shah269 0 #1 April 10, 2012 http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2012/04/10/the-buffett-rules-billionaire-backers-meet-the-super-rich-who-want-to-pay-more-taxes/ Interesting.Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay. The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #2 April 10, 2012 Quotehttp://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2012/04/10/the-buffett-rules-billionaire-backers-meet-the-super-rich-who-want-to-pay-more-taxes/ Interesting. the primary problem with the Buffet Rule is that it doesn't generate very much revenue. (5B/year) If you get past the way it's being misrepresented by Obama as a populist election year ploy, it's at best a symbolic tax. While the Fortune 400 may be paying at 18%, if you look at all earning 1m/year, the average rate is considerably higher. Quote And the Congressional Research Service notes that today's tax code doesn't violate the Buffett rule as egregiously as Warren Buffett and others have asserted. Using 2006 data, the CRS found the average tax rate among millionaires is almost 30% -- with about a tenth of them paying a rate higher than 35% and another tenth paying a rate below 24%. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obamas-buffett-rule-minimum-tax-110300538.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shah269 0 #3 April 10, 2012 My fed + my NJ state was at almost 30% not fun. But yes I agree this is just for show and there is very little if any go to it.Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay. The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 333 #4 April 10, 2012 I'd be fine with 18% Federal income tax on my entire income too -- for 2010 it was over 23%, not counting SS/Medicare. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,117 #5 April 10, 2012 QuoteQuotehttp://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2012/04/10/the-buffett-rules-billionaire-backers-meet-the-super-rich-who-want-to-pay-more-taxes/ Interesting. the primary problem with the Buffet Rule is that it doesn't generate very much revenue. (5B/year) If you get past the way it's being misrepresented by Obama as a populist election year ploy, it's at best a symbolic tax. While the Fortune 400 may be paying at 18%, if you look at all earning 1m/year, the average rate is considerably higher. Quote And the Congressional Research Service notes that today's tax code doesn't violate the Buffett rule as egregiously as Warren Buffett and others have asserted. Using 2006 data, the CRS found the average tax rate among millionaires is almost 30% -- with about a tenth of them paying a rate higher than 35% and another tenth paying a rate below 24%. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obamas-buffett-rule-minimum-tax-110300538.html 1. The richest 1% of Americans are now taking in over 20 percent of total national income, and so far have raked in almost all the gains from the recovery. Thirty years ago, the richest 1% got 9 percent of total income. Income and wealth are now more concentrated at the top than they’ve been since the 1920s. 2. The richest 1% are paying a lower tax rate than they’ve paid since 1980. For three decades after World War II, their tax rate never dropped below 70 percent. Even considering all deductions and tax credits, they paid close to 55 percent. Under Eisenhower, the top rate was 91 percent and the effective rate was 58 percent. 3. The economy was not destroyed by the (higher) tax rates on the wealthy during the Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and Bush 1 presidencies. Any argument that raising tax rates on the rich to 1999 levels will lead to disaster are bogus, and not supported by history,... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #6 April 10, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuotehttp://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2012/04/10/the-buffett-rules-billionaire-backers-meet-the-super-rich-who-want-to-pay-more-taxes/ Interesting. the primary problem with the Buffet Rule is that it doesn't generate very much revenue. (5B/year) If you get past the way it's being misrepresented by Obama as a populist election year ploy, it's at best a symbolic tax. While the Fortune 400 may be paying at 18%, if you look at all earning 1m/year, the average rate is considerably higher. Quote And the Congressional Research Service notes that today's tax code doesn't violate the Buffett rule as egregiously as Warren Buffett and others have asserted. Using 2006 data, the CRS found the average tax rate among millionaires is almost 30% -- with about a tenth of them paying a rate higher than 35% and another tenth paying a rate below 24%. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obamas-buffett-rule-minimum-tax-110300538.html 1. The richest 1% of Americans are now taking in over 20 percent of total national income, and so far have raked in almost all the gains from the recovery. Thirty years ago, the richest 1% got 9 percent of total income. Income and wealth are now more concentrated at the top than they’ve been since the 1920s. 2. The richest 1% are paying a lower tax rate than they’ve paid since 1980. For three decades after World War II, their tax rate never dropped below 70 percent. Even considering all deductions and tax credits, they paid close to 55 percent. Under Eisenhower, the top rate was 91 percent and the effective rate was 58 percent. 3. The economy was not destroyed by the (higher) tax rates on the wealthy during the Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and Bush 1 presidencies. Any argument that raising tax rates on the rich to 1999 levels will lead to disaster are bogus, and not supported by history, you are saying that the recessions in the past did not happen? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #7 April 10, 2012 Quote 1. The richest 1% of Americans are now taking in over 20 percent of total national income, and so far have raked in almost all the gains from the recovery. Thirty years ago, the richest 1% got 9 percent of total income. Income and wealth are now more concentrated at the top than they’ve been since the 1920s. 2. The richest 1% are paying a lower tax rate than they’ve paid since 1980. For three decades after World War II, their tax rate never dropped below 70 percent. Even considering all deductions and tax credits, they paid close to 55 percent. Under Eisenhower, the top rate was 91 percent and the effective rate was 58 percent. 3. The economy was not destroyed by the (higher) tax rates on the wealthy during the Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and Bush 1 presidencies. Any argument that raising tax rates on the rich to 1999 levels will lead to disaster are bogus, and not supported by history, what are you debating? Your statements have little to do with the topic. The 1%ers are not the same as the millionaires. Open a new post if you want to repeat this story line. Comparing to the 50s is silly - US had an incredible advantage over the rest of the world. Looking to Nixon seems even worse- the 70s was a terrible economy due to many factors (Vietnam, oil shocks). And the tax rates for the latter half of Reagan and Bush I were dramatically lower than the first two. The facts are presented in this article - why not respond to the part where it talks about a whopping 4.7B/year change in taxes? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #8 April 10, 2012 Quote1. The richest 1% of Americans are now taking in over 20 percent of total national income, and so far have raked in almost all the gains from the recovery. Thirty years ago, the richest 1% got 9 percent of total income. Income and wealth are now more concentrated at the top than they’ve been since the 1920s. The richest .52% (those making over 500k/year according to IRS tax info for 2009) take in 13.89% of the income and pay a disproportionate 28.79% of the taxes. If you include the 200k-500k cohort, the numbers become the top 2.79% taking in 25.76% of the income and paying 50.15% of the taxes. Quote2. The richest 1% are paying a lower tax rate than they’ve paid since 1980. For three decades after World War II, their tax rate never dropped below 70 percent. Even considering all deductions and tax credits, they paid close to 55 percent. Under Eisenhower, the top rate was 91 percent and the effective rate was 58 percent. And every time the rate dropped, they ended up taking in MORE in taxes from that cohort. Quote3. The economy was not destroyed by the (higher) tax rates on the wealthy during the Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and Bush 1 presidencies. Any argument that raising tax rates on the rich to 1999 levels will lead to disaster are bogus, and not supported by history, Looks like history supports higher revenues from lower rates.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,117 #9 April 10, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuotehttp://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2012/04/10/the-buffett-rules-billionaire-backers-meet-the-super-rich-who-want-to-pay-more-taxes/ Interesting. the primary problem with the Buffet Rule is that it doesn't generate very much revenue. (5B/year) If you get past the way it's being misrepresented by Obama as a populist election year ploy, it's at best a symbolic tax. While the Fortune 400 may be paying at 18%, if you look at all earning 1m/year, the average rate is considerably higher. Quote And the Congressional Research Service notes that today's tax code doesn't violate the Buffett rule as egregiously as Warren Buffett and others have asserted. Using 2006 data, the CRS found the average tax rate among millionaires is almost 30% -- with about a tenth of them paying a rate higher than 35% and another tenth paying a rate below 24%. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obamas-buffett-rule-minimum-tax-110300538.html 1. The richest 1% of Americans are now taking in over 20 percent of total national income, and so far have raked in almost all the gains from the recovery. Thirty years ago, the richest 1% got 9 percent of total income. Income and wealth are now more concentrated at the top than they’ve been since the 1920s. 2. The richest 1% are paying a lower tax rate than they’ve paid since 1980. For three decades after World War II, their tax rate never dropped below 70 percent. Even considering all deductions and tax credits, they paid close to 55 percent. Under Eisenhower, the top rate was 91 percent and the effective rate was 58 percent. 3. The economy was not destroyed by the (higher) tax rates on the wealthy during the Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and Bush 1 presidencies. Any argument that raising tax rates on the rich to 1999 levels will lead to disaster are bogus, and not supported by history, you are saying that the recessions in the past did not happen? Nope. Just that there is NO EVIDENCE that recessions of the past were due to the higher tax rates on the wealthy in the good old days. Did you notice that the WORST recession since the 1930s started after the Bush tax cuts went into effect?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,117 #10 April 10, 2012 QuoteQuote 1. The richest 1% of Americans are now taking in over 20 percent of total national income, and so far have raked in almost all the gains from the recovery. Thirty years ago, the richest 1% got 9 percent of total income. Income and wealth are now more concentrated at the top than they’ve been since the 1920s. 2. The richest 1% are paying a lower tax rate than they’ve paid since 1980. For three decades after World War II, their tax rate never dropped below 70 percent. Even considering all deductions and tax credits, they paid close to 55 percent. Under Eisenhower, the top rate was 91 percent and the effective rate was 58 percent. 3. The economy was not destroyed by the (higher) tax rates on the wealthy during the Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and Bush 1 presidencies. Any argument that raising tax rates on the rich to 1999 levels will lead to disaster are bogus, and not supported by history, what are you debating? Your statements have little to do with the topic. Read the thread title.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #11 April 10, 2012 QuoteQuote what are you debating? Your statements have little to do with the topic. Read the thread title. So you're debating the inaccurate thread title. Way to beat that straw! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #12 April 10, 2012 Quote Did you notice that the WORST recession since the 1930s started after the Bush tax cuts went into effect? seems premature to declare this period worse than the 70s with a misery index over 20. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,117 #13 April 10, 2012 QuoteQuote Did you notice that the WORST recession since the 1930s started after the Bush tax cuts went into effect? seems premature to declare this period worse than the 70s with a misery index over 20. There IS a technical definition of a recession.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,117 #14 April 10, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote what are you debating? Your statements have little to do with the topic. Read the thread title. So you're debating the inaccurate thread title. Way to beat that straw! Like you're flogging a dead horse?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #15 April 10, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote Did you notice that the WORST recession since the 1930s started after the Bush tax cuts went into effect? seems premature to declare this period worse than the 70s with a misery index over 20. There IS a technical definition of a recession. not the sort of technical definitions I like to deal with. Your's is whatever the board says, subject to revisions up to 8 years later. Having been too young to objectively compare, I just only note that it still seemed bleak into the early 80s, and the notion of double digit inflation seems horrific. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #16 April 10, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote what are you debating? Your statements have little to do with the topic. Read the thread title. So you're debating the inaccurate thread title. Way to beat that straw! Like you're flogging a dead horse? is this proposal or the election already over? what's dead here? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,117 #17 April 10, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Did you notice that the WORST recession since the 1930s started after the Bush tax cuts went into effect? seems premature to declare this period worse than the 70s with a misery index over 20. There IS a technical definition of a recession. not the sort of technical definitions I like to deal with. Your's is whatever the board says, subject to revisions up to 8 years later. Having been too young to objectively compare, I just only note that it still seemed bleak into the early 80s, and the notion of double digit inflation seems horrific. Defining words to mean what you need them to mean in order to win a debate is cute, but ultimately futile.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #18 April 10, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote There IS a technical definition of a recession. not the sort of technical definitions I like to deal with. Your's is whatever the board says, subject to revisions up to 8 years later. Having been too young to objectively compare, I just only note that it still seemed bleak into the early 80s, and the notion of double digit inflation seems horrific. Defining words to mean what you need them to mean in order to win a debate is cute, but ultimately futile. well you're getting a bit less clear. Do you want to use a technical definition or a finding by the NBER, which is hardly a definition at all? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shah269 0 #19 April 11, 2012 QuoteQuote Did you notice that the WORST recession since the 1930s started after the Bush tax cuts went into effect? seems premature to declare this period worse than the 70s with a misery index over 20. Oh no this one sucks! SUCKS big donkey dick. I just got my MBA and everything we learned in macro and micro economics class ended with..."WEll that's how it was, but this time it's much much worse!" Yeah this one is bad! In fact one of my economics professors was calling this the blind depression. He was 100% sure that the number of unemployed was at 25% but that we were no longer counting them due to our new fuzzy math. That aside, you guys need to know the difference between causation and correlation. I highly doubt that there is a direct cause and effect relationship between increasing taxes on the top 10% and the severity and length of recessions. In the bad old days under Regan taxes for the top 10% were well over 50% THUS companies worked other ways to compensate people via providing them company homes and cars. Now this was a very good idea and here is why...as long as you worked for the in betterment of the company you got to keep these nice things. Also overall the customer got better return on their investment! Think about it, would you as an investor rather see greater return on your investment (be it capital or other) or would you rather a good portion of what would have gone to you go to compensate others? I'll give you a hint, we want to pay these guys as little as possible such that we as consumers get the most from our efforts. And there are two ways to do this. One we outsource these high paid jobs to SEA.....wouldn't that be fun to watch! Fight in the street.....yeah right! OR a tax code that forces companies to take care of their customers. Your call really. I for one want more for my money and less in the CEO's pockets. But that's just me I'm a capitalist and a greedy SOB. And those fighting for CEO's to hold more of their money...well I would dare say you boys and girls are socialists.Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay. The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,117 #20 April 11, 2012 I'd be very happy to pay my taxes at Mitt Romney's rate. I'd save over $10k/year that I could use to buy a new rig and keep Americans employed. And if he'd pay at my rate, the country would be better off by several $million that wouldn't just end up in a Swiss or Cayman Island bank vault.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shah269 0 #21 April 11, 2012 Quote I'd be very happy to pay my taxes at Mitt Romney's rate. I'd save over $10k/year that I could use to buy a new rig and keep Americans employed. And if he'd pay at my rate, the country would be better off by several $million that wouldn't just end up in a Swiss or Cayman Island bank vault. Can i get a FUCKING A FUCKING MEN! ANY ONE? Even our GOP friends will have to agree with this one?Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay. The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,117 #22 April 11, 2012 QuoteQuote I'd be very happy to pay my taxes at Mitt Romney's rate. I'd save over $10k/year that I could use to buy a new rig and keep Americans employed. And if he'd pay at my rate, the country would be better off by several $million that wouldn't just end up in a Swiss or Cayman Island bank vault. Can i get a FUCKING A FUCKING MEN! ANY ONE? Even our GOP friends will have to agree with this one? Doubtful. They'll come up with some lame reason that the ultra-rich should get benefits in the tax code that aren't available to the average person.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shah269 0 #23 April 11, 2012 I don't get it, is it a trickel on economics thing? I mean who would say no to more money in their pocket at the expense of those who have too much money in their pockets?Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay. The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,117 #24 April 11, 2012 QuoteI don't get it, is it a trickel on economics thing? I mean who would say no to more money in their pocket at the expense of those who have too much money in their pockets? Define "too much money". I don't have a problem with Romney making a lot of money. Good for him. I just think his tax rate shouldn't be less than someone making 1/100 of what he makes.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shah269 0 #25 April 11, 2012 Quote I just think his tax rate shouldn't be less than someone making 1/100 of what he makes. AMEN TO THAT! Federal + state had me at a little over 30% This sucks! But I guess I'm not rich enough to pay lower taxes? Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay. The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
