73% support the "Buffett Rule"

[Dr.Who]

Utopia? Maybe. But it certainly doesn't require ANYONE to be hurt!

That's what you say in this post but in so many others you are specifically advocating hurting people by violating their rights.

 

[Openmind]

That's what you say in this post but in so many others you are specifically advocating hurting people by violating their rights.

If you call "hurting" a billionaire or millionaire, asking him to forgoe an extra 2 or 3% of his disposable income in order to prevent hurting the poor and the elderly "violating his rights," what do you think about violating the rights of EVERYONE by starving them and throwing them further in the gutter?

I am guided by my conscience, not by "written words" of any kind.

 

[Openmind]

That is just too warped to spend too much time on now.

Warped? Because I gave you the mirror image of your comments in your previous post?

Or because I told you I appreciated your willingness to discuss i a non-aggressive manner, even if we disagree?

Is that what you see as "warped?"

I assume you are familiar with the term "projection?"

 

[pocketfullofshells]

In what world is taking someone's, anyone's, money not harm?

Warrne buffet for example paid no income tax because he gave so much money to charity that he completely offset his income. When asked why he did not just pay the taxes he rightly said that he knew better how to give it to charity than the gov did.

If we take more of his money then we are in effect taking it from the charities that he has decided are a better use than the gov.

And in the poll. the 73% don't understand that those millionaires pay less because they give more. They are really advocating making it even harder to give to charity and even easier to give to the gov that spends more than it takes in and uses it to fund the military (as one example) instead of charity.

if by give more you mean have more tax loopholes and pay lower rates on there income...

 

[clarkatticus]

I would be for a capital gains tax increase and a charge on all transactions over a set amount of money (mainly for offsetting the cost of the audit and regulation) It is hard for me to believe anyone in this forum is even close to being as smart a Buffet, so your protestations to the opposite is amusing. Should the tax rate go higher, perhaps companies would put more profit back into their business instead of lining their own pockets. The ability to earn money, and I mean earn, not aquire, is part and parcel with the responsibility to the social contract that allows them to do this. When the precentage of available wealth sets in the hands of such a small percentage of the populace then one can see the danger to society and the economy, unless we have forgotten 2007.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

perhaps if we were permitted to retain more of the fruits of our labor we would.

we keep more today then we did 10 years ago...and more then 20...and more then 30....

 

[dogtowner]

we keep more today then we did 10 years ago...and more then 20...and more then 30....

if you plan to parrot marginal tax rates at least include the deductions. And it only shows that we've been getting soaked for generations.

 

[GenSeneca]

The explanation I offered only operates in the short term.

Does this mean you're willing to admit that raising CG rates will actually lower revenue from CG taxes? ...even if only in the "short term" (which, according to your own explanation means: until rates are lowered).

What other explanation could there possibly be?

I don't care what explanation you accept as to why CG revenue goes down when CG rates go up, so long as you accept it and acknowledge that what you want to do, raise CG rates, will actually reduce CG revenue.

 

[PLC1]

Does this mean you're willing to admit that raising CG rates will actually lower revenue from CG taxes? ...even if only in the "short term" (which, according to your own explanation means: until rates are lowered).


I don't care what explanation you accept as to why CG revenue goes down when CG rates go up, so long as you accept it and acknowledge that what you want to do, raise CG rates, will actually reduce CG revenue.

Unless there is a cause and effect relationship, the anecdotal evidence of revenue going down when rates are raised is just that: anecdotal evidence of suspect value.

The only cause and effect relationship that makes sense is that investors temporarily sell fewer assets when rates increase, which means that fewer capital gains are collected in the short term. No one is going to hold on to assets indefinitely, however, and the sales of assets will level out sooner or later.

Those "millionaires" whose income comes mostly from capital gains pay less in taxes than their housekeepers due to the difference in capital gains taxes as opposed to taxes on wages.

But, that's OK. Carry on, don't raise CG rates. I'm benefiting personally from those low rates myself, even if I'm a long way from Warren Buffett scale of wealth.

 

[dogtowner]

Unless there is a cause and effect relationship, the anecdotal evidence of revenue going down when rates are raised is just that: anecdotal evidence of suspect value.

The only cause and effect relationship that makes sense is that investors temporarily sell fewer assets when rates increase, which means that fewer capital gains are collected in the short term. No one is going to hold on to assets indefinitely, however, and the sales of assets will level out sooner or later.

Those "millionaires" whose income comes mostly from capital gains pay less in taxes than their housekeepers due to the difference in capital gains taxes as opposed to taxes on wages.

But, that's OK. Carry on, don't raise CG rates. I'm benefiting personally from those low rates myself, even if I'm a long way from Warren Buffett scale of wealth.

the numbers say its so.

http://usbudget.blogspot.com/2008/04/do-capital-gains-tax-cuts-raise-revenue_28.html

 

[PLC1]

the numbers say its so.

http://usbudget.blogspot.com/2008/04/do-capital-gains-tax-cuts-raise-revenue_28.html

Interesting article.

The mention of the early 1990s would appear to be a misstatement. As can be seen from the above chart, capital gains realizations ROSE in every year from 1991 to 2000 except for a small drop (as a percentage of GDP) in 1994. The author likely meant to reference the increase in the capital gains tax rate in 1986. As the data shows, capital gains realizations nearly doubled from 4.08% of GDP in 1985 to 7.36% of GDP in 1986, just before the increase in the tax rate was to take place. It then dropped back and spent the next nine years around the 2 to 3 percent of GDP range, the range where it was from 1970 to 1982. It would seem clear that the large jump in realization in 1986 was caused by investors taking capital gains before the anticipated rise in the capital gains tax rate. That is one of the major difficulties in studying the effect of capital gains tax rates on revenues. For individual income taxes, it is very difficult to move large amounts of income from one tax year to another in anticipation or in response to a tax rate change. For capital gains taxes, however, this is very easily done by the timing of stock transactions.

Isn't that what I said? Investors sell off assets before the capital gains increase goes into effect, thus creating an increase in revenues. Once the rate goes up, then fewer assets are sold for a time at least, and revenues go down.

What other possible cause and effect could there be?

 

[Dr.Who]

If you call "hurting" a billionaire or millionaire, asking him to forgoe an extra 2 or 3% of his disposable income in order to prevent hurting the poor and the elderly "violating his rights," what do you think about violating the rights of EVERYONE by starving them and throwing them further in the gutter?

The concept that we should not take peoples money from them is pretty basic and it is pretty basic that taking the money from people does hurt them. The concept that we apply laws equally to all is pretty basic too.

What makes the millionaires use of his money any less important than the poor persons use of his money. You have said that it is disposable but you have not offered any evidence that he would use it in ways that are not important. in the example I gave before you statement I specifically said that Warren Buffet was clear that the charities he gave his money to were in his opinion more important than the use the gov had in mind for the money.

In fact, we know that Bufets money was going to go to charity. What we do not know is that the gov was going to use it in any way to help the poor. Only a small percent of the US's budget goes to help the poor. So clearly it is far more likely that the money taken from Buffet WAS going to go to a use less important than his use.

It is very likely that you are proposing that we violate the rights of some people, that we do it unfairly, and that we do not do it for a good reason.

I am guided by my conscience, not by "written words" of any kind.

Your contempt for the rule of law and the constitution grows more clear everyday. I guarantee you that without the rule of law and the constitution the poor and all of us will do much worse and have far fewer rights than with them.

 

[Dr.Who]

Warped? Because I gave you the mirror image of your comments in your previous post?

Or because I told you I appreciated your willingness to discuss i a non-aggressive manner, even if we disagree?

Is that what you see as "warped?"

I assume you are familiar with the term "projection?"

No it was not warped because of the style.

It also was not warped because you want to discuss without insult each other. (You are doing a good job too)

It was warped because your understanding of GOP ideology (and I am not a republican) is so far from what it actually is that warped defines your stated understanding well.


As an example, you said:

"They want this country to live under the "survival of the fittest" rule. " and you went on speaking about things can best be described as class warfare each statement being as biased and loaded and "off" as the previous - warped. But it is not surprising that it is warped since most of the statements that should be factual are just factually wrong. SHISHO.

Do you just make this stuff up?

Yes, I understand projection, I was a shrink.

 

[Dr.Who]

if by give more you mean have more tax loopholes and pay lower rates on there income...

What loophole does Buffet have that we do not have? In other words how does he have more?

And yes by give I mean that he gave about 30 million to charity resulting in a complete lack of owed taxes on his earned income.

I could do the same thing. I presently give to charity and I presently pay taxes. But if I gave more, roughly $3000 more, to charity I too would not own any taxes.

I am actually starting to think that this country would be better off if every time a democrat were in office me and people who think like me did increase our giving to charity so that we paid no federal income tax. Yes, I would have less in my pocket but the people who are hurting this country would not have the money either. (maybe this is part of the reason the dems want to reduce/eliminate the charitable giving deduction? That and many of them hate religion)

 

[Dr.Who]

Should the tax rate go higher, perhaps companies would put more profit back into their business instead of lining their own pockets.

Let's see how that would play out:

1. A company borrows money to grow and operate.
2. It sells a product and has a choice to roll the money back into operations or to take a profit and pay back the investors who allowed it to operate in the first place.
3. If it rolls too much money back into operations it cannot pay back investors (who for the most part are you and me in our 401k's).
4. Then investors will not invest in companies and they won't be able to grow and operate.

The ability to earn money, and I mean earn, not aquire, is part and parcel with the responsibility to the social contract that allows them to do this..

There is no such thing as a social contact. If there were it would be invalid since a contract requires that one consent to it and have an option to get out of it. There is such a thing as a constitution though.