The Buffett Rule

[California Girl]

Ok.

But it doesn't change the fact that they are unpatriotic mother fuckers. They got their wonderful TEMPORARY tax cuts under Bush. So if they leave because the TEMPORARY tax cuts expire then fuck them.

I don't actually disagree regarding the 'patriotism' thing. But, and it remains fact, no matter how much anyone whines about it... the wealthy will suffer absolutely no real inconvenience by simply swapping their 'residency' to a country with a more agreeable tax system.

That's exactly why governments don't do what the ranters on here are calling for. Because they're smart enough to know that they will lose far more than any 'gains'.

This shit is not complicated. It's very basic stuff - if one uses a little bit of logical thought instead of rabid hysteria.

Reminds me of the millionaires moving out of NY when they jacked up their taxes

People don't seem to have thought this whole 'tax the rich' thing through to its logical consequence. It bothers me slightly that people form opinions without using critical thought to consider consequences. They seem to languish under the misapprehension that the rich have no options. One thing that wealth brings is options. For most, it will mean simply spending slightly more time outside the US... no big deal since many travel extensively anyway. That, along side moving their primary residence to a more 'tax friendly' country, is really easy... and, hey presto, we will be even worse off than we are now.... That's the 'law of unintended consequences'... and all the hysteria and whining won't change that consequence. Which is exactly why Obama will bitch about it and do nothing. He knows - but he's quite happy to inflame class warfare about it anyway. Because it'll keep the drooling hordes howling at the rich while Obama laughs. Suckers.

 

[midcan5]

Was there ever a time when morality ruled over greed? I'm not in the 1% but I made lots and paid lots with no complaints, after all it is America that makes this possible. No one creates wealth outside of society, and outside of a strong government of law, so the rich should pay their share which is not theirs to keep as they did not create it out of thin air.

"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned."UBI and the Flat Tax



"What is a human life worth? You may not want to put a price tag on a it. But if we really had to, most of us would agree that the value of a human life would be in the millions. Consistent with the foundations of our democracy and our frequently professed belief in the inherent dignity of human beings, we would also agree that all humans are created equal, at least to the extent of denying that differences of sex, ethnicity, nationality and place of residence change the value of a human life." What Should a Billionaire Give – and What Should You?, by Peter Singer

 

[The Rabbi]

I don't actually disagree regarding the 'patriotism' thing. But, and it remains fact, no matter how much anyone whines about it... the wealthy will suffer absolutely no real inconvenience by simply swapping their 'residency' to a country with a more agreeable tax system.

That's exactly why governments don't do what the ranters on here are calling for. Because they're smart enough to know that they will lose far more than any 'gains'.

This shit is not complicated. It's very basic stuff - if one uses a little bit of logical thought instead of rabid hysteria.

Reminds me of the millionaires moving out of NY when they jacked up their taxes

People don't seem to have thought this whole 'tax the rich' thing through to its logical consequence. It bothers me slightly that people form opinions without using critical thought to consider consequences. They seem to languish under the misapprehension that the rich have no options. One thing that wealth brings is options. For most, it will mean simply spending slightly more time outside the US... no big deal since many travel extensively anyway. That, along side moving their primary residence to a more 'tax friendly' country, is really easy... and, hey presto, we will be even worse off than we are now.... That's the 'law of unintended consequences'... and all the hysteria and whining won't change that consequence. Which is exactly why Obama will bitch about it and do nothing. He knows - but he's quite happy to inflame class warfare about it anyway. Because it'll keep the drooling hordes howling at the rich while Obama laughs. Suckers.

They dont think things through is exactly right. People get the idea that we fine misconduct to discourage it. Like speeding. Or drunk driving. You institute a fine and it gets expensive to engage in that behavior and fewer people do it.
So if you call it a tax instead somehow that whole calculus goes out the window. Idiots assume that no one is going to change his behavior in earning habits just because he will have to pay a fine for continuing those same habits.
But it isn't. If you tax income earning, you get less of it. How that helps anyone except Dem politicians get elected is beyond me.

 

[DiamondDave]

Was there ever a time when morality ruled over greed? I'm not in the 1% but I made lots and paid lots with no complaints, after all it is America that makes this possible. No one creates wealth outside of society, and outside of a strong government of law, so the rich should pay their share which is not theirs to keep as they did not create it out of thin air.

"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned."UBI and the Flat Tax



"What is a human life worth? You may not want to put a price tag on a it. But if we really had to, most of us would agree that the value of a human life would be in the millions. Consistent with the foundations of our democracy and our frequently professed belief in the inherent dignity of human beings, we would also agree that all humans are created equal, at least to the extent of denying that differences of sex, ethnicity, nationality and place of residence change the value of a human life." What Should a Billionaire Give – and What Should You?, by Peter Singer

Fuck you and your anti-freedom redistribution schemes...

Go sing kumbaya and wait to watch the prancing unicorns in the utopia paradise area in front of a speeding bus

 

[DaGoose]

I don't actually disagree regarding the 'patriotism' thing. But, and it remains fact, no matter how much anyone whines about it... the wealthy will suffer absolutely no real inconvenience by simply swapping their 'residency' to a country with a more agreeable tax system.

That's exactly why governments don't do what the ranters on here are calling for. Because they're smart enough to know that they will lose far more than any 'gains'.

This shit is not complicated. It's very basic stuff - if one uses a little bit of logical thought instead of rabid hysteria.

Reminds me of the millionaires moving out of NY when they jacked up their taxes

People don't seem to have thought this whole 'tax the rich' thing through to its logical consequence. It bothers me slightly that people form opinions without using critical thought to consider consequences. They seem to languish under the misapprehension that the rich have no options. One thing that wealth brings is options. For most, it will mean simply spending slightly more time outside the US... no big deal since many travel extensively anyway. That, along side moving their primary residence to a more 'tax friendly' country, is really easy... and, hey presto, we will be even worse off than we are now.... That's the 'law of unintended consequences'... and all the hysteria and whining won't change that consequence. Which is exactly why Obama will bitch about it and do nothing. He knows - but he's quite happy to inflame class warfare about it anyway. Because it'll keep the drooling hordes howling at the rich while Obama laughs. Suckers.

I'm glad we agree on your words in blue.

As for your words in red it bothers me a LOT that anyone would even consider renouncing their citizenship and move out of the country just to save a couple of percentage points in taxes. I mean, this is the nation that provided them the resources and opportunity to become rich, right?

If they're willing to put profits over their country then they can go to hell and take Rabbi with them since he's all for it.

 

[DaGoose]

Was there ever a time when morality ruled over greed? I'm not in the 1% but I made lots and paid lots with no complaints, after all it is America that makes this possible. No one creates wealth outside of society, and outside of a strong government of law, so the rich should pay their share which is not theirs to keep as they did not create it out of thin air.

"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned."UBI and the Flat Tax



"What is a human life worth? You may not want to put a price tag on a it. But if we really had to, most of us would agree that the value of a human life would be in the millions. Consistent with the foundations of our democracy and our frequently professed belief in the inherent dignity of human beings, we would also agree that all humans are created equal, at least to the extent of denying that differences of sex, ethnicity, nationality and place of residence change the value of a human life." What Should a Billionaire Give – and What Should You?, by Peter Singer

Fuck you and your anti-freedom redistribution schemes...

Go sing kumbaya and wait to watch the prancing unicorns in the utopia paradise area in front of a speeding bus

So would YOU agree with the wealthy renouncing their citizenship and moving out of the country over a few percentage points in taxes?

 

[hortysir]

Was there ever a time when morality ruled over greed? I'm not in the 1% but I made lots and paid lots with no complaints, after all it is America that makes this possible. No one creates wealth outside of society, and outside of a strong government of law, so the rich should pay their share which is not theirs to keep as they did not create it out of thin air.

"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned."UBI and the Flat Tax



"What is a human life worth? You may not want to put a price tag on a it. But if we really had to, most of us would agree that the value of a human life would be in the millions. Consistent with the foundations of our democracy and our frequently professed belief in the inherent dignity of human beings, we would also agree that all humans are created equal, at least to the extent of denying that differences of sex, ethnicity, nationality and place of residence change the value of a human life." What Should a Billionaire Give – and What Should You?, by Peter Singer

Fuck you and your anti-freedom redistribution schemes...

Go sing kumbaya and wait to watch the prancing unicorns in the utopia paradise area in front of a speeding bus

So would YOU agree with the wealthy renouncing their citizenship and moving out of the country over a few percentage points in taxes?

A few points here, another few, here.....

The camel's nose under the tent.


I will add that moving would have to be a last resort.

 

[DaGoose]

Fuck you and your anti-freedom redistribution schemes...

Go sing kumbaya and wait to watch the prancing unicorns in the utopia paradise area in front of a speeding bus

So would YOU agree with the wealthy renouncing their citizenship and moving out of the country over a few percentage points in taxes?

A few points here, another few, here.....

The camel's nose under the tent.


I will add that moving would have to be a last resort.

I would go so far as to say moving would never be an option for someone who truly loves their country.

And come to think of it.....they could only move to a nation with socialized health care since we are the only industrialized nation without it.

 

[California Girl]

Was there ever a time when morality ruled over greed? I'm not in the 1% but I made lots and paid lots with no complaints, after all it is America that makes this possible. No one creates wealth outside of society, and outside of a strong government of law, so the rich should pay their share which is not theirs to keep as they did not create it out of thin air.

"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned."UBI and the Flat Tax



"What is a human life worth? You may not want to put a price tag on a it. But if we really had to, most of us would agree that the value of a human life would be in the millions. Consistent with the foundations of our democracy and our frequently professed belief in the inherent dignity of human beings, we would also agree that all humans are created equal, at least to the extent of denying that differences of sex, ethnicity, nationality and place of residence change the value of a human life." What Should a Billionaire Give – and What Should You?, by Peter Singer

Fuck you and your anti-freedom redistribution schemes...

Go sing kumbaya and wait to watch the prancing unicorns in the utopia paradise area in front of a speeding bus

So would YOU agree with the wealthy renouncing their citizenship and moving out of the country over a few percentage points in taxes?

Who said anything about renouncing anyone's citizenship? Citizenship has jack shit to do with it.

Damn, it's no wonder you guys (the left) are in such a spin. You clearly do not understand very much about how one practices tax efficiency, or changing one's residence.

I live in the UK, I pay UK taxes - I did not renounce my US citizenship. I also file in the US - because I have to. And, because of the way I CHOOSE to set up my finances, I pay US income tax - but I could very easily change that and not be liable. I choose not to - because I am a patriot.

 

[The Rabbi]

Reminds me of the millionaires moving out of NY when they jacked up their taxes

People don't seem to have thought this whole 'tax the rich' thing through to its logical consequence. It bothers me slightly that people form opinions without using critical thought to consider consequences. They seem to languish under the misapprehension that the rich have no options. One thing that wealth brings is options. For most, it will mean simply spending slightly more time outside the US... no big deal since many travel extensively anyway. That, along side moving their primary residence to a more 'tax friendly' country, is really easy... and, hey presto, we will be even worse off than we are now.... That's the 'law of unintended consequences'... and all the hysteria and whining won't change that consequence. Which is exactly why Obama will bitch about it and do nothing. He knows - but he's quite happy to inflame class warfare about it anyway. Because it'll keep the drooling hordes howling at the rich while Obama laughs. Suckers.

I'm glad we agree on your words in blue.

As for your words in red it bothers me a LOT that anyone would even consider renouncing their citizenship and move out of the country just to save a couple of percentage points in taxes. I mean, this is the nation that provided them the resources and opportunity to become rich, right?

If they're willing to put profits over their country then they can go to hell and take Rabbi with them since he's all for it.

"A few percentage points" can equal millions, even tens of millions of dollars. I realize since you've worked min wage your whole life you can't appreciate that some people actually do earn that much. For ten million dollars a year yeah I'd sure consider taking a better offer. So would a lot of people.

 

[tinydancer]

Ok.

But it doesn't change the fact that they are unpatriotic mother fuckers. They got their wonderful TEMPORARY tax cuts under Bush. So if they leave because the TEMPORARY tax cuts expire then fuck them.

I don't actually disagree regarding the 'patriotism' thing. But, and it remains fact, no matter how much anyone whines about it... the wealthy will suffer absolutely no real inconvenience by simply swapping their 'residency' to a country with a more agreeable tax system.

That's exactly why governments don't do what the ranters on here are calling for. Because they're smart enough to know that they will lose far more than any 'gains'.

This shit is not complicated. It's very basic stuff - if one uses a little bit of logical thought instead of rabid hysteria.

Reminds me of the millionaires moving out of NY when they jacked up their taxes

Had this talk show host out of Buffalo, when I lived just north,

Sandy Beach. I loved this guy. He said he'd have a cut off point to where he would leave New York and for those of you that don't know it, New York as a state is drop dead gorgeous and wonderful. Honest. It's awesome. Truth.

But it got so crazy that the state is paying more money to retired personnel to their on the job personnell.

Sorry on sps typing on the fly.

 

[tinydancer]

How would everyone like a 15 percent across the board "harmonized tax"? Old Warren and Nancy would love you to give them 15% more.

We call it a harmonized tax. They like to make it nicey nicey.

We're talking a combo of GST and PST.

The VAT they are talking about in D circles is on top of your taxes. Are you stupid? What part of 15% of what you pay at the tax register don't you understand?

 

[DaGoose]

People don't seem to have thought this whole 'tax the rich' thing through to its logical consequence. It bothers me slightly that people form opinions without using critical thought to consider consequences. They seem to languish under the misapprehension that the rich have no options. One thing that wealth brings is options. For most, it will mean simply spending slightly more time outside the US... no big deal since many travel extensively anyway. That, along side moving their primary residence to a more 'tax friendly' country, is really easy... and, hey presto, we will be even worse off than we are now.... That's the 'law of unintended consequences'... and all the hysteria and whining won't change that consequence. Which is exactly why Obama will bitch about it and do nothing. He knows - but he's quite happy to inflame class warfare about it anyway. Because it'll keep the drooling hordes howling at the rich while Obama laughs. Suckers.

I'm glad we agree on your words in blue.

As for your words in red it bothers me a LOT that anyone would even consider renouncing their citizenship and move out of the country just to save a couple of percentage points in taxes. I mean, this is the nation that provided them the resources and opportunity to become rich, right?

If they're willing to put profits over their country then they can go to hell and take Rabbi with them since he's all for it.

"A few percentage points" can equal millions, even tens of millions of dollars. I realize since you've worked min wage your whole life you can't appreciate that some people actually do earn that much. For ten million dollars a year yeah I'd sure consider taking a better offer. So would a lot of people.

And since 10mil a year would probably be like $20,000 to you I'm guessing you would become a Russian or Iraqi citizen for $20,000?

And for your minimum wage crack like I told Warrior, I probably pay more in taxes than you and many, if not most, bring home in net pay.

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm glad we agree on your words in blue.

As for your words in red it bothers me a LOT that anyone would even consider renouncing their citizenship and move out of the country just to save a couple of percentage points in taxes. I mean, this is the nation that provided them the resources and opportunity to become rich, right?

If they're willing to put profits over their country then they can go to hell and take Rabbi with them since he's all for it.

"A few percentage points" can equal millions, even tens of millions of dollars. I realize since you've worked min wage your whole life you can't appreciate that some people actually do earn that much. For ten million dollars a year yeah I'd sure consider taking a better offer. So would a lot of people.

And since 10mil a year would probably be like $20,000 to you I'm guessing you would become a Russian or Iraqi citizen for $20,000?

And for your minimum wage crack like I told Warrior, I probably pay more in taxes than you and many, if not most, bring home in net pay.

Dumb comment much?

 

[tinydancer]

I'm glad we agree on your words in blue.

As for your words in red it bothers me a LOT that anyone would even consider renouncing their citizenship and move out of the country just to save a couple of percentage points in taxes. I mean, this is the nation that provided them the resources and opportunity to become rich, right?

If they're willing to put profits over their country then they can go to hell and take Rabbi with them since he's all for it.

"A few percentage points" can equal millions, even tens of millions of dollars. I realize since you've worked min wage your whole life you can't appreciate that some people actually do earn that much. For ten million dollars a year yeah I'd sure consider taking a better offer. So would a lot of people.

And since 10mil a year would probably be like $20,000 to you I'm guessing you would become a Russian or Iraqi citizen for $20,000?

And for your minimum wage crack like I told Warrior, I probably pay more in taxes than you and many, if not most, bring home in net pay.

Pay 15%. On fucking everything.

Pay it. Like most in my country do. Pay 15% harmonized sales tax. Tell me how much you like taxes then dearheart.

15 mother fucking percent. Harmonized sales tax they call it.

 

[tinydancer]

I am sick to death of Warren Buffet. I am sick to death of Soros.

I am ready to lead a revolution of individuals who are sick and tired of rich old richie rich men fucking us over and getting their wankers licked by the likes of Obama.

I'm ready.

Good grief I'm ready to hit the 60's again. But I'm sick of them.

 

[Grandma]

Tax exile is a common practice, especially for British popstars. If you live outside your home country for 6 or more months you pay a much lower tax rate, or none at all, the idea being that you pay (much lower) taxes for the country you're residing in. Hiding money in Swiss bank accounts or front businesses in Europe, China, or Dubai is another way the rich avoid taxes.

 

[Chris]

End welfare for the wealthy.

Pass the Buffett Rule.

Why should the idle rich, who don't work, pay taxes at a lower rate than people who do work?

 

[sfcalifornia]

Fuck you and your anti-freedom redistribution schemes...

Go sing kumbaya and wait to watch the prancing unicorns in the utopia paradise area in front of a speeding bus

So would YOU agree with the wealthy renouncing their citizenship and moving out of the country over a few percentage points in taxes?

Who said anything about renouncing anyone's citizenship? Citizenship has jack shit to do with it.

Damn, it's no wonder you guys (the left) are in such a spin. You clearly do not understand very much about how one practices tax efficiency, or changing one's residence.

I live in the UK, I pay UK taxes - I did not renounce my US citizenship. I also file in the US - because I have to. And, because of the way I CHOOSE to set up my finances, I pay US income tax - but I could very easily change that and not be liable. I choose not to - because I am a patriot.

That has nothing to do with people moving out of the country to avoid their tax obligations on money held in offshore accounts or paying a higher capital gains tax.

First of all, you're paying income tax, not capital gains tax. You can live in the UK all you want, as long as you're a US citizen and earning income, you pay income tax either to the UK or to the US.

Second, if you were earning capital gains income you'd pay capital gains tax to the US no matter where you lived.

The only way to avoid paying US taxes is to stop being a US citizen. So, yes, citizenship has everything to do with it.

A few rich people may leave the country here or there but a mass exodus? No. Because the Buffett Rule is calling for capital gains tax to be raised to 30% over time. Income tax for the wealthy is already higher than that.

 

[hortysir]

End welfare for the wealthy.

Pass the Buffett Rule.

Why should the idle rich, who don't work, pay taxes at a lower rate than people who do work?

The lower rate the "rich" pay is on monies made from investments.
The money they spent on those investments was, originally, what was left after paying their income taxes.
They have paid the higher rates, the medium rates, AND the lower rates.
They "worked" to get to where they're at.

Contrary to popular belief the majority of "rich" people weren't just given their money. They didn't inherit it. They didn't win the lottery.
They....get this, Chris.....they EARNED it.
They made good life choices and worked hard.

You would reward hard work and ingenuity by forcing them to hand over 90% of their earned wealth.

Hell, these other countries with socialized medicine that Goose referred to only tax 40-45 percent of income to support their programs.

Jealousy
Envy
Class Warfare
Divisiveness

Re-distribution
period