The Buffett Rule

[UserRemoved1]

News from The Associated Press

[spence]

Polls have consistently shown that Americans strongly support tax increases to reduce the deficit.

Even among Republicans 74% appear to believe some tax increases are necessary.

On Deficit, Americans Prefer Spending Cuts; Open to Tax Hikes

While both parties are going to have to get real about spending, the GOP leadership is out of step with the American people.

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Polls have consistently shown that Americans strongly support tax increases to reduce the deficit.

Even among Republicans 74% appear to believe some tax increases are necessary.

On Deficit, Americans Prefer Spending Cuts; Open to Tax Hikes

While both parties are going to have to get real about spending, the GOP leadership is out of step with the American people.

-spence

Wow the top 4% pay 47% of the taxes and the poll shows that result. I guess 74% of us are ok with that

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by justplugit

RIJ, your taxed 2x when you get your paycheck, and then taxed again on the same
money that you invest by the capital gains tax.

And if you really "hit life's lottery" you get hit again . . .

Where does Buffet's exposure to the estate tax enter into his pontifications?

[UserRemoved1]

It's ALL HOCUS POCUS

News from The Associated Press

No matter how sorry JohnR and Spence feel about this guy, he's as dumb as a friggin turnip.

He really thinks this is real? This is his plan?

WTFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&

It's ALL HOCUS POCUS

News from The Associated Press

No matter how sorry JohnR and Spence feel about this guy, he's as dumb as a friggin turnip.

He really thinks this is real? This is his plan?

WTFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

Suppose the plan "works." Just put aside any Constitutional "objections" and any dynamic scoring of effects to economic production and any theoritical predictions of how it may affect the slide to more dependence on a stronger central power, etc., etc., what happens if the national debt is paid and the budget is in balance? If the plan stays in place, we will have arrived at a point where spending is down and taxes are up (which proves that the problem always was spending). The Federal Government will be awash in "revenue." Will it act responsibly? What will it do with all that money? Give it back? Cut taxes? INCREASE SPENDING? Hasn't all the spending to this point been, in the eyes of the spenders, responsible or in the interest of its constituents? What will stop the Federal Government from doing what it has always thought was responsible?

[RIJIMMY]

it make sense to change the capital gains tax for people making over 250K. The rate should be equal to other wages. Thats a simple fix and will generate billions.
it does not make sense to change the tax rate AND also limit deducitons and ALSO change the cap gains rate.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

it make sense to change the capital gains tax for people making over 250K. The rate should be equal to other wages. Thats a simple fix and will generate billions.

It's already double taxation as taxes were paid on the $$ before invested.

To raise CG tax would make people think before willing to take a chance
in investing in stock which companies need for capitalization and
creating jobs.

Market wouldn't like it and it would affect the retirement and investment funds except for the the tax exempt IRA, 401K etc.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by justplugit

It's already double taxation as taxes were paid on the $$ before invested.

To raise CG tax would make people think before willing to take a chance
in investing in stock which companies need for capitalization and
creating jobs.

Market wouldn't like it and it would affect the retirement and investment funds except for the the tax exempt IRA, 401K etc.

you're only taxed on the gains, not the initial investment so not sure its double taxation. The market would recover quickly, I dont think it would be a big hit. A lot of $$$ is funds and institutional investment which wouldnt impact the average investor
Look at the web news postings the last few days and people are seeing O's proposal for what it is. He is not tackling the problem. He is throwing it over the fence and meanwhile - taxing FAMILIES making over 250k more, AND limiting their deductions AND suggesting (via the Buffet rule) that these families (you know millionaires who make 250K) will pay a higher rate on cap gains? Do you guys realize that all these increases are ANDS, meaning multiple hits??????Where is the tax reform? When are we getting rid of the AMT, which already dings the working families HARD? This is a shameful, no-brain approach which is the same thing O has been proposing over and over. He is f'ing over the working, successful families who are fueling this economy!

for your pleasure -
http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/20/news....htm?hpt=hp_t2

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

you're only taxed on the gains, not the initial investment so not sure its double taxation.

RIJ, your taxed 2x when you get your paycheck, and then taxed again on the same
money that you invest by the capital gains tax.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

you're only taxed on the gains, not the initial investment so not sure its double taxation
for your pleasure -
Buffett Rule: Sounds simple but ... not so much - Sep. 20, 2011

Bingo. Some of my take on it... so guy A goes to work, makes $50,000 busting his arse in the mill or whatever and gets hit @ 25%. Multi-millionaire ceo gets $100,000 or whatever capital gains from money sitting an account and gets taxed on that at 18% (not sure what the percentages actually are). Not sure that is a reasonable policy.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Bingo. Some of my take on it... so guy A goes to work, makes $50,000 busting his arse in the mill or whatever and gets hit @ 25%. Multi-millionaire ceo gets $100,000 or whatever capital gains from money sitting an account and gets taxed on that at 18% (not sure what the percentages actually are). Not sure that is a reasonable policy.

Gulp....i actually agree.

Its even bigger than that as many super-wealthy are not collecting salaries. They are buying and selling businesses, investments, etc and making cap gains which are taxed at a lower rate. AND dont forget, you can deduct losses!
Thats why we shouldnt raise tax rates across the board. It doesnt fix the problem. Fix the tax code.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Bingo. Some of my take on it... so guy A goes to work, makes $50,000 busting his arse in the mill or whatever and gets hit @ 25%. Multi-millionaire ceo gets $100,000 or whatever capital gains from money sitting an account and gets taxed on that at 18% (not sure what the percentages actually are). Not sure that is a reasonable policy.

Apples and oranges, as some like to say on this forum. Capital gains tax and income tax are two different kinds of tax. You might say capital gains at a lower rate than employment tax is a "targeted" tax. It tries to create results other than mere "revenue." Supposedly, it should "stimulate" investment. So folks who have extra "wealth," rather than spending it, or stuffing it under the mattress, might put it to productive use for the rest of society by capitalizing business and job production. Capital gains benefits the wealthy only because they can invest more. But it doesn't favor the wealthy within its structure. Middle class or lower often get lower or no capital gains tax (e.g., when selling a home). It would be more honest to compare similar taxes as paid by the rich versus the poor. A wealthy person, perhaps a CEO of a big corp., who "earns" income, may have an income tax and a capital gains tax to pay. His income tax will be at a higher rate than that of a middle class or poor earner. His capital gains tax might also be at a higher rate. If there are loop holes, if they are not "targeted" to help create a more productive outcome, they should be eliminated. If capital gains is, ultimately, a scam and doesn't produce the desired investment, it shouldn't be tweaked, it should be eliminated and all gains should be considered income as earned.

But an underlying problem in deciding is whether our economic view is win/win or win/lose. When tax policy benefits or harms all parties, its a win/win (or lose/lose). When it benefits one party and harms another its win/lose. Win/lose creates internal warfare and jealousy. If capitl gains tax is not a win/win, in my opinion, it should be abolished.

[buckman]

This is a plan to pay for an increase in spending not to balance the budget.

[UserRemoved]

Sure is. This doesn't fix anything. It's the same ol bloated bag of poo it was before it was enacted then where's it get us...nowhere

Originally Posted by buckman

This is a plan to pay for an increase in spending not to balance the budget.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

Polls have consistently shown that Americans strongly support tax increases to reduce the deficit.

Even among Republicans 74% appear to believe some tax increases are necessary.

On Deficit, Americans Prefer Spending Cuts; Open to Tax Hikes

While both parties are going to have to get real about spending, the GOP leadership is out of step with the American people.

-spence

Spence - from your link: 50% approve only custs or of some tax increases with mostly with spending cuts.
Only 11% support by mostly tax increases. Shape the Narrative

Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&

It's ALL HOCUS POCUS

News from The Associated Press

No matter how sorry JohnR and Spence feel about this guy, he's as dumb as a friggin turnip.

He really thinks this is real? This is his plan?

WTFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

Not sure where you get me supporting him but I would rather see honest solutions that work regardless of who proposes.

Speaking of honest solutions, this is the cornerstone of his deficit program? Additional taxes + 1 trillion that was going to go away anyway is crappy math.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Spence - from your link: 50% approve only custs or of some tax increases with mostly with spending cuts.
Only 11% support by mostly tax increases. Shape the Narrative

No, the poll supports my statement as written.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

No, the poll supports my statement as written.

-spence

If we are to be governed by mob opinion what is the future of individual liberty? On the other hand, the administration certainly doesn't care about being out of step with the American public on abortion or the so-called health care bill.

[UserRemoved1]

That was tongue in cheek John you said the other day you felt sympathy for him cuz I was calling him names

Crappy math....I been saying that here for about 2-3 months now. It's all fuzzy bs/hocus pocus. I don't think it's going to "fix" anything.. I don't have any say in the matter nor will his new taxes affect me, but I'm sure that there will be something thrown in there somewhere that will cost me more and more...that's the way it always works isn't it?

[spence]

I'm pretty sure I've seen a 51% favorable response. Many cite 49% as was noted above. All within the same margin of error.

But to have 51% or 49% for means the against will be lower as there's always a % of undecided.

Granted, Obama lost the PR battle and support now is much lower.

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

I'm pretty sure I've seen a 51% favorable response. Many cite 49% as was noted above. All within the same margin of error.

But to have 51% or 49% for means the against will be lower as there's always a % of undecided.

Granted, Obama lost the PR battle and support now is much lower.

-spence

At the time it didn't matter if 99% of America were against the damn thing . Pelosie and Obama were going to pass it. I hope people don't forget the BS that they pulled in Obama's first year. It got us where we are today.

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

At the time it didn't matter if 99% of America were against the damn thing . Pelosie and Obama were going to pass it. I hope people don't forget the BS that they pulled in Obama's first year. It got us where we are today.

It's funny, you can dis the Health Care Bill but ignore the fact that private insurance costs are completely out of control.

I agree with the Britts over at the ECONOMIST...the HCB was a good thing, pass it so it can be fixed.

People want reform.

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

It's funny, you can dis the Health Care Bill but ignore the fact that private insurance costs are completely out of control.


People want reform.

-spence

This is getting old but,
Pass tort reform.
Open up interstate competition.
Get the, what is it, 600-900 billion from Medicare fraud.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

It's funny, you can dis the Health Care Bill but ignore the fact that private insurance costs are completely out of control.

Which costs are you talking about? The cost to the insurance companies to provide the insurance? The insurance premiums? The price that hospitals, doctors, various health providers charge? Don't all those providers also have to be insured? How about the costs of litigation? The costs of regulation? Little is actually said in your sentence, and much is implied. The major implication is that costs need to be controlled. That begs the question, by whom? I guess your next sentence is the answer.

I agree with the Britts over at the ECONOMIST...the HCB was a good thing, pass it so it can be fixed.

Of course--the government. Not just the government in an old fashioned American Constitutional self government expressed at local and State levels way, but the Federal Government acting in its typical current mode of top down illegal way. Pass a bad unconstitutional bill. And hooray to some socialist Britts telling Americans what is economically good. And what good form--pass a bad bill so that it can be fixed. Not fix a bill (that is not legally the Federal gvt's to legislate) so that it can be passed. Pass it then fix it. Talk about being out of control!

People want reform.

-spence

We the people are told that we want reform. By whom? Rigged polls? Reform is a convenient word. It covers a lot and can mean many things--some contradictory. If you surround it with leading other words, it can sound like exactly the thing you want. It can also lead you away from what really angers you--the thing you mentioned in your first sentence--cost. This is just a guess (I didn't take a poll), I think most people want to pay less (for everything). The illegal HCB doesn't promise to do that. Maybe it will be "fixed." But it is not a true re-forming. It is a third party pay system with more government controls. It is an escalation of the "vector" in which we've been heading.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Which costs are you talking about? The cost to the insurance companies to provide the insurance? The insurance premiums? The price that hospitals, doctors, various health providers charge? Don't all those providers also have to be insured? How about the costs of litigation? The costs of regulation? Little is actually said in your sentence, and much is implied. The major implication is that costs need to be controlled. That begs the question, by whom? I guess your next sentence is the answer.

I'd think that if the consumer can't afford the care or taxpayers can't fund Medicare the rest is moot.

Of course--the government. Not just the government in an old fashioned American Constitutional self government expressed at local and State levels way, but the Federal Government acting in its typical current mode of top down illegal way. Pass a bad unconstitutional bill. And hooray to some socialist Britts telling Americans what is economically good. And what good form--pass a bad bill so that it can be fixed. Not fix a bill (that is not legally the Federal gvt's to legislate) so that it can be passed. Pass it then fix it. Talk about being out of control!

Before Medicare, 1/2 of seniors didn't have any health coverage. I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that the States alone either can't or don't want to address the issues. Sure, we could do what Rand says and just let the sick ones die, but the taxpayers would still have to clean up the bodies.

As for the Economist, they had a good article some time ago stating exactly that. I thought you'd appreciate another sovereign nations perspective

We the people are told that we want reform. By whom? Rigged polls? Reform is a convenient word. It covers a lot and can mean many things--some contradictory. If you surround it with leading other words, it can sound like exactly the thing you want. It can also lead you away from what really angers you--the thing you mentioned in your first sentence--cost. This is just a guess (I didn't take a poll), I think most people want to pay less (for everything). The illegal HCB doesn't promise to do that. Maybe it will be "fixed." But it is not a true re-forming. It is a third party pay system with more government controls. It is an escalation of the "vector" in which we've been heading.

Good to agree we don't think polls are necessary on the subject. I think the average person can see the yearly increases in their contributions to coverage and reductions in services, if they actually have it in the first place.

I believe the CBO did estimate cost reductions of 7-10% long-term, primarily to Medicare. While perhaps the benefits of tort reform are over-estimated, I think this would be an easy savings. Interstate competition and ending the price fixing on prescription drugs would also help, but good luck getting them passed. Reducing fraud would be a big savings buy might require more government oversight (certainly centralized records) that many oppose.

The crazy thing is how much more the US spends on health care per person (40% or so?) than other developed nations and how little we're getting for that extra investment. I don't really see how just regulating less will address this issue in a meaningful way. Increasing competition might certainly lower costs but also bears the risk of reducing quality of service below existing standards...and then you're back to more regulation.

I've seen proposals that believe that if health care providers were paid on total treatment rather than individual treatments doctors would have an incentive to administer less unnecessary medications and tests.

The bottom line is that more action is needed to continue to reform the system. I'd prefer a combination of the best ideas where complimentary, but the reality is nobody has the perfect solution...at least not that I've seen.

-spence

[RIJIMMY]

the future according to Johnny D

[detbuch]

I wonder why someone like Buffet has confidence that the government will spend his excess money more wisely, more productively, more beneficially, more anything good, than he. Hasn 't he been more successful in producing wealth than the government? Why would he want to fund a wasteful, irresponsible government that is better at getting in debt than it is at producing wealth--a government that borrows and prints vastly more money than he or others like him combined can give? Why wouldn't he use his excess money to actually do usefull, beneficial things--build hospitals, repair roads, donate to charities, create scholarships? It is admirable that he has lead a frugal life and has already been abundantly charitable and he plans to give most of it away. But he, apparently feels that he still has too much money and wants the government to take more in taxes. Couldn't this excess money more efficiently go directly to needed places, rather than giving it to a government that would return less of it, if at all, to those places, and squander much of it to pay off its chosen winners and supporters. I guess he must think the government is doing a great job. Stupid of me to wonder.

And how about, instead of raising the tax rate of the ultra rich from 16-17% to the same rate as those earning $100,000 or so, LOWERING the rate of the latter so the ultra rich payed the same rate. Isn't the 17% rate what some calculate a flat tax rate should be. Everybody pay 17%.