Americans Favor "Buffett Rule" by 60% to 37%

[Oldstyle]

We'll see how much is raised when it makes more sense to reinvest in a business rather than buy a new mansion. Not that it's that important. It's still a question of simple fairness. What I do know is the greatest cause of our current deficits is due to Bush's tax cut on the wealthy, and financed through debt.

The fact remains that tax fairness is that those with greater discretionary income pay at a higher rate, not a lower rate than those with less discretionary income.

Do you dispute that premise?

Kindergartners and liberals whine about what's fair.

The simple fact is, you want what you haven't earned.

Sure. You want what you earned. But you have an obligation to your country to help finance it. Who's paying for your retirement? Who paid for your career?

I'm not whining. I'm just agreeing with what a majority of what real Americans believe. That is, that a person with more disposable income shouldn't be paying a lower tax rate than someone with less disposable income.

We have an "obligation" to our country to help finance it? Well, yes and no, Dick. Yes, we have an obligation to provide tax money for something like national defence because that's something that benefits us all...but no, we don't have an obligation to provide tax money for the myriad of other things that our leaders have decided they would like to spend someone else's money on. I'm sorry but I'm not "obligated" to support a bloated, inefficient Federal system as it spends money on the pet projects of out of touch politicians. It's "our" hard earned dollars that these idiots spend on projects like Solyndra. The "obligation" is THEIRS to justify the use of every dollar that they take from the taxpayer not the other way around.

When you work hard and earn money...that money is yours and you have every right to resist having it taken away from you so it can be wasted by people who would NEVER spend their own money in the ways that they spend ours.

You talk about "fairness"? How is squandering someone else's money "fair"?

 

[Full-Auto]

Kindergartners and liberals whine about what's fair.

The simple fact is, you want what you haven't earned.

Sure. You want what you earned. But you have an obligation to your country to help finance it. Who's paying for your retirement? Who paid for your career?

I'm not whining. I'm just agreeing with what a majority of what real Americans believe. That is, that a person with more disposable income shouldn't be paying a lower tax rate than someone with less disposable income.

We have an "obligation" to our country to help finance it? Well, yes and no, Dick. Yes, we have an obligation to provide tax money for something like national defence because that's something that benefits us all...but no, we don't have an obligation to provide tax money for the myriad of other things that our leaders have decided they would like to spend someone else's money on. I'm sorry but I'm not "obligated" to support a bloated, inefficient Federal system as it spends money on the pet projects of out of touch politicians. It's "our" hard earned dollars that these idiots spend on projects like Solyndra. The "obligation" is THEIRS to justify the use of every dollar that they take from the taxpayer not the other way around.

When you work hard and earn money...that money is yours and you have every right to resist having it taken away from you so it can be wasted by people who would NEVER spend their own money in the ways that they spend ours.

You talk about "fairness"? How is squandering someone else's money "fair"?

Reps your way................

 

[Dick Tuck]

They don't. Under the progressive income tax that we have, the more money someone earns the more taxes they pay. It's capital gains that is taxed at a much lower rate and done so deliberately to encourage investment. Raise capital gains taxes, discourage investment.

And they should revert back to higher long-term capitol gains rates, i.e. 50% of ordinary income. Interest and dividends should be taxed again at the normal rate. Don't even get into converting stock options into long-term gains, and use that as a dodge to paying fair taxes for bonuses.

You're not at all shy about your desire to utterly destroy the economy, are you?

The ones who are trying to destroy the economy are those who think that corporations are ethical, and the free market can do no wrong. The destroyers are those who think that cutting the tax rate of those with the most disposable income, and financing it with debt, is a good thing.

The main reason that we have such a high debt, is foremost, the result of the tax cut for those with the highest disposable income. The reason we have have such a high deficit is because of free markets running amok. So how well did Bush's "ownership society" work for us?

 

[Dick Tuck]

Kindergartners and liberals whine about what's fair.

The simple fact is, you want what you haven't earned.

Sure. You want what you earned. But you have an obligation to your country to help finance it. Who's paying for your retirement? Who paid for your career?

I'm not whining. I'm just agreeing with what a majority of what real Americans believe. That is, that a person with more disposable income shouldn't be paying a lower tax rate than someone with less disposable income.

We have an "obligation" to our country to help finance it? Well, yes and no, Dick. Yes, we have an obligation to provide tax money for something like national defence because that's something that benefits us all...but no, we don't have an obligation to provide tax money for the myriad of other things that our leaders have decided they would like to spend someone else's money on. I'm sorry but I'm not "obligated" to support a bloated, inefficient Federal system as it spends money on the pet projects of out of touch politicians. It's "our" hard earned dollars that these idiots spend on projects like Solyndra. The "obligation" is THEIRS to justify the use of every dollar that they take from the taxpayer not the other way around.

When you work hard and earn money...that money is yours and you have every right to resist having it taken away from you so it can be wasted by people who would NEVER spend their own money in the ways that they spend ours.

You talk about "fairness"? How is squandering someone else's money "fair"?

Sure. Is it fair to cut the maximum tax rate on those with the most disposable income, and finance that cut with debt?

So middle class workers don't work hard? Some have been reduced to working two part time jobs, and work their ass off. I don't know why you want to piss on them?

 

[Meister]

And they should revert back to higher long-term capitol gains rates, i.e. 50% of ordinary income. Interest and dividends should be taxed again at the normal rate. Don't even get into converting stock options into long-term gains, and use that as a dodge to paying fair taxes for bonuses.

You're not at all shy about your desire to utterly destroy the economy, are you?

The ones who are trying to destroy the economy are those who think that corporations are ethical, and the free market can do no wrong. The destroyers are those who think that cutting the tax rate of those with the most disposable income, and financing it with debt, is a good thing.

The main reason that we have such a high debt, is foremost, the result of the tax cut for those with the highest disposable income. The reason we have have such a high deficit is because of free markets running amok. So how well did Bush's "ownership society" work for us?

BS! The reason for high debt and high deficit is too much spending....PERIOD! Good grief

Tax the hell out of the rich and you still will have high debt and high deficit, don't be so naive.

 

[The T]

You're not at all shy about your desire to utterly destroy the economy, are you?

The ones who are trying to destroy the economy are those who think that corporations are ethical, and the free market can do no wrong. The destroyers are those who think that cutting the tax rate of those with the most disposable income, and financing it with debt, is a good thing.

The main reason that we have such a high debt, is foremost, the result of the tax cut for those with the highest disposable income. The reason we have have such a high deficit is because of free markets running amok. So how well did Bush's "ownership society" work for us?

BS! The reason for high debt and high deficit is too much spending....PERIOD! Good grief

Tax the hell out of the rich and you still will have high debt and high deficit, don't be so naive.

And force the rich underground more than they already are...overseas even...

 

[Dick Tuck]

Reps your way................

 

[Dick Tuck]

Sure. You want what you earned. But you have an obligation to your country to help finance it. Who's paying for your retirement? Who paid for your career?

I'm not whining. I'm just agreeing with what a majority of what real Americans believe. That is, that a person with more disposable income shouldn't be paying a lower tax rate than someone with less disposable income.

They don't. Under the progressive income tax that we have, the more money someone earns the more taxes they pay. It's capital gains that is taxed at a much lower rate and done so deliberately to encourage investment. Raise capital gains taxes, discourage investment.

Liberals figuratively beat their dog then wonder why it runs away.

Wingnuts are beaten by their ignorance, and wonder why they go home and blame the dog.

 

[Oldstyle]

According to a new Gallup poll released Friday, a majority of Americans support the proposed Buffett Rule, which would require individuals earning $1 million or more per year to pay at least 30 percent of their income in taxes.

Six in 10 Americans favor Congress' passing the so-called "Buffett Rule," which would mandate a minimum 30% tax rate for Americans with a household income of $1 million or more per year. Majorities of both Democrats and independents favor the policy, while a majority of Republicans oppose it.

Americans Favor

Here's another area where the GOP is out of touch with the average American.

Why are we even debating this then? Talk about a mandate. And how do Republicans think their position on this is going to win them votes?

Maybe they're going to steal this election like they did 2000 and 2004. I don't think it will be close enough for that to be possible.

Honestly, it doesn't even seem like Republicans expect to win. Its one of those Dole or McCain years.

And since we found tape of Reagan saying the exact same thing, please start referring to this as the Reagan Rule.

Why ARE we debating this? What's amusing about this entire subject is that it's nothing more than election year bullshit anyways. Barry could have pushed through legislation to let the Bush tax cuts expire the first year he was in office, when the Democrats controlled the House and Senate. He didn't because his own economic advisors told him that to do so would slow down an already anemic economy.

So does anyone here REALLY think the Democrats are going to take back the House this year? It's far more likely that they will lose the Senate than retake the House. So even if Barry does manage to snow the electorate one more time and win reelection he knows only too well that a tax increase on what Democrats have deemed the "wealthy" won't ever hit his desk for a signature. This isn't a viable policy that he's pushing...it's an election year bit of smoke and mirrors that Obama hopes will lock up enough votes from the almost 50% of the people who DON'T pay income taxes that he can get another term in office. Once he gets that term you'd be incredibly naive to think that tax increase will ever take place...something that our President knows only too well. But with Barry it's never about doing the job of being President...it's always about KEEPING the job as President.

 

[Dick Tuck]

You're not at all shy about your desire to utterly destroy the economy, are you?

The ones who are trying to destroy the economy are those who think that corporations are ethical, and the free market can do no wrong. The destroyers are those who think that cutting the tax rate of those with the most disposable income, and financing it with debt, is a good thing.

The main reason that we have such a high debt, is foremost, the result of the tax cut for those with the highest disposable income. The reason we have have such a high deficit is because of free markets running amok. So how well did Bush's "ownership society" work for us?

BS! The reason for high debt and high deficit is too much spending....PERIOD! Good grief

Tax the hell out of the rich and you still will have high debt and high deficit, don't be so naive.

Do the math, Einstein. The greatest contributor to our current deficit was the Bush tax cut to the ones with the most disposable income.

 

[Oldstyle]

Sure. You want what you earned. But you have an obligation to your country to help finance it. Who's paying for your retirement? Who paid for your career?

I'm not whining. I'm just agreeing with what a majority of what real Americans believe. That is, that a person with more disposable income shouldn't be paying a lower tax rate than someone with less disposable income.

We have an "obligation" to our country to help finance it? Well, yes and no, Dick. Yes, we have an obligation to provide tax money for something like national defence because that's something that benefits us all...but no, we don't have an obligation to provide tax money for the myriad of other things that our leaders have decided they would like to spend someone else's money on. I'm sorry but I'm not "obligated" to support a bloated, inefficient Federal system as it spends money on the pet projects of out of touch politicians. It's "our" hard earned dollars that these idiots spend on projects like Solyndra. The "obligation" is THEIRS to justify the use of every dollar that they take from the taxpayer not the other way around.

When you work hard and earn money...that money is yours and you have every right to resist having it taken away from you so it can be wasted by people who would NEVER spend their own money in the ways that they spend ours.

You talk about "fairness"? How is squandering someone else's money "fair"?

Sure. Is it fair to cut the maximum tax rate on those with the most disposable income, and finance that cut with debt?

So middle class workers don't work hard? Some have been reduced to working two part time jobs, and work their ass off. I don't know why you want to piss on them?

How, pray tell am I "pissing on middle class workers" when I point out that our Federal Government is a bloated, inefficient entity that needs to be downsized drastically? How am I pissing on anyone when I point out that pouring more water into the proverbial "leaky bucket" isn't going to EVER fill that bucket up? You know who's really pissing on the middle class worker? Any one who tries to tell them that increasing taxes can fix our problems with out of control spending...and that we can get our deficit under control by taking the rich's money and not touching their's...that's who! If you're in the middle class and you BUY that song and dance than you'll have nobody to blame but yourself when your taxes are increased to pay for things like ObamaCare.

 

[Full-Auto]

Reps your way................

Kleenex or Kotex?

You are in obvious need.

 

[The T]

Americans Favor

Here's another area where the GOP is out of touch with the average American.

Why are we even debating this then? Talk about a mandate. And how do Republicans think their position on this is going to win them votes?

Maybe they're going to steal this election like they did 2000 and 2004. I don't think it will be close enough for that to be possible.

Honestly, it doesn't even seem like Republicans expect to win. Its one of those Dole or McCain years.

And since we found tape of Reagan saying the exact same thing, please start referring to this as the Reagan Rule.

Why ARE we debating this? What's amusing about this entire subject is that it's nothing more than election year bullshit anyways. Barry could have pushed through legislation to let the Bush tax cuts expire the first year he was in office, when the Democrats controlled the House and Senate. He didn't because his own economic advisors told him that to do so would slow down an already anemic economy.

So does anyone here REALLY think the Democrats are going to take back the House this year? It's far more likely that they will lose the Senate than retake the House. So even if Barry does manage to snow the electorate one more time and win reelection he knows only too well that a tax increase on what Democrats have deemed the "wealthy" won't ever hit his desk for a signature. This isn't a viable policy that he's pushing...it's an election year bit of smoke and mirrors that Obama hopes will lock up enough votes from the almost 50% of the people who DON'T pay income taxes that he can get another term in office. Once he gets that term you'd be incredibly naive to think that tax increase will ever take place...something that our President knows only too well. But with Barry it's never about doing the job of being President...it's always about KEEPING the job as President.

And keeping a Job he wasn't suited for, and is disinterested in retaining but save for the PERKS.

 

[Meister]

The ones who are trying to destroy the economy are those who think that corporations are ethical, and the free market can do no wrong. The destroyers are those who think that cutting the tax rate of those with the most disposable income, and financing it with debt, is a good thing.

The main reason that we have such a high debt, is foremost, the result of the tax cut for those with the highest disposable income. The reason we have have such a high deficit is because of free markets running amok. So how well did Bush's "ownership society" work for us?

BS! The reason for high debt and high deficit is too much spending....PERIOD! Good grief

Tax the hell out of the rich and you still will have high debt and high deficit, don't be so naive.

Do the math, Einstein. The greatest contributor to our current deficit was the Bush tax cut to the ones with the most disposable income.

Please don't address the damn spending......einstein.

 

[Gadawg73]

Of course Americans believe that those with the greatest amount of disposable income should be taxed at a level greater than those who are trying to make ends meet. It's fair. When those with the greatest amount of disposable income pay a lower tax rate than those who are trying to make ends meet is unfair.

Fair does not balance budgets.
What is fair is if Obama would quit borrowing so much money and passing it on to my kids and grandkids.
Fair does not expand the economy and raising taxes never expands the economy.
You could raise the tax rate to 100% on the wealthy and it would not cover 8 months of spending.
Those with the greatest amount of disposable income do NOT pay a lower tax rate than others. That is bull shit and if you believe that you are a dumbass.
EVERYONE PAYS THE SAME CAPITAL GAINS RATE.
Well DUH!!

 

[The T]

Of course Americans believe that those with the greatest amount of disposable income should be taxed at a level greater than those who are trying to make ends meet. It's fair. When those with the greatest amount of disposable income pay a lower tax rate than those who are trying to make ends meet is unfair.

Fair does not balance budgets.
What is fair is if Obama would quit borrowing so much money and passing it on to my kids and grandkids.
Fair does not expand the economy and raising taxes never expands the economy.
You could raise the tax rate to 100% on the wealthy and it would not cover 8 months of spending.
Those with the greatest amount of disposable income do NOT pay a lower tax rate than others. That is bull shit and if you believe that you are a dumbass.
EVERYONE PAYS THE SAME CAPITAL GAINS RATE.
Well DUH!!

And the left thinks slavery of old was bad?

Involutary servitude takes on a new meaning courtesy of the Left.

 

[Dick Tuck]

We have an "obligation" to our country to help finance it? Well, yes and no, Dick. Yes, we have an obligation to provide tax money for something like national defence because that's something that benefits us all...but no, we don't have an obligation to provide tax money for the myriad of other things that our leaders have decided they would like to spend someone else's money on. I'm sorry but I'm not "obligated" to support a bloated, inefficient Federal system as it spends money on the pet projects of out of touch politicians. It's "our" hard earned dollars that these idiots spend on projects like Solyndra. The "obligation" is THEIRS to justify the use of every dollar that they take from the taxpayer not the other way around.

When you work hard and earn money...that money is yours and you have every right to resist having it taken away from you so it can be wasted by people who would NEVER spend their own money in the ways that they spend ours.


You talk about "fairness"? How is squandering someone else's money "fair"?

Sure. Is it fair to cut the maximum tax rate on those with the most disposable income, and finance that cut with debt?

So middle class workers don't work hard? Some have been reduced to working two part time jobs, and work their ass off. I don't know why you want to piss on them?

How, pray tell am I "pissing on middle class workers" when I point out that our Federal Government is a bloated, inefficient entity that needs to be downsized drastically? How am I pissing on anyone when I point out that pouring more water into the proverbial "leaky bucket" isn't going to EVER fill that bucket up? You know who's really pissing on the middle class worker? Any one who tries to tell them that increasing taxes can fix our problems with out of control spending...and that we can get our deficit under control by taking the rich's money and not touching their's...that's who! If you're in the middle class and you BUY that song and dance than you'll have nobody to blame but yourself when your taxes are increased to pay for things like ObamaCare.

The base bullshit in your argument is that it's OK to cut the income tax rate on those with most disposable income, and justify it because you want to see us fight against government bloat. Clinton/Gore had made some significant inroads in reducing government inefficiency. I doubt that you applauded their efforts or results.

If you want to see some inefficiency, look at NCLB or Medicare Part B. I'd also suggest that you look at that "bloat" under Bush. I have no problem with trying to make our government more efficient. I think it's stone stupid to try to achieve that by cutting the top personal income rate on the rich, to the point where they pay lower rates than those with less disposable income.

And yes, it's more fair to ask those with the greatest disposable income to pay a higher rate of tax, than those with less disposable income. Middle class worker, and low income workers work hard for their money as well. Why do you think it's fair to make them pay at a higher rate?

 

[Dick Tuck]

BS! The reason for high debt and high deficit is too much spending....PERIOD! Good grief

Tax the hell out of the rich and you still will have high debt and high deficit, don't be so naive.

Do the math, Einstein. The greatest contributor to our current deficit was the Bush tax cut to the ones with the most disposable income.

Please don't address the damn spending......einstein.

I did. Discretionary spending under Bush increased at a much higher rate than under Obama.

But that's fine. You seem to be too much of a coward to accept that funding a tax cut for those with the most discretionary income, and funding it with borrowing, is a good idea.

 

[Katzndogz]

Prediction.

There will be a contentious fight over the Buffett Rule. It will be on the front pages for weeks. In the end it will be defeated because democrats won't vote for it. Then they will blame republicans for its defeat.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Of course Americans believe that those with the greatest amount of disposable income should be taxed at a level greater than those who are trying to make ends meet. It's fair. When those with the greatest amount of disposable income pay a lower tax rate than those who are trying to make ends meet is unfair.

Fair does not balance budgets.
What is fair is if Obama would quit borrowing so much money and passing it on to my kids and grandkids.
Fair does not expand the economy and raising taxes never expands the economy.
You could raise the tax rate to 100% on the wealthy and it would not cover 8 months of spending.
Those with the greatest amount of disposable income do NOT pay a lower tax rate than others. That is bull shit and if you believe that you are a dumbass.
EVERYONE PAYS THE SAME CAPITAL GAINS RATE.
Well DUH!!

You and your ilk had no problem with funding a tax cut for those with the most disposable income, and asking our kids and grandkids to pay the freight.

Oh, and ass monkey, I'm talking about the Bush drop in the income tax rate, not the cuts he made to the capital gains rates.