Who are Dems Fooling with this "Additional Revenues" Nonsense?

[Cecilie1200]

It is pretty funny you mention these two. You do know that both of them are opposed to the Bush tax cuts. Buffett has often complained that is effective tax rate is less than that of his secretary. He thinks that is an issue but apparently you don't.

I sincerely doubt Warren Buffett really gives a shit about the tax rate one way or another, at least on a personal level. His interest is, and always has been, to take advantage of people's gullibility in order to advance policies that will, ultimately, make him and his company more money.

Anyone out there who buys into that kindly, altruistic facade Buffett is peddling, I've got some bottomland I'd like to sell you. Just don't ask what it's on the bottom OF.

 

[dvrsteve]

I ask you, who benefits from a federally mandated minimum wage? Certainly not the wage earner! Taxes are paid to the federal government on earned wages, so if there is a federally mandated minimum wage the federal government can count on a certain income. Raise the bottom and everything above goes up too. But the business has to make a profit so hiring is curtailed in order to keep costs down, fewer people working, or the business goes to where there is a cheaper labor pool example: overseas. The Federally mandated minimum wage is the root cause of our high unemployment and lost jobs to overseas cheaper labor pools, but no one has the guts to face the truth.
I suggest the elimination of a federally mandated minimum wage, allow the free market to determine minimum wage and get people working!!

 

[Cecilie1200]

Buffett is a liar and your an idiot.... Buffett's secratary pays 15% payroll tax and then pays income tax on top of it. The vast majority of Buffetts income comes in the form of Dividend and capital gains for which he pays 15% Capital gains tax.

You know it is fuck heads like you that caused me to leave the Republican party and become independent. What used to be a party of fiscal conservatives and libertarians has become the party of bigots and facists.

Buffetts comment was there is a class war going on and my side is winning. I don't particularly want a class war on either side but people like you who stupidly spout off make me sick.

According to Warren Buffett himself, he pays 17.7%. A lot of people who know something about taxes are confused by his figures, since his secretary SHOULD only be paying 25% on that amount, assuming that she's single. And if Buffett really isn't making any effort to avoid paying higher taxes, like he says, he should be paying around 35%. Of course, without demanding that both of them make their tax returns public, it's very hard to tell WHAT'S going on here, other than the fact that Warren Buffett is manipulating people and their class-warfare mindset to benefit himself.

 

[Contumacious]

if you like higher taxes, then say that, calling them "additional revenues" or "revenue enhancements" is douchey and ridiculous

you don't hear those of us that favor spending cuts calling them "outlay reductions"

remember, the parasitic faction, ie, the tax consumers, vote - early and often - so to them they are additional revenues.

.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You know..........Reagan raised taxes SEVERAL times during his administration. So did Bush Sr.

If you want the economy to be strong again, return to the Clinton tax rate.

Or we could drop it to the Reagan tax rate.

 

[flacaltenn]

You stated: "Buffett has often complained that is effective tax rate is less than that of his secretary. He thinks that is an issue but apparently you don't."

Do you think what Buffett said is an issue?

I am bit confused by the 15% payroll tax that you say the Secretary pays. Social Security is 6.2% (4.2% this year only) and Medicare taxes are 1.45%. That comes to 7.65% payroll tax. Perhaps there are other payroll taxes that I am unaware of.

I am also an independent, but to call the Republicans a party of bigots and fascists is bullshit. There are individuals who are bigots and fascists in both parties, but the Republicans and libertarians are far more fiscally responsible than any Democrat.

There's more to the secretary story. Perhaps she has a huge stash of Berkshire Hathaway dividends that ole Warren wasn't counting.

But more importantly this little Buffet blow-up illustrates a HUGE MISUNDERSTANDING of economics and taxation on the part of our leftist buds here. How many times have you heard on USMB that "all we want is for the rich to pay the 2000 rate"?

Do they even UNDERSTAND (dontbestupid and the rest) that Warren Buffet wouldn't be paying hardly ANY MORE than he already IS? That you're asking for the wrong medicine to poison "the rich" with?

Because you class warriors are so busy yelling and being indignant, you haven't even realized that raising that upper bracket(s) isn't gonna touch CAPITAL GAINS, which is what the investor class (bankers, brokers, fund mgrs,) live off of. AND that by JUST raising that bracket, the rest of "the rich" will SHIFT income to Capital Gains? Think Warren Buffet doesn't know that Berkshire Hathaway will be OVERFLOWING with new customers if that bracket tax rate is raised?

How stupid are you guys really? Do you understand ANY of this? What you are nagging and whining for will NOT achieve anything CLOSE to what you expect..

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know..........Reagan raised taxes SEVERAL times during his administration. So did Bush Sr.

If you want the economy to be strong again, return to the Clinton tax rate.

Or we could drop it to the Reagan tax rate.

Sure......that would work as well......only under Clinton, you had more money.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You know..........Reagan raised taxes SEVERAL times during his administration. So did Bush Sr.

If you want the economy to be strong again, return to the Clinton tax rate.

Or we could drop it to the Reagan tax rate.

Sure......that would work as well......only under Clinton, you had more money.

How does the 39% rate under Clinton give me more money than the 28% rate under Reagan?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Look at the economic stats.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Look at the economic stats.

The economic stats will show me that I have more money with a 39% tax rate than with a 28% rate?
How do you figure that?
Pretend I make $1,000,000. Show all your work.

 

[Sactowndog]

"Tax the rich" This old story again!! Will we never learn? This was popular a couple of decades ago. So a huge tax was places on purchases of "luxury" items. Before the tax went onto effect there was a luxury boat builder locally that employed over 400 people and build a beautiful, luxury cruiser. Very high end. Suddenly a "high end" tax was imposed on the purchase of these boats. The tragic end result was sales went to "0" business closed due to no purchases, over 400 people out of work. Tax revenue from new tax 0. Pain to the Rich 0. the rich were still rich, even richer because they decided not to buy a boat or purchased a boat overseas to avoid the tax. Follow the money. The rich are rich because they generate revenue with their money. The poor are poor because they only consume revenue. This concept has not worked for 30 years and will never work. All that is accomplished is everyone is poor and no one is generating revenue.

Which is why I oppose both a consumption tax and support eliminating corporate income tax. However, you assumption has no relation to raising Personnel income tax rates or capital gains rates.

I know this is a shocker to you on the far right but all taxes are not the same.

 

[flacaltenn]

"Tax the rich" This old story again!! Will we never learn? This was popular a couple of decades ago. So a huge tax was places on purchases of "luxury" items. Before the tax went onto effect there was a luxury boat builder locally that employed over 400 people and build a beautiful, luxury cruiser. Very high end. Suddenly a "high end" tax was imposed on the purchase of these boats. The tragic end result was sales went to "0" business closed due to no purchases, over 400 people out of work. Tax revenue from new tax 0. Pain to the Rich 0. the rich were still rich, even richer because they decided not to buy a boat or purchased a boat overseas to avoid the tax. Follow the money. The rich are rich because they generate revenue with their money. The poor are poor because they only consume revenue. This concept has not worked for 30 years and will never work. All that is accomplished is everyone is poor and no one is generating revenue.

Which is why I oppose both a consumption tax and support eliminating corporate income tax. However, you assumption has no relation to raising Personnel income tax rates or capital gains rates.

I know this is a shocker to you on the far right but all taxes are not the same.

Exactly!!! Which is why the parrot-headed left is using the wrong tool to fix the "wealth gap". As the example with Warren Buffet shows -- tweaking JUST the upper income brackets isn't gonna pain ole Warren one bit. Because like most of the most depised factions of the rich (those who's income comes not from salary but from investments) MOST of his declared income is Capital gains. So these economic illiterate class warriors don't even know what their asking for. And when returning to 2000 tables doesn't fix it -- WE won't be surprised -- but they'll pull out a BIGGER hammer to make their dream come true.

However -- just like the unintended consequences of "luxury taxes", they won't be embarrassed to blame it on Republican obstruction or cheating or tax avoidance again and again and again.. Instead of their own lack of reason and analysis skill..

 

[Moonglow]

ethanol did exactly what the corporate agri-business wanted, higher prices.

 

[The Rabbi]

ethanol did exactly what the corporate agri-business wanted, higher prices.

Weren't the ethanol mandates and supports passed by the Democrats in Congress? Wasn't Al Gore one of the leading proponents? Wasn't the idea to make the country "energy independent"?

 

[8537]

The Left pulls out this "sacrifice" shit whenever they want more money. It's either that or "investment." The gov't has never invested in anything successfully.

The government invested in a war against Germany and Japan a few decades ago. Perhaps you've heard of it.

You do not invest in a war. War has no financial returns. I want to see the failure list, but it is probably too long to post.

How does one go about fighting a war if the country doesn't invest it?

Does all that increased capacity turn back into mineral after the war?

You people are so tied up in your ideology that you've left reality behind.

 

[8537]

Look up the word "invest". I do not think it means what you think it means.

I'm quite certain I know what it means. And even more certain I'm using it right.

Really? So what financial return is directly inherent in war?

Well, let's see. First of all, investment doesn't require financial return.

But since you asked....Investment in WW2 produced the industrial capacity that created the middle class. Incomes increased at the fastest rate in modern history. The average level of education increased. The technology invested in to create machines of war produced far more profitable goods in the years that followed. National income increased by 10%+ each year (which, by your definition, would be considered financial returns at the national level).

 

[8537]

If you had said dividends instead of capital gains, you might be on firmer ground, as they are double taxed.
Capital gains aren't income, so how would you be playing games?All sorts of problems with this idea. We already tax earnings of foreign companies here. Now you'll tax them again, if they take the after tax money home?
I doubt it will do either, I'm sure it will lead to retaliation.

So do you think before you post or are so you reflexively against taxes that you don't think and just type.

One of the argument against captial gains is that you are paying taxes on earnings that have already been taxed. Also, many such as hedge fund managers classify income as captial gains merely to escape income taxes. Those games would stop.

In terms of the capital export tax, if I have eliminated income tax exactly how would I be taxing earnins of foreign companies? I wouldn't. The only tax they would incur if they export the capital out out of the country. Other countries already have anti competitive requirements so I wouldn't worry about retaliation. They need access to our market and they have it. We aren't putting tariffs in place.

I'm reflexively against damaging taxes.

Another argument against capital gains taxes is that they retard the formation of capital.
You know capital gains aren't limited to hedge funds, right?
Or were you typing without thinking?

Any limits on what they could buy in this country to avoid the tax?

Payroll and income taxes retard the formation of capital too.

So perhaps we should tax them all equally?

 

[8537]

According to Warren Buffett himself, he pays 17.7%. A lot of people who know something about taxes are confused by his figures, since his secretary SHOULD only be paying 25% on that amount, assuming that she's single. And if Buffett really isn't making any effort to avoid paying higher taxes, like he says, he should be paying around 35%. Of course, without demanding that both of them make their tax returns public, it's very hard to tell WHAT'S going on here, other than the fact that Warren Buffett is manipulating people and their class-warfare mindset to benefit himself.

Why should Buffett being paying "around 35%"?

 

[The Rabbi]

The government invested in a war against Germany and Japan a few decades ago. Perhaps you've heard of it.

You do not invest in a war. War has no financial returns. I want to see the failure list, but it is probably too long to post.

How does one go about fighting a war if the country doesn't invest it?

Does all that increased capacity turn back into mineral after the war?

You people are so tied up in your ideology that you've left reality behind.

War is good business. Invest your son.

 

[8537]

You do not invest in a war. War has no financial returns. I want to see the failure list, but it is probably too long to post.

How does one go about fighting a war if the country doesn't invest it?

Does all that increased capacity turn back into mineral after the war?

You people are so tied up in your ideology that you've left reality behind.

War is good business. Invest your son.

Too late.