Senate fails to advance Buffett rule

Billy the Kid · Apr 17, 2012

Gimmesometruth said:
Oh, you have once again a failure of your memory and a context failure.

You were commenting on the tax rates of Kennedy, trying to make it a supply-side argument, I showed you that his tax policies were demand side actions. You thought you could make the dems of today look like they are in opposition to Kennedy...but they are not.

You are not reading your own posts....or you don't remember what you were posting about...either way, it is your error compounded.

I've been very interested in the back and forth between Multi and the Rev, and haven't paid attention to your posts.

Now you posted a something containing 5 or 6 paragraphs and I said "thanks", just to be polite. Sorry but I didn't read your paragraph post, but it must have been on what you've claimed I commented on.

Go back and reread it all, you'll see I never mentioned "tax rates of Kennedy, trying to make it a supply-side argument, I showed you that his tax policies were demand side actions or anything like it.

You've evidently let your imagination has get away from you on this.

Kreton · Apr 17, 2012

And after repeated requests to provide anything showing your claim that it would decreases wealth inequality, you show NOTHING....while requesting that I prove my point....when I already have.

You have done no such thing. If you have something to say, say it. Your NYT article link i have repeatedly clicked on and it asks me to log in. I am not going to sign up for the NYT so you dont have to explain yourself. Thats not happening.

Your link has and continues to redirect me to:

https://myaccount.nytimes.com/auth/...ett-rule-is-just-a-start.html&OQ=Q5fQ72Q3dQ31

I have many times already said to you that even with the progressive system we have now, we are experiencing GREATER wealth inequality, it is worse that when the progressiveness was GREATER. You argument is that a flat tax would be better at counteracting wealth inequality even though it flies in the face of our own experience and the experience of the rest of the world.

Your NYT article link i have repeatedly clicked on and it asks me to log in. I am not going to sign up for the NYT so you dont have to explain yourself. Thats not happening. The reason we are experiencing the wealth inequality we have now is largely because people only give their money to a few people. It has little to do with wealth disparity. Money is not being spread aroudn like it used to. The majority of Americans spend thier money with a select few businesses who cater to every need. THAT is what creates the wealth disparity we have here.

A flat tax would only help alleviate that gap in wealth because instead of taking small percentages of money from the wealthy they would actually be paying closer to what the middle class pays. I have no idea how you think taxing people the same is unfair.

Kreton · Apr 17, 2012

Gimmesometruth said:
lol....you won't read anything i link to.

Your link does nothing. Furthermore I am asking you to explain it. Either do it or stop talking to me.

Billy the Kid · Apr 17, 2012

muciti said:
You saying it doesnt make it true. You have shown nothing.

I've been reading the back and forth between you and Rev. It took you quite some time and quite a few posts but you did come to an agreement.

I think you both have come up with a good idea and plan. I like it anyway. :2razz:

Kreton · Apr 17, 2012

Billy the Kid said:
I've been reading the back and forth between you and Rev. It took you quite some time and quite a few posts but you did come to an agreement.

I think you both have come up with a good idea and plan. I like it anyway. :2razz:

LOL thanks. Might be the first time I have ever gotten into a discussion on here with someone who disagreed and we ultimately ended well.

apdst · Apr 17, 2012

Gimmesometruth said:
Oh, you equate "cause" with "cure".

That is kinda messed up...

What is messed up, is that you think the French and Soviet Revolutions were revolts against rich folks, when in actuality, they were revolts against greedy governments.

apdst · Apr 17, 2012

Tettsuo said:
Actually, they did lead to the change.

The only thing that changed, were the people who were holding all the money and in neither case was it the poor folks that suddenly saw their lives improve.

apdst · Apr 17, 2012

AdamT said:
Every version a flat tax that I've seen includes a personal exemption, which would keep many of those who currently don't pay FIT from paying under a flat tax, and of course it would result in different rates.

If you don't have an exemption then a flat tax is simply unfair. It fails to capture the distinction between income necessary for basic survival and disposable income. In effect it results in middle class disposable income being taxed at a rate in the high 80s or 90s, versus the low 20s for wealthier individuals.

In other words, it's sort of like taxing a corporation on gross revenue rather than net profits.

The only way that could happen, is if Congress did away with all tax deductions. A flat tax doesn't tax the gross by default.

Billy the Kid · Apr 17, 2012

muciti said:
LOL thanks. Might be the first time I have ever gotten into a discussion on here with someone who disagreed and we ultimately ended well.

I'm serious, it was good.

There were times during some of the earlyt posts, I thought - they'll never come together - but you worked it out. :2razz:

apdst · Apr 17, 2012

AdamT said:
Total nonsense. A flat tax is clearly regressive.

How so?.........

Gimmesometruth · Apr 17, 2012

muciti said:
Your NYT article link i have repeatedly clicked on and it asks me to log in. I am not going to sign up for the NYT so you dont have to explain yourself. Thats not happening.

https://myaccount.nytimes.com/auth/...ett-rule-is-just-a-start.html&OQ=Q5fQ72Q3dQ31

You have got something going on with your browser or you have reached your 10 article limit for the month. If that is the reason, then clear your browsing history and use the direct link I provided....:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/17/b...piketty-the-buffett-rule-is-just-a-start.html

The reason we are experiencing the wealth inequality we have now is largely because people only give their money to a few people. It has little to do with wealth disparity. Money is not being spread aroudn like it used to. The majority of Americans spend thier money with a select few businesses who cater to every need. THAT is what creates the wealth disparity we have here.

Wow....dude, I had no idea how bad your ideas on wealth/income were. The top are not gaining their wealth from "people giving it to them", theirs comes from investment returns...which is where they have seen the greatest increases in their incomes due to tax law changes....which have been the same as a "flattening" of the tax rates. That is shown in both the NYT and Atlantic articles.

Again and again I ask for ANY documentation of flat taxes DECREASING wealth inequality...and you just won't show it.

Gimmesometruth · Apr 17, 2012

apdst said:
What is messed up, is that you think the French and Soviet Revolutions were revolts against rich folks, when in actuality, they were revolts against greedy governments.

Wow....dude.....who was in power? They were Monarchies.

AdamT · Apr 17, 2012

muciti said:
How does a flat tax result in the middle classes being taxed in the high 80's or 90's and low 20's for wealthier?

Read what I wrote. Generally middle class folks spend a high percentage of their income on necessities like food, shelter, and transportation for themselves and their children. If they're smart they will also put away something for retirement. That leaves little in the way of DISPOSABLE income. If they have to pay a 23% tax, which is probably what a flat tax would entail, the tax would essentially eat up all of that disposable income (I used 80-90% as an example).

In contrast, for someone making over a million a year, something like 95% of their income is disposable income. They end up paying a tax that amounts to about 25% on their disposable income while a middle class person ends up paying a tax that amounts to 80-100% of his disposable income. Fair?

Gimmesometruth · Apr 17, 2012

muciti said:
Your NYT article link i have repeatedly clicked on and it asks me to log in. I am not going to sign up for the NYT so you dont have to explain yourself. Thats not happening.

Your link has and continues to redirect me to:

https://myaccount.nytimes.com/auth/...ett-rule-is-just-a-start.html&OQ=Q5fQ72Q3dQ31

Your NYT article link i have repeatedly clicked on and it asks me to log in. I am not going to sign up for the NYT so you dont have to explain yourself. Thats not happening.

Alternate reprint of the article:
News Headlines

TurtleDude · Apr 17, 2012

Gimmesometruth said:
You don't understand that wealth inequality creates an unhealthy society.

giving the government the power to eliminate inequality leads to one kind of equality

people in mass graves are all equal

TurtleDude · Apr 17, 2012

iguanaman said:
Of course we need to raise taxes on the top bracket only. They are the ones that don't spend all their income. Turtledude stated that he SAVES 80% of his yearly income for a rainy day. That is hurting our consumer economy that depends on SPENDING to grow and prosper. Taking more from those that already spend all they make is self defeating since that extra tax will come directly out of their spending, lowering GDP by the same amount we tax. Given the total wage stagnation of the 95%, raising taxes on anyone but the top bracket is economic suicide. If you want more people to pay taxes you just have to give them a raise.

I buy stocks and other investments. I don't exist to fund your desires for more government

Kreton · Apr 17, 2012

AdamT said:
Read what I wrote. Generally middle class folks spend a high percentage of their income on necessities like food, shelter, and transportation for themselves and their children. If they're smart they will also put away something for retirement. That leaves little in the way of DISPOSABLE income. If they have to pay a 23% tax, which is probably what a flat tax would entail, the tax would essentially eat up all of that disposable income (I used 80-90% as an example).

In contrast, for someone making over a million a year, something like 95% of their income is disposable income. They end up paying a tax that amounts to about 25% on their disposable income while a middle class person ends up paying a tax that amounts to 80-100% of his disposable income. Fair?

Your arguement would only slightly make sense if they middle class were currently paying nothing in taxes, which is not the case.

TurtleDude · Apr 17, 2012

Gimmesometruth said:
There is lots of research on the ills of wealth inequality, just because you are not aware of it does not mean it does not exist.

When wealth inequality gets bad enough, things go very bad, ie the French Revolution, Russian Revolution....

feel free to revolt. I get tired of implied threats. Lets party:mrgreen:

TurtleDude · Apr 17, 2012

AdamT said:
Every version a flat tax that I've seen includes a personal exemption, which would keep many of those who currently don't pay FIT from paying under a flat tax, and of course it would result in different rates.

If you don't have an exemption then a flat tax is simply unfair. It fails to capture the distinction between income necessary for basic survival and disposable income. In effect it results in middle class disposable income being taxed at a rate in the high 80s or 90s, versus the low 20s for wealthier individuals.

In other words, it's sort of like taxing a corporation on gross revenue rather than net profits.

the term fair has become meaningless though I agree there should be an exemption. But life and nature isn't fair and if you cannot pull your own weight it is just as valid to claim its unfair for others to have to pay for you as it is for you to claim its unfair to make everyone pay their own way

Kreton · Apr 17, 2012

Gimmesometruth said:
You have got something going on with your browser or you have reached your 10 article limit for the month. If that is the reason, then clear your browsing history and use the direct link I provided....:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/17/b...piketty-the-buffett-rule-is-just-a-start.html

Wow....dude, I had no idea how bad your ideas on wealth/income were. The top are not gaining their wealth from "people giving it to them", theirs comes from investment returns...which is where they have seen the greatest increases in their incomes due to tax law changes....which have been the same as a "flattening" of the tax rates. That is shown in both the NYT and Atlantic articles.

Again and again I ask for ANY documentation of flat taxes DECREASING wealth inequality...and you just won't show it.

Bull****. Companies generate revenues based on sales. If you are really arguing with me over that then your not worth discussing anything with. I am not going to bother with you.

Gimmesometruth · Apr 17, 2012

TurtleDude said:
giving the government the power to eliminate inequality leads to one kind of equality

people in mass graves are all equal

The only thing I can decipher from this cryptic bit of vague rhetoric....is that you think I am arguing for some totalitarian state, ala Pol Pot/Cambodia 1975.

TurtleDude · Apr 17, 2012

AdamT said:
Read what I wrote. Generally middle class folks spend a high percentage of their income on necessities like food, shelter, and transportation for themselves and their children. If they're smart they will also put away something for retirement. That leaves little in the way of DISPOSABLE income. If they have to pay a 23% tax, which is probably what a flat tax would entail, the tax would essentially eat up all of that disposable income (I used 80-90% as an example).

In contrast, for someone making over a million a year, something like 95% of their income is disposable income. They end up paying a tax that amounts to about 25% on their disposable income while a middle class person ends up paying a tax that amounts to 80-100% of his disposable income. Fair?

so what? the rich pay more than they get from government while others pay less yet they demand more

TurtleDude · Apr 17, 2012

Gimmesometruth said:
The only thing I can decipher from this cryptic bit of vague rhetoric....is that you think I am arguing for some totalitarian state, ala Pol Pot/Cambodia 1975.

I doubt many of the people who got the ball rolling there or in Stalinist Russia intended to have 40 million people die either. Its the attitude that we need to DO SOMETHING that lights the fuse

Gimmesometruth · Apr 17, 2012

muciti said:
Bull****. Companies generate revenues based on sales. If you are really arguing with me over that then your not worth discussing anything with. I am not going to bother with you.

Um...corporations' income is dealt with in CORPORATE taxation.

We were discussing INDIVIDUAL taxation and WEALTH INEQUALITY.

Try again.

AdamT · Apr 17, 2012

TurtleDude said:
so what? the rich pay more than they get from government while others pay less yet they demand more

So what? They still have more disposable income than they know what to do with?

Senate fails to advance Buffett rule

Doesn't know

Doesn't know

Doesn't know

Dr. Tongue’s Evil House of Pancakes

Dr. Tongue’s Evil House of Pancakes

Dr. Tongue’s Evil House of Pancakes

warrior of the wetlands

warrior of the wetlands

Doesn't know

warrior of the wetlands

warrior of the wetlands

Doesn't know

Dr. Tongue’s Evil House of Pancakes

warrior of the wetlands

warrior of the wetlands

Dr. Tongue’s Evil House of Pancakes

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency