states to hire teachers and cops) - when people have money they spend it buying cars etc. income inequality is a big problem - just ask marc faber the "dr doom" of the investing world. we also need gov't money for renewable energy since we are running out of fossil fuels (you do notice that oil is $100 a barrel even though we have 8+ unemployment) - i could go on but you got the idea - very obvious to anyone paying attention to the news and is not blinded by free market fundamentalism. notice what is happening in europe as they reduce spending - you know right?
and where does the money govt spends come from? does it come from the taxpayer? So the taxpayer has less money to invest in business no? You have fallen for the biggest fallacy out there about what is seen & what is not seen. You can see people working on a bridge so you think look at that marvelous govt project creating jobs & building things we need. What you don't see is what has not happened because the money has been taken from something else. Read Frederic Bastiat - The Broken Window Fallacy. You can get it free online.
nonsense - we have a printing press! we can create money - remember fiat currency - look at interest rates - look at japan and their debt and interest rates. read your austrian school silliness all you want - if you do not understand the depression and what worked then, you can look at europe and see what is happening now - austerity will not work. now is the time to put money into people hands and create the infrastructure of tomorrow
so why do we keep track of money at all lol! are you kidding? how did that work out for the germans?
well now you have read some history - the germans deliberately inflated their currency to get rid of the onerous debt from ww1 (in other words they did it to fuck the french and british who did not defeat them on the battle field - read about that while you are at it - they had to get the army home to put down a revolution!)- hudson "super imperialism" should help you here. very interesting book about how the reserve currency works etc. michael hudson also has really good work on modern monetary theory - you would understand the world better is you read it!
" the germans deliberately inflated their currency to get rid of the onerous debt from ww1" What the heck do you think the fed is doing now?
not a bad idea don't you think - what would you do if you owed lots of money and had the ability to do that? not sure i see inflation now - do you - well yes - commodities and food are rising but that has nothing to do with the fed. so the fed is trying but it is not working?? what do you think - wages rising - not mine!
if you want higher wages get higher skills. or do you want to just sit there and expect a raise as the world passes you by.
inflation? go talk to your friends at the fed who are devaluing your dollar.
you keep saying the same things even though it is obvious to everyone but you and your gop buddies that you are dead wrong. i personally do not want higher wages - i want to work less. the mass of the population needs higher wages then they would have money to spend and the economy would do better - read marc faber or stephen leeb - investment advisers who say the same thing - it is not just the left who wants a better economy for most people. read about the 50's and 60's and why they were called the golden age of capitalism - check out the tax rates then! you and your kind want to take us back to a feudal economy like the one run by j p morgan - watch out for what you wish for - and is this your full time job - koch brothers got you on salary - you are shitty at it - you need to read more - someone must have better arguments than what you put forward.
why should your wages rise? have you done something extraordinary? or are you using the same skills for the past 20 years which is making you more obsolete everyday?
this is what you said - What the heck do you think the fed is doing now? - i understand why you don't want to respond to my point - you have none but what do my skills have to do with inflation in the country or the world - i am not that important to the economy. now make some sense or stop responding - my guess is stopping will be easier for you
I am not off topic. Part of this conversation is about reducing the national debt as stated in the title. You can not pay down the debt by reducing; or in this case eliminating corporate revenue, and throwing the additional burden on the backs of the middle class. Corporations, once upon a time, paid their taxes, in support of this country from which they made their gains. Today it's an extraction process with corporations writing the tax code for congress.
So walk me through it - how does the Buffet rule and it's 4.7B solve the financial crisis?
[Removed]
It helps pay down our debt, while there's no evidence such a minor tax increase (on upper earners) would harm the economy (thus, we get a net benefit). Also, it's a fairness issue (why do middle income earners pay a higher rate, practically speaking, than the wealthiest Americans). The conservative response is well, they pay more taxes, which of course only further highlights the wealth disparity problem (but I digress).
how does 4.7 billion dollars a year pay down the debt? the feds spend that much every 11 hrs.
Where did you get such a ridiculous number from? Total income in the United States is about $11 trillion, the top 1% earns about 17 or 18% of that amount. Just going back to the Clinton era rates on top earners .... that's about $80 billion per year in today's economy. Add in DOD cutbacks (shrinking/eliminating bases in places like Germany), planned to kick in at the end of this year, withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2014, and pretty soon we're talking about half of our debt. If the economy were growing at least a little bit faster, conceivably we could eliminate our debt (or at last come close) in 5 to 7 years.
But unfortunately, austerity in all areas is the worse possible approach. We need to expand our state university systems, we need huge investments in science, basically, we need to be in the "gearing up for next century" mode. We should be trying to turn this downtown into an opportunity, by using the additional available labor capacity to do great things; and why shouldn't the people demand this?
The Buffet Rule is not the Clinton era rates. and it will generate in one year what the federal government spends in 11 hrs. It is a cheap gimmick to get your vote.
http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2012/apr/23/rob-portman/rob-portman-says-buffett-rule-would-raise-just-eno/
But if we do nothing, the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of this year (every single one of them, the upper income tax cut, the middle class tax cut, the estate tax cut, etc.). Also, the deal cut (in the debt limit fight) requires significant military cuts at the end of this year (if congress does nothing to cut spending). Obama's time table for withdrawal from Afghanistan is 2014 (2 years away). So by doing absolutely nothing, assuming Obama wins the election, our debt problems will be significantly reduced. Thus, anyone who's interested in reducing our debt, should eagerly vote for Obama.
he not about to take on providing public healthcare
We're the only developed country on earth that doesn't have a mechanism to insure everyone, this will hopefully change (albeit the healthcare reform act may not be the ideal, but it at least starts us moving in the right direction).
great let the bush cuts expire and then everyone's rates go up. I am all for it. At least it is fair - everyone's rates go up. Reducing our debt vote for Obama - you are kidding right? lol!
Lets focus - the question was how does the Buffet rule help?
The Buffet rule is your issue, not mine. I could care less how it happens, and quite frankly simply doing nothing is just fine in my book (and considering the cluster fuck that is Washington, I think the chances are pretty good they'll do just that ... not a fucking thing). Under the do nothing approach the Bush tax cuts expire, the estate tax goes back up, we get substantial military cuts, and (if Obama is reelected) we get out of Afghanistan. Those things alone will save us a shit load of money.
You guys can whine about the Buffet rule all you like, I promise not to give a shit. I mean, if you think that requiring the top 1% to pay the same tax rate middle class taxpayers pay, is unfair, well ... I'm quite sure you have a warped view of fairness .... but still, it doesn't matter. If Obama wins we get more fiscal responsibility, if he loses, back to business as usual (more military spending, expansion of our police state, more corporate welfare, etc. etc., driving us into eventual bankruptcy).
The worse thing about it is under the republican version of how we can go broke the fastest, we don't get new bridges, new airports, new schools, new research laboratories, or for that matter anything useful. It's hard to imagine a party can be so destructive to our national interests by accident.
When the tax code is 76,000 pages of exemptions, it was just meaningless fluff to get the people feeling like they have a say again.
They obviously dont.
76,000 pages
oh dear
I sometimes think it would be better to have a tax system like the UK where you are taxed on levels of income at variable rates. Less tax on your basis that increases as you earn more. It is pretty simple. Plus you don't have to think much about how much you owe. The gown side us there is not much point in filing a tax return as there aren't many tax credits or deductions.
we have a progressive tax system here already. It's just not as punitive as in the UK. The top rate is 36% income over 367K It use to be way higher like 70% Rate dont really mean that much because the more you increase the rate it incentivises people to avoid the tax by hiding or sheltering their money. You want to double the cap gains tax? fine - I will just never sell my investment - I will just transfer the assets around & borrow money against it avoiding the tax. see - it's simple. But the people will at least feel good - they are punishing the rich. The feds wont get any additional revenue & the economy will suffer
perhaps people will shelter their money if they can regardless of tax rate
at 15% people can live with the tax the higher you make it the more people will try to avoid it. It's simple common sense proven by history. Do you thing the govt got more revenue when the top rate was 70%? You can make the rate as high as you want - it doesnt mean people will be paying it. they change their behavior.
yes
I know in the 60s, california afforded free college education
how's California doing now with the highest taxes in the country?
not high enough apparently
we just dump money in stadiums these day
like sports
I heard one has to like sports to be a businessman
so make the taxes even higher & California will be better off. Why are so many wealthy people & businesses fleeing the State for places Like Texas?
because texas is still under their thumb
It's called voting with your feet. and if there is nowhere left to go in this country they will move out entirely. Heck - even Canada is considered more free than the U.S. now. We slipped to number 10 last year - so there is plenty of opportunity to move to less oppressive countries. Then al the poor extortionists can figure it out without the 1%.
der properties still gotta be here
they can move out but property does not
assets are moved all over the world. If your talking about land - go ahead & take it when they all leave. you'll be starving as you don't have the first clue how to make it productive. If you did - you wouldn't be occupying you'd be doing something with your life.
save me rich man
property tax on non-primary residence land could be re-accessed
Nice to have you aboard chatman.Please explain why it has to grow the economy.Please explain how corporate subsidies grow the economy.Please explain how tax cuts for the top one percent have grown the economy.Please explain your trickle down theory in detail.And let us also know your views on fed policy.Let us also know why you are now concerned with the debt?If it is such a burden do you think that we should cut the military by say ninty percent?
Sure. Let's cut the military by 99%. Just do away with it! What do you think?
what ever happend to a well regulated malita?
No, omg we cant do that. Then who will protect me from the terrorists, zombies, ninjas, and commies? Think of the children!
Good point! We could probably get rid of most police departments too! Think of the savings!
All they do is protect racists and shove batons into peaceful protestors anyway. Maybe it is time for the police force to be reformed?
Nah. Just disband them!
I don't like generalizations. what specific "corporate subsidy" are you referring to? So - you are answering a question with questions. I guess you dont know the answer to my question about the Buffet Rule.
stop using the name
call it, the 30% minimum on a million or more income
Obama is the one calling it the Buffet Rue lol! I am just following our leaders lead lol! You still didnt answer the question lol!
Bonton are you back on the payroll?Please give my regards to sara.
it doesn't have to grow the economy. have it your way. What is the objective of the tax to increase revenue or punish the rich? the lower the taxes the more money in the economy. Simple. You wont be punishing the rich anyway - they will just avoid the taxes by not taking the gain. I will just not sell my asset & I wont incur the gain. I can transfer assets instead or borrow against them to avoid the tax. see - it's simple. but at least you will feel better about it. So you didn't answer the question by the way. I guess it is strictly a punitive tax.
[Removed]
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/21227
The chart is informative but it's only the short term effects; the most significant difference tho is just investing in infrastucture which has its effects backloaded.
So compare "reducing income taxes" at the very bottom of the chart to the options at the top of the chart, which either lead to money going to the unemployed or to the average worker (since payroll taxes have a cutoff and don't apply to capital gains by the rich).
where is the link where the CBO scores the Buffet rule proposed tax at only brining in 4.7 billion per year? the feds spend that much every 11 hrs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffett_Rule#Possible_effects
But anyway, my point is that raising taxes DOES help the economy if the money is spent on one of the more effective options.
how does raising taxes help the economy? explain it to me. also - why did the Buffet tax fail to pass the democratically controlled Senate if it is such a brilliant progressive idea?
Because you Republifucks filibustered it. The dems needed 60 votes instead of 51 for the Buffet Rule to pass once the Rebuplicans abused their right to filibuster AGAIN. It has happened on every single thing that the Democrats have proposed since 2008, and its not going to stop.
Republicans don't want to work with anyone across the aisle. At least Democrats try to get shit done. You just block any legislation that tries to get passed, no matter how common sense it is.
Anyway - we are off topic. how does 4.7 billion a year help fix the problem?
It doesn't do much, but every bit helps.
We need to cut all of the entitlement programs for the rich. Right now we are subsidizing yaghts, strippers, and all sorts of un-productive things by keeping their taxes low.
how about the entitlement programs for the poor? 51% paid zero fed income tax. talk about divisive!
The likely reason it failed to pass is it was unneeded complication.
Did you not finish reading the sentence, or look at the chart I linked? Money to poor people is more effective than money to rich people. This is a fact confirmed by statistical data from millions of households and the way they spend or save their money.
Anything coming from Paul Krugman is communist quackery. Anyway - we are off topic. how does 4.7 billion a year help fix the problem? The govt spends that amount every 11 hrs. So the dems in the senate made the bill too complicated to pass? why would they do that?
Nope he is on topic and now you are deflecting. "Did you not finish reading the sentence, or look at the chart I linked? Money to poor people is more effective than money to rich people. This is a fact confirmed by statistical data from millions of households and the way they spend or save their money." That sounds like a very clear answer to how the money can help fix the problem.
"Anything coming from Paul Krugman is communist quackery." You must not be very bright to resort to this line. Do you take solace being dumber than the average?
what is the source of the chart? no source referenced. Krugman thinks we should go even further into debt more stimulus etc. Lunacy. where has that ever proven successful?
I guess that was lunacy, too that ended the Great Depression. Major short term deficit spending and jobs creation proved successful then.
History shows that Keynesian strategies work. By definition, austerity is a contraction of the economy. Contracting an economy in a time of recession is lunacy. Current events in Europe clearly demonstrate how destructive that is.
(see above link)
Paul Krugman knows that "Spend more raise taxes" would boost the economy even if it's less than pure deficit spending, he is just reluctant to suggest higher taxes because people would never accept it.
we were in a ten year depression & it ended in a war lol! you call that a successful plan lol! Keynes did not work. Contraction of the government economy. Keynes just runs things in circles. no growth occurs - money is just passed around. It's an illusion of the seen & unseen - Read Bastiat.
The Depression was over by 1937. The country was plunged back into deep recession starting in that year due to - you'll never guess - the imposition of austerity measures in that year under the false assumption that it was time to reign in the deficit. It was that SECOND contraction that was "solved" by the war.
lol!!!! ok - explain it to me - how does government spending grow the economy? walk me through it in your own words.
Read about it. There are plenty of books available on teh Great Depression, teh New Deal. and so on. Or you could regularly read Dr. Paul Krugman's column in the New York Times. OR your could go to Robert Reich's website. You could even, if you were truly inspired, read "General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money" By John Keynes. Almost anything on Macroeconomics would tell you.
Of course you won't. You would prefer to spout your fact-free myths. But at least you have some sources now that you could go to if you choose to think.
just what I thought - you have no thought process of your own. I've read all about Keynes I did a report on him in college. I was a big believer until I opened my mind to other points of view. Try reading Frederic Bastiat the Broken Window Fallacy - maybe it will give you something to think about
Bastiat's argument does not take into account the possibility of an "output gap", due to inadeqate aggregate demand. If the glazier has nothing to do then there is only a small disadvantage to society from the breakage, and a clear advantage to the glazier.
This argument also does not address obsolescence: if the new window is better than the old window, the replacement may increase the overall utility to society.
Why are you free market purists always trying to explain how things work with 'invisible' things. I never did get that whole 'invisible' hand concept. But if it works for you, have at it.
"what is the source of the chart? no source referenced."
As you correctly surmised in your earlier post, the source of the chart is the Congressional Budget Office at the first link.
I'm not arguing for higher taxes to finance spending, despite these poll results...
Q59. Which do you think is the best way to promote economic growth in the U.S.? 1.Lower taxes on individuals and businesses, and pay for those tax cuts by spending on some government services and programs, or 2. Spend more on education and the nation’s infrastructure, and raise taxes on wealthy individuals and businesses to pay for that spending.
Lower taxes, cut spending 37
Spend more raise taxes 56
because despite people agreeing that it would help the economy, people are more interested in reducing government spending than growing the economy. So work conservation is the solution.
It grows Buffet's economy; his Obama defense has reaped its financial rewards, and anything the benefits Buffet benefits all, does it not?
yea Buffet benefits. Like the pipeline - he benefits from it not being built & they guy is in court fighting his tax liability as he tells everyone else to pay more. it's a joke
It does neither. It just makes liberals think they've done something for "social justice". Then they can stand around and pat each other on the back and feel superior to everyone that doesn't think like they do.
Well you realize you're free to vacate these forums right? We certainly won't miss you.
[Removed]