73% support the "Buffett Rule"

[Dr.Who]

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

Show me.

 

[Dr.Who]

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.

Are you sure you meant to use the word anecdotal rather than correlation?
An anecdote is a story that describes just one situation usually for just one person. The relationship between rates and revenue would not be anecdotal.

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.

Housekeepers? Can you give any example at all of this happening? Buffet said secretaries and at his level his secretaries get paid pretty well.

 

[dogtowner]

Housekeepers? Can you give any example at all of this happening? Buffet said secretaries and at his level his secretaries get paid pretty well.

Not only that but Obama's 50k teacher example assuming they are like him with a family of four would pay NO income tax.

 

[dogtowner]

Show me.

you're from Missouri aren't you ?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Show me.

I guess I thought you where smart enough to know the tax rates and how they have gone lower and lower...but guess i was wrong

 

[Openmind]

Not only that but Obama's 50k teacher example assuming they are like him with a family of four would pay NO income tax.

And that's a bad thing?

I guess you're all for making the wealthiest more wealthy, but for pushing the lower middle class and their children toward poverty?

Didn't I read somewhere about "Christian's morale" and knowing the difference between "right and wrong?"

 

[Alias]

And that's a bad thing?

I guess you're all for making the wealthiest more wealthy, but for pushing the lower middle class and their children toward poverty?

Didn't I read somewhere about "Christian's morale" and knowing the difference between "right and wrong?"

The wealthy already pay most of the taxes in this country. Raising taxes is not going to solve our spending problem. You guys don't get that. Cut spending.

 

[Dr.Who]

I guess I thought you where smart enough to know the tax rates and how they have gone lower and lower...but guess i was wrong

The tax rate does not effect revenue. I have a strong suspicion that they dont effect how much everyone pays that much either. In fact, since tax rates are not correlated with revenue but the total of the checks paid in are correlated with revenue mathematically tax rates cannot be correlated with the total of the check paid in.

But feel free to show me that when tax rates go lower that certain quantiles end up paying less. Pick a year in which tax rates on the middle quantile were high and then pick a year in which the tax rates on the middle quantile were low and lets see if the group ended up paying more or less in taxes - because the government did not collect significantly more or less. Do it with any quantile you like - not that it would be all that meaningful if you pick a quantile that pays no fed income taxes at all.

 

[Dr.Who]

And that's a bad thing?

When on group of people is not able to participate in our democracy by paying their fair share that is bad.

I guess you're all for making the wealthiest more wealthy,

It is not the governments job to MAKE anyone wealthy. It is their job to give everyone the same opportunity so that people can make themselves wealthy or not. If we had equal opportunity and personal responsibility the poor just might be much better off than they are now.

So to answer your question directly no I am not in favor of the gov making the wealthiest more wealthy.

but for pushing the lower middle class and their children toward poverty?

I am not in favor of the gov pushing anyone at all into poverty.

I guess you're all for making the wealthiest more wealthy but for pushing the lower middle class and their children toward poverty?

You put those two clauses in the same sentence as if the one causes the other. Data shows that the wealth of the rich and the poor operate independently. sometimes the rich get richer while the poor get poorer, sometimes the rich get richer while the poor get richer, sometimes the rich get poorer while the poor get richer, and sometimes the rich get poorer while the poor get poorer.

Is your class warfare is showing?

Didn't I read somewhere about "Christian's morale" and knowing the difference between "right and wrong?"

[/QUOTE]

yes, everything I have mentioned in these last few posts is a great example of right and wrong.

 

[GenSeneca]

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.

You are hanging onto the theory that raising CG rates will increase CG revenue without so much as anecdotal evidence, much less historical fact, to support you argument. Just like every other time you've claimed that higher rates result in higher revenue the facts and data don't support your case, in fact the data tends to contradict your claims.

No one is going to hold on to assets indefinitely...

Since the higher rates would not be in effect "indefinitely", investors need only wait for rates to be lowered.

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.

What's the point of making such an emotional appeal? If the issue is about increasing revenue, then raising rates is shown, historically, to lower revenue, thereby defeating your stated purpose for the rate increase. So if your argument in favor of the "Buffet Rule" is based on increased revenue, you don't have a leg to stand on and haven't offered anything of substance to support your claim.

However, if you think CG rates need to be raise as a matter of "fairness", like Obama has stated, and you accept as Obama does that such rate increases will reduce revenue, then I can only point out how misguided and illogical such a proposal is and hope that other people listen to reason rather than being swayed by emotion.

But, that's OK. Carry on, don't raise CG rates.

Please, feel free to raise CG rates just don't act surprised when revenue takes a nose dive, and our deficits increase, as a result.

I'm benefiting personally from those low rates myself...

Our budget, and therefore the entire nation, is benefiting from the higher revenue being generated by lower CG rates. Passing the "Buffet Rule" to raise CG rates would reduce revenue, which certainly wouldn't benefit anybody.

 

[dogtowner]

And that's a bad thing?

its a lie. at least buffett used a little thought crafting his sound bite.

I guess you're all for making the wealthiest more wealthy, but for pushing the lower middle class and their children toward poverty?

Didn't I read somewhere about "Christian's morale" and knowing the difference between "right and wrong?"

I'm for allowing everyone the freedom to accomplish what they have the industry to attempt. This is right. Progressive taxation is wrong. Kill ALL subsidies and punitive taxation and I'll be happy as a clam.

 

[PLC1]

its a lie. at least buffett used a little thought crafting his sound bite.




I'm for allowing everyone the freedom to accomplish what they have the industry to attempt. This is right. Progressive taxation is wrong. Kill ALL subsidies and punitive taxation and I'll be happy as a clam.

I'm with you on the subsidies.

What do you consider "punitive" taxation? Should all income be taxed at the same rate?

 

[dogtowner]

I'm with you on the subsidies.

What do you consider "punitive" taxation? Should all income be taxed at the same rate?

Subsidies are the govt playing favorites which is just wrong. Glad you agree.

Sin taxes for one, special taxes levied against any niche for another (permits and fees are just another form of taxation).

However one intends to obtain revenue (income tax is not the ONLY option) we should ALL have equal protection under that law.

 

[PLC1]

Subsidies are the govt playing favorites which is just wrong. Glad you agree.

Sin taxes for one, special taxes levied against any niche for another (permits and fees are just another form of taxation).

However one intends to obtain revenue (income tax is not the ONLY option) we should ALL have equal protection under that law.

"Sin taxes" are absurd. I haven't heard that term for a while.

Permits? I pay a fee to drive my car that non motorists don't pay. I buy a fishing license, that's a fee, for the privilege of fishing in the state of California. I don't have a problem with that. I think all of the fees so collected should go to roads and to improving fisheries, respectively, however. That's not the case currently.

Taxes collected for the purpose of running the government need to be more fair. Income is income, however it is earned. If it's an income tax, then that's how it should be levied. A national sales tax has been bandied about as an option, but that idea raises a lot of questions. What other tax could replace the income tax?

If there is one, then by all means, let's substitute it. After all, the best way to discourage something is to tax it, and the last thing we need to do is discourage people from earning an income.

 

[Dr.Who]

"Sin taxes" are absurd. I haven't heard that term for a while.

Permits? I pay a fee to drive my car that non motorists don't pay. I buy a fishing license, that's a fee, for the privilege of fishing in the state of California. I don't have a problem with that. I think all of the fees so collected should go to roads and to improving fisheries, respectively, however. That's not the case currently.

Taxes collected for the purpose of running the government need to be more fair. Income is income, however it is earned. If it's an income tax, then that's how it should be levied. A national sales tax has been bandied about as an option, but that idea raises a lot of questions. What other tax could replace the income tax?

If there is one, then by all means, let's substitute it. After all, the best way to discourage something is to tax it, and the last thing we need to do is discourage people from earning an income.

As much as is possible every tax needs to be connected to the activity that it relates to.

So a sin tax on cigarettes would be used to pay for any legitimate government expense that related to cigarettes. If an anti-smoking campaign were legitimate then it would be paid for through cigarette taxes. But roads would not be paid for with cigarette taxes.

An income tax would be connected only to the running of the the department of labor and enforcement of its necessary rules.

A national sales tax would be connected to the regulation of interstate commerce.

This kind of a system would make taxes more transparent, logical, and if they had punative effects then the punishment would be connected to the things that were punished.