Print

[blue2]

Typical left wing socialist ideas.  Tax the hell out of the smart intelligent people that work hard for their money and give to the lazy dicks that don't want to work.

[Frenchfry]

Typical left wing socialist ideas.  Tax the hell out of the smart intelligent people that work hard for their money and give to the lazy dicks that don't want to work.

LOL...typical right-wing nonsense. 

[blue2]

Work for my money so I can give it to someone that doesn't want to work?  Probably nonsense to those that don't want to work and are thinking everybody owes them.  Very productive group of people and it is getting bigger.  750,000 of them in Detroit.

[Baby Hitler]

Typical left wing socialist ideas.  Tax the hell out of the smart intelligent people that work hard for their money and give to the lazy dicks that don't want to work.

Work for my money so I can give it to someone that doesn't want to work?  Probably nonsense to those that don't want to work and are thinking everybody owes them.  Very productive group of people and it is getting bigger.  750,000 of them in Detroit.

The "Buffet Rule" is designed so that those making more than $1,000,000 a year on their investments, would be subject to the same rate as those who EARNED their money by WORKING for it.

“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”

 Abraham Lincoln

[jbs49238]

The "Buffet Rule" is designed so that those making more than $1,000,000 a year on their investments, would be subject to the same rate as those who EARNED their money by WORKING for it.

HA HA... common ground.  You are right.  Income is income, treating it differenty because of how it is earned is dumb.

[Frenchfry]

"We've Tried This Trickle-Down Experiment Before... It doesn't work!" Pres Obama Weekly Address

[Frenchfry]

How ‘Buffett Rule’ could still be escaped by highest-earning households

The highest-earning U.S. households have ways to escape President Barack Obama’s Buffett rule with tax-planning techniques that would limit their liability and undermine the proposal’s purpose.

Those affected taxpayers -- the fewer than 0.5 percent of Americans with annual incomes exceeding $1 million and tax rates of less than 30 percent -- could take advantage of tax-free investments such as municipal bonds to escape the Buffett rule’s bite. They also could time asset sales for maximum tax benefits, engage in transactions that don’t result in taxable income and make charitable contributions that yield deductions.

“Largely, the Buffett rule is going to be manageable,” said David Miller, a partner at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP in New York. “That is, with tax planning, people will be able to avoid it.”

The proposal would deny high-income taxpayers many deductions and other breaks they use to drive down their average tax rate without closing out the tactics employed by the wealthiest, most sophisticated taxpayers.

The Buffett rule, named for billionaire investor Warren Buffett, would require that taxpayers with at least $2 million in adjusted gross income pay a minimum rate of 30 percent and would impose the increase on a sliding scale for those with income between $1 million and $2 million.

Obama has been campaigning for the proposal in advance of an April 16 procedural vote in the U.S. Senate. He had television interviews yesterday in four states with one Republican senator. Also, the White House website posted a Buffett rule calculator with which taxpayers can compare their tax rate to millionaires’ rates.

Republicans are expected to block the Buffett rule bill, which requires 60 votes to advance in the Senate. Democrats will continue to campaign on the issue of tax fairness.

Preferential tax treatment for capital gains and dividends is among the reasons why some high-income households have relatively low effective tax rates, and one result of the Buffett rule would be to raise effective tax rates on capital income. Of the top 1 percent of households, 10 percent have effective tax rates of 8.7 percent or less, including income, payroll and corporate taxes, according to the 2012 Economic Report of the President.

Much more here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/how-buffett-rule-could-still-be-escaped-by-highest-earning-households/2012/04/13/gIQADsAwET_story.html

[Tiny]

Typical left wing socialist ideas.  Tax the hell out of the smart intelligent people that work hard for their money and give to the lazy dicks that don't want to work.

Well the way it is now they are taxing you more to cover what the rich are not paying, so you are now carrying the rich on your back, while the smart, rich keep their money and invest it to make even more. I would rather give more of the rich people's money to the lazy people than mine.

Why limit it to those who make over one million dollars, everyone should pay their fair share. I read where Obama released his previous tax returns and it said he pays less than people that make less than him.

[blue2]

If they started tomorrow by taking 50% of what the "rich" people earn it would take 250 years just to break even with Obama's deficit spending this year.

[John Kopke]

I just wonder what the big deal is about the Buffet Rule. I've read where it will generate anywhere from $ 3.5 to $ 5 billion extra a year. Will this extra revenue make any real difference in lowering the deficit? Would it be enough to finance some ginormous jobs program that somehow provides jobs to thousands? Will the Federal Government "invest" this money more wisely than would a Warren Buffett? Will it mean that Mr. Buffet and President Obama will pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than their secretaries currently pay? Do you really care?   

Times are really tough for a whole lot of people. Government spending spiraling out of control. No jobs. People are really scared. The economy sputtering at best. And front and center is a discussion of the Buffet Rule. Appears to me we might want to re-think our priorities.

[Baby Hitler]

"It's not class warfare to ask everyone in the country to pay their fair share. To say the wealthy have taken advantage of their political position and have not paid their share of taxes is not class warfare. It's a statement of fact," Stiglitz told ABC News. "The fact is they are paying lower taxes and most Americans think this is unjust and unfair. Tax loopholes don't just appear out of thin air. They are the result of big political investments that rich people have particularly made to get tax preferences."

.....

Stiglitz said there is "no justification" why hedge funds should be taxed at a lower rate than workers. He said it is possible that raising taxes by 0.5 percent, particularly with millionaires, could raise GDP by 1 to 1.5 percentage points.

"This could make a significant contribution to the country, especially if we spend it well," he said. "So from economic point of view, the current tax system is a distortion and this is partial fix for that distortion."

Read more at : http://abcnews.go.com/Business/nobel-prize-winner-joseph-stiglitz-raising-taxes-class/story?id=14554508#.T4uEdNn4Luw

[sammy]

The stickler has always been "fair share". Many are willing to trot it out, but few, if any, are willing to put a number to it. What is your "fair share" number? Got one, or are you just a "talkingpointer"?

[John Kopke]

Well if "Stiglitz" says it's so it must be. FB you've bought into distraction routine hook, line and sinker. How will this stuff help the average American? Then again I apologize. You
clearly weren't seeking to respond to my post.

[Baby Hitler]

Well if "Stiglitz" says it's so it must be. FB you've bought into distraction routine hook, line and sinker. How will this stuff help the average American? Then again I apologize. You
clearly weren't seeking to respond to my post.

Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel prize winner in economics. Sorry if I take his opinion over yours, Mr. Sellallmystocksandbuygold.

The stickler has always been "fair share". Many are willing to trot it out, but few, if any, are willing to put a number to it. What is your "fair share" number? Got one, or are you just a "talkingpointer"?

How about the same number as what is paid on REGULAR EARNINGS? Why does investment earnings deserve special treatment?

“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”

 Abraham Lincoln

If you REALLY demand a number, how does 25% sound? Will that fulfill your requirements for a number?

[sammy]

Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel prize winner in economics. Sorry if I take his opinion over yours, Mr. Sellallmystocksandbuygold.
How about the same number as what is paid on REGULAR EARNINGS? Why does investment earnings deserve special treatment?


If you REALLY demand a number, how does 25% sound? Will that fulfill your requirements for a number?

Yep! You are the first with the guts to name a number. Don't know if that's a fair number or not, but at least someone put a number out there.