DougH 270 #2 April 10, 2012 A good idea to distract voters with poor math skills."The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #3 April 10, 2012 QuoteA good idea to distract voters with poor math skills. Yes, it does seem to upset Republicans.... 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
ryoder 1,590 #4 April 10, 2012 Quote Quote A good idea to distract voters with poor math skills. Yes, it does seem to upset Republicans. Well, anything that upsets Republicans must be doing something right!"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #5 April 10, 2012 QuoteQuoteA good idea to distract voters with poor math skills. Yes, it does seem to upset Republicans. Which, of course, is why all the outrage is from the Democrats howling about the money.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #6 April 10, 2012 I am not upset by the rule, I am upset by the way it is being used as a huge distraction. You can quantify the expected increased tax revenue of the proposed rule. The increased tax revenue has a minuscule impact to the Federal budget. What isn't being discussed is what impact the proposed rule might have on investment behavior and the overall economy. I can hypothesize on the impact but I am not a studied economist. If there is a negative overall impact to the economy is it worth it to go forward with the rule anyway just to stick it 1%, or to have more "equity" in the tax code? But it makes for great news, so lets all devote a bunch of our attention to it, even though it does do jack shit to fix our growing debt/spending problem!"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #7 April 10, 2012 The only rule I use ...... is go for the lobster first (or there'll be none left). (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #8 April 10, 2012 QuoteQuoteA good idea to distract voters with poor math skills. Yes, it does seem to upset Republicans. If this is so great why don't you and Buffet send in a check? especially buffet since he seems to have not even paid all his taxes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #9 April 10, 2012 Quote If this is so great why don't you and Buffet send in a check? especially buffet since he seems to have not even paid all his taxes. You continue to confuse him and Bershire, the company he heads. The latter is a publicly traded company and his obligation is the the shareholders, not the government. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #10 April 10, 2012 QuoteQuote If this is so great why don't you and Buffet send in a check? especially buffet since he seems to have not even paid all his taxes. You continue to confuse him and Bershire, the company he heads. The latter is a publicly traded company and his obligation is the the shareholders, not the government. Nope - Buffet didn't say Berkshire paid a lower tax rate than his secretary, he said *he* paid at a lower rate than his secretary.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #11 April 10, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote If this is so great why don't you and Buffet send in a check? especially buffet since he seems to have not even paid all his taxes. You continue to confuse him and Bershire, the company he heads. The latter is a publicly traded company and his obligation is the the shareholders, not the government. Nope - Buffet didn't say Berkshire paid a lower tax rate than his secretary, he said *he* paid at a lower rate than his secretary. Mark was clearly referring to the tax dispute with Bershire owing more money. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheBachelor 5 #12 April 10, 2012 It's just another toothless sound bite. It's another rallying cry to huge percentage of people who pay no taxes that someone ELSE is not paying their fair share. All rhetoric aside, look at the facts: This rule would generate only 47 billion in additional taxes over 10 years. We have about a $1.3 TRILLION deficit just for 2012. Not even a drop in the bucket.There are battered women? I've been eating 'em plain all of these years... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #13 April 10, 2012 QuoteThis rule would generate only 47 billion in additional taxes over 10 years. We have about a $1.3 TRILLION deficit just for 2012. Not even a drop in the bucket. Aside from the Buffest Rule question, I don't understand this argument. There is not one viable item that will either raise $1.3 trillion or will reduce costs by $1.3 trillion. The only way to fix this is like how a mouse would eat an elephant, one bite at a time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #14 April 10, 2012 Quote The only rule I use ...... is go for the lobster first (or there'll be none left). By the title, I thought that was what this was about. Awhile back, I over-heard a couple truckers talking on the CB-radio about eating at a buffet. The one trucker asked the other if he knew what BUFFET meant. The other trucker's response was; BUFFET: "Big Ugly Fat Fuckers Eating Together!" Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Austintxflight 0 #15 April 10, 2012 There are too many variables in this. For example you can carry losses over, which means someone who had losses in a prior year wouldn't be able to carry them over to reduce their taxable income since it would bring them below the buffet rule threshold. More importantly, think about the municipal bond market. In the US the vast majority of municipal bonds are given tax free status, so any income earned is not considered taxable. Many people in high tax brackets find it beneficial to buy these bonds. If there is no advantage to purchasing these bonds municipalities will have higher borrowing costs which means that these costs will just be passed on to the local tax payers. I just think all the unintended consequences and once these get factored in its just going to be watered down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #16 April 10, 2012 QuoteQuoteThis rule would generate only 47 billion in additional taxes over 10 years. We have about a $1.3 TRILLION deficit just for 2012. Not even a drop in the bucket. Aside from the Buffest Rule question, I don't understand this argument. There is not one viable item that will either raise $1.3 trillion or will reduce costs by $1.3 trillion. The only way to fix this is like how a mouse would eat an elephant, one bite at a time. I will run with that analogy, the mouse needs to take a shit ton of bites. How long do you think the elephant will be around for if the mouse spends the next year planning one single bite? Right now we are spending a huge amount of focus on one single bite, without talking about the all of the bites that are remaining. The Buffet rule has nothing to do with solving the debt/spending problem and has everything to do with politics."The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #17 April 10, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteThis rule would generate only 47 billion in additional taxes over 10 years. We have about a $1.3 TRILLION deficit just for 2012. Not even a drop in the bucket. Aside from the Buffest Rule question, I don't understand this argument. There is not one viable item that will either raise $1.3 trillion or will reduce costs by $1.3 trillion. The only way to fix this is like how a mouse would eat an elephant, one bite at a time. I will run with that analogy, the mouse needs to take a shit ton of bites. How long do you think the elephant will be around for if the mouse spends the next year planning one single bite? Right now we are spending a huge amount of focus on one single bite, without talking about the all of the bites that are remaining. The Buffet rule has nothing to do with solving the debt/spending problem and has everything to do with politics. We need more revenue and less spending. 50% cut in defense and we'd still have the world's biggest military. Buffett rule may not raise a whole lot of revenue, but it sure pisses off a lot of middle income folks to know that they are paying at a higher tax rate than Buffett and Romney.... 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 Quote We need more revenue and less spending. 50% cut in defense and we'd still have the world's biggest military.. Do you think Obama will campaign on *that* ? I think he's going to ride the populist wagon as long as the going is good, even though he knows it's 1/2% of the job to do. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #19 April 10, 2012 QuoteQuote We need more revenue and less spending. 50% cut in defense and we'd still have the world's biggest military.. Do you think Obama will campaign on *that* ? No - too many rednecks around for that. Needs to be done, though. Just like SocSec needs an overhaul, and we need to get healthcare costs under control.... 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
mnealtx 0 #20 April 10, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote If this is so great why don't you and Buffet send in a check? especially buffet since he seems to have not even paid all his taxes. You continue to confuse him and Bershire, the company he heads. The latter is a publicly traded company and his obligation is the the shareholders, not the government. Nope - Buffet didn't say Berkshire paid a lower tax rate than his secretary, he said *he* paid at a lower rate than his secretary. Mark was clearly referring to the tax dispute with Bershire owing more money. Ah, I see what you mean, now - the one where Berkshire is saying the taxes are excessive, right?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #21 April 10, 2012 Quote Buffett rule may not raise a whole lot of revenue, but it sure pisses off a lot of middle income folks to know that they are paying at a higher tax rate than Buffett and Romney. Since when was it a good idea to shape economic and tax policy by what pisses the populous off? Tyranny of the majority is a poor way set any type of policy."The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #22 April 10, 2012 QuoteQuote If this is so great why don't you and Buffet send in a check? especially buffet since he seems to have not even paid all his taxes. You continue to confuse him and Bershire, the company he heads. The latter is a publicly traded company and his obligation is the the shareholders, not the government. Last I heard he was the president of the company, just like I am the president of mine, my company and I pay taxes, just like his, I have to answer to my shareholder also. to be fair, if Buffet is paying a lower tax rate then that would include his company. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #23 April 10, 2012 Quote Last I heard he was the president of the company, just like I am the president of mine, my company and I pay taxes, just like his, I have to answer to my shareholder also. to be fair, if Buffet is paying a lower tax rate then that would include his company. ?? His pesonal tax rate as a billionaire has nothing to do with the taxes paid by Bershire, a financial holding company. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #24 April 11, 2012 QuoteQuote Buffett rule may not raise a whole lot of revenue, but it sure pisses off a lot of middle income folks to know that they are paying at a higher tax rate than Buffett and Romney. Since when was it a good idea to shape economic and tax policy by what pisses the populous off? Tyranny of the majority is a poor way set any type of policy. Would you prefer a dictatorship to elections?... 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
DrewEckhardt 0 #25 April 11, 2012 QuoteQuote Tyranny of the majority is a poor way set any type of policy. Would you prefer a dictatorship to elections? I share George Bush's thoughts on the subject: Quote If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier... just so long as I'm the dictator Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
