buffett rule

mikepegg44 · April 2012

http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/ ... -rule?lite

thoughts?

personally, I don't care how much the feds take in...they will always spend at least one dollar more. It is like they took the idea of fractional reserve banking and apply it to their budgets.

I have been thinking about this, and I wonder...if the President and the democrats really wanted tax reform, why didn't they do it when they had both the senate and the house? They could have easily done it then.
instead they extended the tax cuts.

So now, knowing full well they will never be able to pass a bill that raises taxes with a republican house in a presidential election year, they get to say "see we tried...those nasty republicans want to keep stealing from the poor to pay the rich..." I don't believe for a minute the democrats in the senate and house are serious about wanting tax reform...if they were we would have had it already
I do think something should be done regarding calling stock options as compensation for executives capital gains. If you receive stock for services rendered or bonuses rather than purchased with earned income, I am certainly in the camp that those should be taxed differently.
but as long as we have a giant unnecessary tax code with thousands of credits and exemptions...we will have people getting around paying their bill. simplify the tax code for everyone.

hedonist · April 2012

Even the IRS can't figure out their tax codes - all of what, 80,000 pages of it?

Simplify, indeed!

Granted I need to do some more research, but the bit I saw on the news this morning mentioned those who will have to pay 30% tax on investment income over $1M. This is money where taxes were already paid, so...it's a double tax?

cincybearcat · April 2012

hedonist wrote:

Even the IRS can't figure out their tax codes - all of what, 80,000 pages of it?

Simplify, indeed!

Granted I need to do some more research, but the bit I saw on the news this morning mentioned those who will have to pay 30% tax on investment income over $1M. This is money where taxes were already paid, so...it's a double tax?

Yes, but they are rich so we have to hate them.

hedonist · April 2012

cincybearcat wrote:

hedonist wrote:

Even the IRS can't figure out their tax codes - all of what, 80,000 pages of it?

Simplify, indeed!

Granted I need to do some more research, but the bit I saw on the news this morning mentioned those who will have to pay 30% tax on investment income over $1M. This is money where taxes were already paid, so...it's a double tax?

Yes, but they are rich so we have to hate them.

Ah yes...I forgot

inlet13 · April 2012

Simply put:

We have a progressive tax structure. In order to raise taxes substantially in aggregate, you have to raise taxes on those making more. This is by definition since we have a progressive tax structure. The top 1% (or earners) pay almost 40% in income taxes... the top 10% pay almost 70%. So, a way to increase taxes is to tax the top 1% excessively. There's huge costs to this approach, however. Tax evasion is one cost. Rich moving their money abroad completely is another. Remember, just because wealthy people invest their money, that doesn't mean that money is not being "used" or is good for the economy. In fact, that money - via their investments does a lot to create jobs. For example, Company A seeking financing issues stock to build a new plant in TN. Wealthy people buy stock, giving Company A financing to build plant in TN and hire workers to work at it.

Also, it's important to highlight a lot of these folks are entrepreneurs. In other words, they are small business people. So, if you own a shop that makes over this threshold (and your not incorporated), you're personal income is taxed. Do you think that would help or hinder small business?

To me, this is a sign the President is grasping at straws. What we need is for "everyone" (rich and poor alike) to do better through economic growth. If everyone in society increases their wealth by 10%, everyone is better off, yet income inequality increased! I just don't think people would care as much about class warfare under that situation (politicians or anyone else). Although there may be valid arguments for tax increases due to our horrid debt situation, increasing taxes anywhere (even on the ultra rich), will be detrimental to economic growth and that's the problem.

So, if the major issue within our country right now (and the EU, for example) is Debt/GDP ratio. You may help the debt problem by raising taxes, but you'll cripple the GDP problem. It's a catch-22. And the administration, or at least the economic minds within it, know this very well. So, in my opinion, this "buffet rule" is a simple ploy to reignite their base through class-warfare. Moreover, it's a huge swipe at Romney, since people will lump him in with Buffet. Basically, it's the blame someone (and don't look at us) attempt by those sitting in office. I don't think they will ever actually implement this, but I guess I could be wrong.

Mike's point highlighted the fact that they probably wouldn't actually implement it... as he stated, they already had an opportunity to do something similar when they had control, but what happened? Why didn't they do it? Why did Obama EXTEND the Bush tax cuts?

It's simple: they knew there was a economic growth cost associated with raising taxes. Even Democrats were saying 'you don't raise taxes in a time of recession'. I suppose one could argue that we're out of recession, so we can now. But, I point back to the Debt/GDP ratio and I point to the current EU recession. We're hobbling along. This is incredibly important right now if we don't want to end up like the EU. We need to be very, very certain that the GDP portion won't suffer whatsoever, if we implement a policy such as this. In my opinion, even Democratic economists know all too well our growth is way, way way too fragile. That's why I sincerely believe this is simply a political tactic to try to deflect blame and gain support from a Democratic base.

mikepegg44 · April 2012

cincybearcat wrote:

hedonist wrote:

Even the IRS can't figure out their tax codes - all of what, 80,000 pages of it?

Simplify, indeed!

Granted I need to do some more research, but the bit I saw on the news this morning mentioned those who will have to pay 30% tax on investment income over $1M. This is money where taxes were already paid, so...it's a double tax?

Yes, but they are rich so we have to hate them.

I mean, an overwhelming majority of the people making over a million dollars eat pâté made from baby toes and dreams. yes, they are that evil.

brianlux · April 2012

I'm still trying to figure out why my wife (who handles all the complicated tax stuff for us) tells me that as small business owners we are taxed at a higher rate than wage earners. Our combined income is lower than the national average and yet we are taxed at a higher rate? :eh: See, that's why I let her handle these details. I'd blow a gasket if I had to.

Not to be argumentative, but with this in mind you may be able to understand why I might agree with this statement from the article: "wealthy investors should not pay taxes at a lower rate than middle-class wage earners." But what do I know- I know books- the kind you read- not the kind you work number voodoo in.

hedonist · April 2012

brian, I think that's ridiculous too - not only with your taxation, but also what you said about the wealthy paying a lower rate. However, I don't think they should pay a higher rate.

This is why I think a flat tax (without all of the hoopdeedah bullshit of the codes and loopholes) is fair and equitable.

Everyone gives X percentage, and those who want to give, donate - what have you - any beyond that? Their choice and no one else's.

(ps...I'm still against the double taxing)

(pps...I still need to file MY taxes!)

brianlux · April 2012

hedonist wrote:

brian, I think that's ridiculous too - not only with your taxation, but also what you said about the wealthy paying a lower rate. However, I don't think they should pay a higher rate.

This is why I think a flat tax (without all of the hoopdeedah bullshit of the codes and loopholes) is fair and equitable.

Everyone gives X percentage, and those who want to give, donate - what have you - any beyond that? Their choice and no one else's.

(ps...I'm still against the double taxing)

(pps...I still need to file MY taxes!)

Sounds good. Where do I sign up?

inlet13 · April 2012

Everyone here should watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ucoP4-06O7M

whygohome · April 2012

I really don't see the hoopla here. The Buffet Rule is simply a way to lay the foundation for a new tax plan--wait for it, it will be the centerpiece of tax reform. The point of a progressive tax plan, as inlet13 stated, is to ensure that revenue is raised in the most efficient and fair way. The idea of a Buffet Rule is not radical, it's not even close to radical. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnpG6qCltCw

And I can't believe that I keep hearing about a flat tax. Why should a teacher who makes 40K a year pay the same rate as Alex Rodriquez? Why should a soldier--one who gets sent to the desert to die for ______--pay the same rate as an options trader who sits in front of a computer and make 1.5 million dollars a year?

This continued push for lower top marginal tax rates will not result in the growth promised. Reagan's tax cuts and the trickle-down philosophy is not a concept to build an economic system on. It is a stimulus, just like the Bush tax cuts.

Capitalism is fluid. In a capitalist system we need the constant flow of capital. Taxation of millionaires and billionaires (the ownership class)--->investments in science and medical research, infrastructure, public institutions, etc.--->jobs for the middle class and lower class--->more income for the middle-class and lower class to purchase goods and to spend in the marketplace--->money from the marketplace goes back to the top 1-10% (the ownership class)

Government has a role to play in this. The way the system is set up now, all the wealth is sitting with the top 1-10%. The system, the cycle of capital flow if you will, is stagnant; it is not fluid. This is the result of the trickle-down theory.

mikepegg44 · April 2012

whygohome wrote:

I really don't see the hoopla here. The Buffet Rule is simply a way to lay the foundation for a new tax plan--wait for it, it will be the centerpiece of tax reform. The point of a progressive tax plan, as inlet13 stated, is to ensure that revenue is raised in the most efficient and fair way. The idea of a Buffet Rule is not radical, it's not even close to radical. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnpG6qCltCw

And I can't believe that I keep hearing about a flat tax. Why should a teacher who makes 40K a year pay the same rate as Alex Rodriquez? Why should a soldier--one who gets sent to the desert to die for ______--pay the same rate as an options trader who sits in front of a computer and make 1.5 million dollars a year?

This continued push for lower top marginal tax rates will not result in the growth promised. Reagan's tax cuts and the trickle-down philosophy is not a concept to build an economic system on. It is a stimulus, just like the Bush tax cuts.

Capitalism is fluid. In a capitalist system we need the constant flow of capital. Taxation of millionaires and billionaires (the ownership class)--->investments in science and medical research, infrastructure, public institutions, etc.--->jobs for the middle class and lower class--->more income for the middle-class and lower class to purchase goods and to spend in the marketplace--->money from the marketplace goes back to the top 1-10% (the ownership class)

Government has a role to play in this. The way the system is set up now, all the wealth is sitting with the top 1-10%. The system, the cycle of capital flow if you will, is stagnant; it is not fluid. This is the result of the trickle-down theory.

for me it really isn't about the tax (although I have a large problem with giving a crack addict more crack to ease their problems) it is the timing. It is the nature with which all of this has been talked about. If they believed tax reform was so important, why didn't they do it when they could have...this "rule" is nothing more than a game. That is the hard part to swallow...
as far as your diagram goes, all too often the money the government does have travels a little more like this:
Millionaires -> Feds -> converted into grants, subsidies, and loans -> billionaires with a little of the trimmings left over for the little guys.

I understand the symbiotic relationship needed in a consumer economy, but I don't think federal spending is the way to keep it alive

EdsonNascimento · April 2012

brianlux wrote:

I'm still trying to figure out why my wife (who handles all the complicated tax stuff for us) tells me that as small business owners we are taxed at a higher rate than wage earners. Our combined income is lower than the national average and yet we are taxed at a higher rate? :eh: See, that's why I let her handle these details. I'd blow a gasket if I had to. Not to be argumentative, but with this in mind you may be able to understand why I might agree with this statement from the article: "wealthy investors should not pay taxes at a lower rate than middle-class wage earners." But what do I know- I know books- the kind you read- not the kind you work number voodoo in.

Brian - I don't know your specific situation and what your wife is talking about. But, as business owners (not income earners), you match most of the employment taxes your employees pay. So, right off the bat you are equal tax payers (or pretty close - and that's why some unethical employers are all too happy to pay "under the table"). Then, your business has to pay taxes on any profits and you have to pay income taxes on any salary you take.

So, yes - as business owners, you will pay a higher tax rate than your wage owners and be happy about it b/c the alternative is you are losing money and getting credits for it.

It's more complicated that that, but I can see how one doing taxes for a business would make that comment.

Now, maybe, she's talking not including the employment taxes. In which case, I don't see how that can be unless you and/or your business is making a ton of money. But, I'm guessing (no offense) that's not the case.

I'm no expert, but there are ways of mitigating some of this. You might want to consider talking to a good business tax accountant who might be able to tell you ways of legally reducing your tax burden AND helping your business (of course, weighing the cost of said advice).

whygohome · April 2012

mikepegg44 wrote:

whygohome wrote:

I really don't see the hoopla here. The Buffet Rule is simply a way to lay the foundation for a new tax plan--wait for it, it will be the centerpiece of tax reform. The point of a progressive tax plan, as inlet13 stated, is to ensure that revenue is raised in the most efficient and fair way. The idea of a Buffet Rule is not radical, it's not even close to radical. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnpG6qCltCw

And I can't believe that I keep hearing about a flat tax. Why should a teacher who makes 40K a year pay the same rate as Alex Rodriquez? Why should a soldier--one who gets sent to the desert to die for ______--pay the same rate as an options trader who sits in front of a computer and make 1.5 million dollars a year?

This continued push for lower top marginal tax rates will not result in the growth promised. Reagan's tax cuts and the trickle-down philosophy is not a concept to build an economic system on. It is a stimulus, just like the Bush tax cuts.

Capitalism is fluid. In a capitalist system we need the constant flow of capital. Taxation of millionaires and billionaires (the ownership class)--->investments in science and medical research, infrastructure, public institutions, etc.--->jobs for the middle class and lower class--->more income for the middle-class and lower class to purchase goods and to spend in the marketplace--->money from the marketplace goes back to the top 1-10% (the ownership class)

Government has a role to play in this. The way the system is set up now, all the wealth is sitting with the top 1-10%. The system, the cycle of capital flow if you will, is stagnant; it is not fluid. This is the result of the trickle-down theory.

for me it really isn't about the tax (although I have a large problem with giving a crack addict more crack to ease their problems) it is the timing. It is the nature with which all of this has been talked about. If they believed tax reform was so important, why didn't they do it when they could have...this "rule" is nothing more than a game. That is the hard part to swallow...
as far as your diagram goes, all too often the money the government does have travels a little more like this:
Millionaires -> Feds -> converted into grants, subsidies, and loans -> billionaires with a little of the trimmings left over for the little guys.

I understand the symbiotic relationship needed in a consumer economy, but I don't think federal spending is the way to keep it alive

It is an impossible task: convincing the public that government can provide jobs and plays a role in the marketplace, especially considering the waste in government since 9/11. Bill Clinton has talked about this for the past few years.
But, considering this---Millionaires -> Feds -> converted into grants, subsidies, and loans -> billionaires with a little of the trimmings left over for the little guys---how is this any different form the trickle-down philosophy?
How is it any different form what has been going on on Wall St. and with the big banks over the past decade (or more)?
So, if gov't spending doesn't work, and if the trickle-down approach doesn't work, what is the best path forward?
Preemptive strike: How can anyone have faith in the ol' "let the free market sort itself out" approach?

Last-12-Exit · April 2012

I know taxes are a huge issue with many lower to middle class families, but shouldn't we really start focusing on government spending and how we as Americans can stop politicians from wasting billions on unnecessary garbage?

cincybearcat · April 2012

whygohome wrote:

I really don't see the hoopla here. The Buffet Rule is simply a way to lay the foundation for a new tax plan--wait for it, it will be the centerpiece of tax reform. The point of a progressive tax plan, as inlet13 stated, is to ensure that revenue is raised in the most efficient and fair way. The idea of a Buffet Rule is not radical, it's not even close to radical. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnpG6qCltCw

And I can't believe that I keep hearing about a flat tax. Why should a teacher who makes 40K a year pay the same rate as Alex Rodriquez? Why should a soldier--one who gets sent to the desert to die for ______--pay the same rate as an options trader who sits in front of a computer and make 1.5 million dollars a year?

This continued push for lower top marginal tax rates will not result in the growth promised. Reagan's tax cuts and the trickle-down philosophy is not a concept to build an economic system on. It is a stimulus, just like the Bush tax cuts.

Capitalism is fluid. In a capitalist system we need the constant flow of capital. Taxation of millionaires and billionaires (the ownership class)--->investments in science and medical research, infrastructure, public institutions, etc.--->jobs for the middle class and lower class--->more income for the middle-class and lower class to purchase goods and to spend in the marketplace--->money from the marketplace goes back to the top 1-10% (the ownership class)

Government has a role to play in this. The way the system is set up now, all the wealth is sitting with the top 1-10%. The system, the cycle of capital flow if you will, is stagnant; it is not fluid. This is the result of the trickle-down theory.

So, why should Arod pay a higher tax % then a teacher? Just wondering.

whygohome · April 2012

cincybearcat wrote:

whygohome wrote:

I really don't see the hoopla here. The Buffet Rule is simply a way to lay the foundation for a new tax plan--wait for it, it will be the centerpiece of tax reform. The point of a progressive tax plan, as inlet13 stated, is to ensure that revenue is raised in the most efficient and fair way. The idea of a Buffet Rule is not radical, it's not even close to radical. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnpG6qCltCw

And I can't believe that I keep hearing about a flat tax. Why should a teacher who makes 40K a year pay the same rate as Alex Rodriquez? Why should a soldier--one who gets sent to the desert to die for ______--pay the same rate as an options trader who sits in front of a computer and make 1.5 million dollars a year?

This continued push for lower top marginal tax rates will not result in the growth promised. Reagan's tax cuts and the trickle-down philosophy is not a concept to build an economic system on. It is a stimulus, just like the Bush tax cuts.

Capitalism is fluid. In a capitalist system we need the constant flow of capital. Taxation of millionaires and billionaires (the ownership class)--->investments in science and medical research, infrastructure, public institutions, etc.--->jobs for the middle class and lower class--->more income for the middle-class and lower class to purchase goods and to spend in the marketplace--->money from the marketplace goes back to the top 1-10% (the ownership class)

Government has a role to play in this. The way the system is set up now, all the wealth is sitting with the top 1-10%. The system, the cycle of capital flow if you will, is stagnant; it is not fluid. This is the result of the trickle-down theory.

So, why should Arod pay a higher tax % then a teacher? Just wondering.

Are you serious?

Why should a baseball player who makes $25,000,000 a year (and more with endorsements) pay a higher tax rate than a teacher making $40,000 a year?
Seriously?

Why should a baseball player who makes $25,000,000 a year (and more with endorsements) pay a higher tax rate than a soldier making $40,000 a year?

Why should a baseball player who makes $25,000,000 a year (and more with endorsements) pay a higher tax rate than a nurse making $40,000 a year?

Why should a baseball player who makes $25,000,000 a year (and more with endorsements) pay a higher tax rate than a fireman making $40,000 a year?

Seriously?

cincybearcat · April 2012

whygohome wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

whygohome wrote:

I really don't see the hoopla here. The Buffet Rule is simply a way to lay the foundation for a new tax plan--wait for it, it will be the centerpiece of tax reform. The point of a progressive tax plan, as inlet13 stated, is to ensure that revenue is raised in the most efficient and fair way. The idea of a Buffet Rule is not radical, it's not even close to radical. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnpG6qCltCw

And I can't believe that I keep hearing about a flat tax. Why should a teacher who makes 40K a year pay the same rate as Alex Rodriquez? Why should a soldier--one who gets sent to the desert to die for ______--pay the same rate as an options trader who sits in front of a computer and make 1.5 million dollars a year?

This continued push for lower top marginal tax rates will not result in the growth promised. Reagan's tax cuts and the trickle-down philosophy is not a concept to build an economic system on. It is a stimulus, just like the Bush tax cuts.

Capitalism is fluid. In a capitalist system we need the constant flow of capital. Taxation of millionaires and billionaires (the ownership class)--->investments in science and medical research, infrastructure, public institutions, etc.--->jobs for the middle class and lower class--->more income for the middle-class and lower class to purchase goods and to spend in the marketplace--->money from the marketplace goes back to the top 1-10% (the ownership class)

Government has a role to play in this. The way the system is set up now, all the wealth is sitting with the top 1-10%. The system, the cycle of capital flow if you will, is stagnant; it is not fluid. This is the result of the trickle-down theory.

So, why should Arod pay a higher tax % then a teacher? Just wondering.

Are you serious?

Why should a baseball player who makes $25,000,000 a year (and more with endorsements) pay a higher tax rate than a teacher making $40,000 a year?
Seriously?

Why should a baseball player who makes $25,000,000 a year (and more with endorsements) pay a higher tax rate than a soldier making $40,000 a year?

Why should a baseball player who makes $25,000,000 a year (and more with endorsements) pay a higher tax rate than a nurse making $40,000 a year?

Why should a baseball player who makes $25,000,000 a year (and more with endorsements) pay a higher tax rate than a fireman making $40,000 a year?

Seriously?

Yes, seriously. I'm interested in your why. It seems like it is just because they have more $. They already would pay way more in taxes with a flat tax rate. They would already pay more in sales tax, etc as I'm sure they are spending more money. Just wondering if the sole reason that someone like Arod should pay a higher % is because he makes more money. Is that it?

inlet13 · April 2012

cincybearcat wrote:

Yes, seriously. I'm interested in your why. It seems like it is just because they have more $. They already would pay way more in taxes with a flat tax rate. They would already pay more in sales tax, etc as I'm sure they are spending more money. Just wondering if the sole reason that someone like Arod should pay a higher % is because he makes more money. Is that it?

I've always been interested in this too. Particularly, after our President gets up and preaches about "fair share". To me, fair share would mean the same percentage of what you make. So, if you make 100K you pay X%. If you make $300K, you pay X%, if you make $35K you pay X%. That seems to be fair because the rich still "pay more". But, we're all paying an equal percentage. Hence the term "fair share". I've always wanted to ask President Obama what exactly he means by "fair share". What's his definition of "fair"?

cincybearcat · April 2012

inlet13 wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Yes, seriously. I'm interested in your why. It seems like it is just because they have more $. They already would pay way more in taxes with a flat tax rate. They would already pay more in sales tax, etc as I'm sure they are spending more money. Just wondering if the sole reason that someone like Arod should pay a higher % is because he makes more money. Is that it?

I've always been interested in this too. Particularly, after our President gets up and preaches about "fair share". To me, fair share would mean the same percentage of what you make. So, if you make 100K you pay X%. If you make $300K, you pay X%, if you make $35K you pay X%. That seems to be fair because the rich still "pay more". But, we're all paying an equal percentage. Hence the term "fair share". I've always wanted to ask President Obama what exactly he means by "fair share". What's his definition of "fair"?

It seems like people are pissed that some people make "too much money", especially in professions that they don't deem worthy. So, they take that and try to justify higher taxes because, really, no one should be making that mush money so this is a way to take some of it back.

know1 · April 2012

Why is it that the only thing we hear is about raising taxes?

Why can't the government give at least equal time to lowering spending?

And what SPECIFICALLY is the government going to use the increased revenue for?

I've heard that this Buffett rule will only increase the amount taken in by a fraction of 1%. So what's the point?

know1 · April 2012

Last-12-Exit wrote:

I know taxes are a huge issue with many lower to middle class families, but shouldn't we really start focusing on government spending and how we as Americans can stop politicians from wasting billions on unnecessary garbage?

Yes.

Jason P · April 2012

This "rule" is rather pointless and is more at generating votes through class-warfare than fixing the economy. It "only" generates $47B over ten years.

That may seem like a lot, but it will do nothing to affect the deficit under current spending levels.

markin ball · April 2012

inlet13 wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Yes, seriously. I'm interested in your why. It seems like it is just because they have more $. They already would pay way more in taxes with a flat tax rate. They would already pay more in sales tax, etc as I'm sure they are spending more money. Just wondering if the sole reason that someone like Arod should pay a higher % is because he makes more money. Is that it?

I've always been interested in this too. Particularly, after our President gets up and preaches about "fair share". To me, fair share would mean the same percentage of what you make. So, if you make 100K you pay X%. If you make $300K, you pay X%, if you make $35K you pay X%. That seems to be fair because the rich still "pay more". But, we're all paying an equal percentage. Hence the term "fair share". I've always wanted to ask President Obama what exactly he means by "fair share". What's his definition of "fair"?

I'm not arguing "fair", because it is very hard to get there but, based on Obama's recent statements I would say he would answer your (Inlet) question by stating that wealthier people, i.e. Romney and himself, in the end pay a lower percentage of their gross income in taxes than many in the middle class pay due to the write-off, incentives, etc. that aren't available to many that make their money in the middle class economy.

inlet13 · April 2012

markin ball wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Yes, seriously. I'm interested in your why. It seems like it is just because they have more $. They already would pay way more in taxes with a flat tax rate. They would already pay more in sales tax, etc as I'm sure they are spending more money. Just wondering if the sole reason that someone like Arod should pay a higher % is because he makes more money. Is that it?

I've always been interested in this too. Particularly, after our President gets up and preaches about "fair share". To me, fair share would mean the same percentage of what you make. So, if you make 100K you pay X%. If you make $300K, you pay X%, if you make $35K you pay X%. That seems to be fair because the rich still "pay more". But, we're all paying an equal percentage. Hence the term "fair share". I've always wanted to ask President Obama what exactly he means by "fair share". What's his definition of "fair"?

I'm not arguing "fair", because it is very hard to get there but, based on Obama's recent statements I would say he would answer your (Inlet) question by stating that wealthier people, i.e. Romney and himself, in the end pay a lower percentage of their gross income in taxes than many in the middle class pay due to the write-off, incentives, etc. that aren't available to many that make their money in the middle class economy.

I get your point, and agree he probably would answer like that.

But, I'd say.. then why isn't President Obama for a flat tax so everyone would pay an "equal" share? Otherwise, his definition of "fair" certainly has holes... If his concern is capital gains, we could certainly work around that in some way. That would seem fair to me because if we had a flat tax, that somehow took into account capital gains, everyone is treated the same... hence the term "fair".

I think we're being a bit naive if we really think President Obama is only going after tax loopholes and write-offs. Truth is - he wants a deeply progressive system. He doesn't want everyone to "pay an equal share". He wants to rich to pay much higher percentages (I mean, that's why he's using buffett). That's why the "fair share" line is such utter BS. No one really knows his conceptual idea of "fair". And the typical idea of fair meaning - treat everyone the same - certainly doesn't apply to what he wants.

Godfather. · April 2012

This is a cut and paste but cool.

Godfather.

Wal-Mart vs. The Morons

1. Americans spend $36,000,000 at Wal-Mart Every hour of every day.

2. This works out to $20,928 profit every minute!

3. Wal-Mart will sell more from January 1 to St. Pat rick's Day (March 17th) than Target sells all year.

4. Wal-Mart is bigger than Home Depot + Kroger + Target +Sears + Costco + K-Mart combined.

5. Wal-Mart employs 1.6 million people, is the world's largest private employer, and most speak English.

6. Wal-Mart is the largest company in the history of the world.

7. Wal-Mart now sells more food than Kroger and Safeway combined, and keep in mind they did this in only fifteen years.

8. During this same period, 31 big supermarket chains sought bankruptcy.

9. Wal-Mart now sells more food than any other store in the world.

10. Wal-Mart has approx 3,900 stores in the USA of which 1,906 are Super Centers; this is 1,000 more than it had five years ago.

11. This year 7.2 billion different purchasing experiences will occur at Wal-Mart stores. (Earth's population is approximately 6.5 Billion.)

12. 90% of all Americans live within fifteen miles of a Wal-Mart.

You may think that I am complaining, but I am really laying the ground work for suggesting that MAYBE we should hire the guys who run Wal-Mart to fix the economy.
Better yet, just move The Whitehouse to BENTONVILLE , ARKANSAS and let Wal-mart take it over!!!!!!!

This should be read and understood by all Americans Democrats, Republicans, EVERYONE!!

To President Obama and all 535 voting members of the Legislature,

It is now official that the majority of you are corrupt morons:

a.. The U.S. Postal Service was established in 1775. You have had 234 years to get it right and it is broke.

b.. Social Security was established in 1935. You have had 74 years to get it right and it is broke.
c.. Fannie Mae was established in 1938. You have had 71 years to get it right and it is broke.

d.. War on Poverty started in 1964. You have had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor" and they only want more.

e.. Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. You have had 44 years to get it right and they are broke.

f.. Freddie Mac was established in 1970. You have had 39 years to get it right and it is broke.

g.. The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24 billion a year and we import more oil than ever before. You had 32 years to get it right and it is an abysmal failure.

You have FAILED in every "government service" you have shoved down our throats while overspending our tax dollars.
Folks, keep this circulating. It is very well stated. Maybe it will end up in the e-mails of some of our "duly elected' (they never read anything) and their staff will clue them in on how Americans feel.
AND
I know what's wrong. We have lost our minds to "Political Correctness" !!!
Someone please tell me what the HELL's wrong with all the people that run this country!!!
We're "broke" & can't help our own Seniors, Veterans, Orphans, Homeless etc.,??????????? Recently we have provided aid to Haiti , Chile , and Turkey .. And now Pakistan .....home of bin Laden. Literally, BILLIONS of DOLLARS!!!

Our retired seniors living on a 'fixed income' receive no aid nor do they get any breaks while our government and religious organizations pour Hundreds of Billions of $$$$$$'s and Tons of Food to Foreign Countries! We have hundreds of adoptable children who are shoved aside to make room for the adoption of foreign orphans.

AMERICA: a country where we have homeless without shelter, children going to bed hungry, elderly going without 'needed' meds, and mentally ill without treatment -etc,etc.

YET......................They had a 'Benefit' for the people of Haiti on 12 TV stations, ships and planes lining up with food, water, tents clothes, bedding, doctors and medical supplies.

Imagine if the *GOVERNMENT* gave 'US' the same support they give to other countries. Sad isn't it?

markin ball · April 2012

I can't argue with much of this but a few things...

Godfather. wrote:

This is a cut and paste but cool.

Godfather.

Wal-Mart vs. The Morons

1. Americans spend $36,000,000 at Wal-Mart Every hour of every day.

2. This works out to $20,928 profit every minute!

3. Wal-Mart will sell more from January 1 to St. Pat rick's Day (March 17th) than Target sells all year.

4. Wal-Mart is bigger than Home Depot + Kroger + Target +Sears + Costco + K-Mart combined.

5. Wal-Mart employs 1.6 million people, is the world's largest private employer, and most speak English.

6. Wal-Mart is the largest company in the history of the world.

7. Wal-Mart now sells more food than Kroger and Safeway combined, and keep in mind they did this in only fifteen years.

8. During this same period, 31 big supermarket chains sought bankruptcy.

9. Wal-Mart now sells more food than any other store in the world.

10. Wal-Mart has approx 3,900 stores in the USA of which 1,906 are Super Centers; this is 1,000 more than it had five years ago.

11. This year 7.2 billion different purchasing experiences will occur at Wal-Mart stores. (Earth's population is approximately 6.5 Billion.)

12. 90% of all Americans live within fifteen miles of a Wal-Mart.

You may think that I am complaining, but I am really laying the ground work for suggesting that MAYBE we should hire the guys who run Wal-Mart to fix the economy.
Better yet, just move The Whitehouse to BENTONVILLE , ARKANSAS and let Wal-mart take it over!!!!!!!

This should be read and understood by all Americans Democrats, Republicans, EVERYONE!!

To President Obama and all 535 voting members of the Legislature,

It is now official that the majority of you are corrupt morons:

a.. The U.S. Postal Service was established in 1775. You have had 234 years to get it right and it is broke.

Only because of a weird law that requires the postal service to fund the retirement of other government agencies something like 70 years into the future.

b.. Social Security was established in 1935. You have had 74 years to get it right and it is broke.

Wrong. Social Security is 100% solvent until 2030. If changes aren't made, it may go broke.
c.. Fannie Mae was established in 1938. You have had 71 years to get it right and it is broke.

d.. War on Poverty started in 1964. You have had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor" and they only want more.

e.. Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. You have had 44 years to get it right and they are broke.

f.. Freddie Mac was established in 1970. You have had 39 years to get it right and it is broke.

g.. The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24 billion a year and we import more oil than ever before. You had 32 years to get it right and it is an abysmal failure.

You have FAILED in every "government service" you have shoved down our throats while overspending our tax dollars.
Folks, keep this circulating. It is very well stated. Maybe it will end up in the e-mails of some of our "duly elected' (they never read anything) and their staff will clue them in on how Americans feel.
AND
I know what's wrong. We have lost our minds to "Political Correctness" !!!
Someone please tell me what the HELL's wrong with all the people that run this country!!!
We're "broke" & can't help our own Seniors, Veterans, Orphans, Homeless etc.,??????????? Recently we have provided aid to Haiti , Chile , and Turkey .. And now Pakistan .....home of bin Laden. Literally, BILLIONS of DOLLARS!!!

Our retired seniors living on a 'fixed income' receive no aid nor do they get any breaks while our government and religious organizations pour Hundreds of Billions of $$$$$$'s and Tons of Food to Foreign Countries! We have hundreds of adoptable children who are shoved aside to make room for the adoption of foreign orphans.

AMERICA: a country where we have homeless without shelter, children going to bed hungry, elderly going without 'needed' meds, and mentally ill without treatment -etc,etc.

YET......................They had a 'Benefit' for the people of Haiti on 12 TV stations, ships and planes lining up with food, water, tents clothes, bedding, doctors and medical supplies.

Imagine if the *GOVERNMENT* gave 'US' the same support they give to other countries. Sad isn't it?

markin ball · April 2012

I agree that this is a political move and Obama is a politician, but isn't calling a flat tax "fair" an argument also filled with holes? It will never be "fair". We could argue "fair" until the end of time. I say we focus less on "fair" and focus on what is best tax poilicy for funding what we want our governent to do and the best tax policy for the economy. That very well may be a progressive tax with the way things are.

blueandwhite · April 2012

inlet13 wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Yes, seriously. I'm interested in your why. It seems like it is just because they have more $. They already would pay way more in taxes with a flat tax rate. They would already pay more in sales tax, etc as I'm sure they are spending more money. Just wondering if the sole reason that someone like Arod should pay a higher % is because he makes more money. Is that it?

I've always been interested in this too. Particularly, after our President gets up and preaches about "fair share". To me, fair share would mean the same percentage of what you make. So, if you make 100K you pay X%. If you make $300K, you pay X%, if you make $35K you pay X%. That seems to be fair because the rich still "pay more". But, we're all paying an equal percentage. Hence the term "fair share". I've always wanted to ask President Obama what exactly he means by "fair share". What's his definition of "fair"?

Speaking as a Canadian (a certified socialist by American standards), I've always understood that progressive tax rates take into consideration that the base portion of your income goes to paying for necessities. Essentially, most of a lower-income earner's money is tied up providing basic needs and a few luxuries. As the middle and lower income earners watch the cost of living rise while their incomes fall, breaking even is becoming increasingly difficult. A flat tax places a heavier burden on people who are already struggling to get by.

jimc3 · April 2012

um, life isn't fair

hedonist · April 2012

jimc3 wrote:

um, life isn't fair

My dad used to say that (minus the "um"

), and boy was he right.

But, life ain't the government. Life happens; the government doesn't/shouldn't - though one could argue differently.

Earlier today, I was listening to a bit of Dave Ramsay. He was speaking with a caller who felt that those who make more should pay more. An analogy was made regarding someone who has developed a larger business, employs more people, and likely makes more money (excuse me, earns more money).

The caller said, "Well, why would anyone need that much money?" And Dave said, "It's really none of your business; it's their money."

That's how I feel. If I've worked for what I have, if I've succeeded in the financial sense, who is anyone - government, neighbor, man on the street - to decide what I should do with it - that I must give more (assuming I wouldn't anyway, in the way of charity, donations, general spending, what have you) any more than one would tell someone not making much what they should do with theirs?

Both of us have worked for it...probably quite hard, too.

buffett rule

Comments