The Buffet Rule

[DanG 1]

Quote

it targets law violators, for starters.

Yeah, but what they are doing is already against the law. What ever happened to enforcing the laws that already exist instead of adding new ones? At least the Buffet Rule modifies the tax code. Brown's law apparently just makes tax evasion extra-super wrong, instead of just extra wrong.

And I bet it will cost more than it produces. Talk about feel good BS.

- Dan G

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Browns bill actually addresses a problem with those who like to vote on bills like the Buffet Rule but don't like to pay their own income taxes. It also sets up for collection, those who are required to file disclosures.

Right, Brown's bill adds additional reporting and monitoring requirements, and will likely cost more to implement than it collects. Very smart, and totally apolitical.

And you base this on what?

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

it targets law violators, for starters.

Yeah, but what they are doing is already against the law. What ever happened to enforcing the laws that already exist instead of adding new ones? At least the Buffet Rule modifies the tax code. Brown's law apparently just makes tax evasion extra-super wrong, instead of just extra wrong.

And I bet it will cost more than it produces. Talk about feel good BS.

So if it costs more to enforce speeding laws than the revenue it produces, your recommendation is to not try and enforce speeding laws? Do you realize how dumb that sounds?

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

...the Buffet Rule would do very little to increase revenues to the Treasury. It's main purpose was for political purposes for the upcoming campaign.

Which is different from Sen. Brown's bill, how?

Do you even read posts before you respond?

The Buffet Rule is pure political class warfare.

The Josef Goebbels debate tactic, accuse your opponent of what you do yourself.

The class warfare is taxing the very rich at a rate lower than the middle class. The Buffett rule is an attempt to fix that. It's a Band-Aid fix, but a fix nonetheless.

Hey, I have a great idea. How about we quit pissing away away hundreds of $Billions on "alternative energy" companies. The amount we could collect from the rich is dwarfed by the amout we piss away on Solar Energy Companies.

I find it amazing how "seemingly" intelligent people can't see the Buffet Rule as anything more than feel-good, class warfare, during an election year.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

...the Buffet Rule would do very little to increase revenues to the Treasury. It's main purpose was for political purposes for the upcoming campaign.

Which is different from Sen. Brown's bill, how?

Do you even read posts before you respond?

The Buffet Rule is pure political class warfare.

The Josef Goebbels debate tactic, accuse your opponent of what you do yourself.

The class warfare is taxing the very rich at a rate lower than the middle class. The Buffett rule is an attempt to fix that. It's a Band-Aid fix, but a fix nonetheless.

Hey, I have a great idea. How about we quit pissing away away hundreds of $Billions on "alternative energy" companies. The amount we could collect from the rich is dwarfed by the amout we piss away on Solar Energy Companies.

I find it amazing how "seemingly" intelligent people can't see the Buffet Rule as anything more than feel-good, class warfare, during an election year.

Thanks, Josef.

How about we fix the gross unbalance in military spending first.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Not surprising you are invoking Godwin. It's all you have left anyway.

Yes, let's collect ALL overdue taxes. Doesn't matter if it's the military.

[wlsc 0]

...The United States stands at a historic crossroads. As the world's largest military spender, we can literally bite the bullet and follow through on the essential task of balancing the budget on the Pentagon's back. Toward this end, Sen. Tom Coburn - a conservative Oklahoma Republican - has proposed a $1 trillion cut in military spending over the next decade. There's bipartisan support for his plan.

Mitt Romney, by contrast, wants to increase military spending to 4 percent of the overall GDP. He'd like to add, among other things, 100,000 troops and 15 Navy warships. Over the next decade, his spending increases would amount to $2.5 trillion over the Pentagon's current projections. A nation could buy a lot of education and health care just with that projected increase...

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

...The United States stands at a historic crossroads. As the world's largest military spender, we can literally bite the bullet and follow through on the essential task of balancing the budget on the Pentagon's back. Toward this end, Sen. Tom Coburn - a conservative Oklahoma Republican - has proposed a $1 trillion cut in military spending over the next decade. There's bipartisan support for his plan.

That's a good start, but it is not nearly enough.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[wlsc 0]

Quote

Quote

...The United States stands at a historic crossroads. As the world's largest military spender, we can literally bite the bullet and follow through on the essential task of balancing the budget on the Pentagon's back. Toward this end, Sen. Tom Coburn - a conservative Oklahoma Republican - has proposed a $1 trillion cut in military spending over the next decade. There's bipartisan support for his plan.

That's a good start, but it is not nearly enough.

Agreed.

...The United States accounts for approximately 43 percent of all global military expenditures...

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

...The United States stands at a historic crossroads. As the world's largest military spender, we can literally bite the bullet and follow through on the essential task of balancing the budget on the Pentagon's back. Toward this end, Sen. Tom Coburn - a conservative Oklahoma Republican - has proposed a $1 trillion cut in military spending over the next decade. There's bipartisan support for his plan.

That's a good start, but it is not nearly enough.

the transition away from the military is a painful one. People (soldiers, engineers, all in between) need to shift to another type of work. California suffered thru it in the late 80s and early 90s, then came out better afterwards. But I don't think we can do that nationally in one step.

[matthewcline 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

...The United States stands at a historic crossroads. As the world's largest military spender, we can literally bite the bullet and follow through on the essential task of balancing the budget on the Pentagon's back. Toward this end, Sen. Tom Coburn - a conservative Oklahoma Republican - has proposed a $1 trillion cut in military spending over the next decade. There's bipartisan support for his plan.

That's a good start, but it is not nearly enough.

the transition away from the military is a painful one. People (soldiers, engineers, all in between) need to shift to another type of work. California suffered thru it in the late 80s and early 90s, then came out better afterwards. But I don't think we can do that nationally in one step.

California is better now? I don't think they have adjusted yet, just looking at their financial numbers, I think they got caught unprepared and still haven't figured it out.

As to Defense Spending, yep it is too high, but that is mostly Congress and the GS Civilians fault, they wont forward the uniformed services recommendations and keep protecting their cash cows.

Matt

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

California is better now? I don't think they have adjusted yet, just looking at their financial numbers, I think they got caught unprepared and still haven't figured it out.

Which numbers are you referring to? On a GDP basis, it would still be one of the top 10 in the world. Deficits? That's entirely explained by the difference between federal taxes paid and those returned to the state.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

California is better now? I don't think they have adjusted yet, just looking at their financial numbers, I think they got caught unprepared and still haven't figured it out.

Which numbers are you referring to? On a GDP basis, it would still be one of the top 10 in the world. Deficits? That's entirely explained by the difference between federal taxes paid and those returned to the state.

I guess you get what you vote for don't you.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

California is better now? I don't think they have adjusted yet, just looking at their financial numbers, I think they got caught unprepared and still haven't figured it out.

Which numbers are you referring to? On a GDP basis, it would still be one of the top 10 in the world. Deficits? That's entirely explained by the difference between federal taxes paid and those returned to the state.

I guess you get what you vote for don't you.

It's really the consequence of California's success coupled with our progressive tax system. Average salaries are higher, substantially so in the major cities, yet it's the same number of citizens. Also, many tax benefits phase out below the threshold here, even though they would be available to someone bordering on rich in other states.