Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
The time is now 8:50 pm
You last visited April 16, 2014, 8:49 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Proposed Buffett Rule and How It Would Apply to Some Lottery Winners Who Invest

Topic closed. 122 replies. Last post 2 years ago by haymaker.

Page 2 of 9
52
PrintE-mailLink

Should there be a minimum of 30% tax on long term capital gains?

Yes, the wealthy should pay their fair share. [ 15 ]  [28.85%]
No, things are just fine the way they are. [ 9 ]  [17.31%]
Neither, put in a flat tax for all types of income [ 18 ]  [34.62%]
Neither, I will explain below. [ 10 ]  [19.23%]
Total Valid Votes [ 52 ]  
Discarded Votes [ 5 ]  
Boney526's avatar - NjlpLogo
New Jersey
United States
Member #99034
October 18, 2010
1439 Posts
Offline
Posted: February 14, 2012, 10:33 am - IP Logged

How about this.

 

Eliminate Income Tax and the IRS.  Eliminate Corporate Gains.  Take Welfare prgrams away from the Federal Government, cut 25% of the Defense budget, and 25% of our military's budget, eliminate the wasteful Departments such as Education, Housing and Urban Development, and Interior.

Eliminate the earmarking, set our Federal Budget down to 750 billion, almost all on National Security.  Have the states raise (however they want) and send the money based on population.  And eliminate the tax burden that we face, along with the deficits.

    Avatar
    NASHVILLE, TENN
    United States
    Member #33372
    February 20, 2006
    981 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: February 14, 2012, 11:20 am - IP Logged

    Every politician since the middle 50's has adopted the "tax the rich" slogan in the hopes of getting elected.  I am surprised there are still rich folks around since they pay around 50% of all the income tax generated.  Here comes another "tax the rich!  Make them pay their fair share!" cry. 

     The truth of the matter is, they are paying their fair share, and your share as well.  What we need are more taxpayers.


      United States
      Member #111446
      May 25, 2011
      6323 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: February 14, 2012, 11:33 am - IP Logged

      How about this.

       

      Eliminate Income Tax and the IRS.  Eliminate Corporate Gains.  Take Welfare prgrams away from the Federal Government, cut 25% of the Defense budget, and 25% of our military's budget, eliminate the wasteful Departments such as Education, Housing and Urban Development, and Interior.

      Eliminate the earmarking, set our Federal Budget down to 750 billion, almost all on National Security.  Have the states raise (however they want) and send the money based on population.  And eliminate the tax burden that we face, along with the deficits.

      I Agree!  Sign me up please.

        mediabrat's avatar - 18z0typ
        upstate NY
        United States
        Member #108795
        March 31, 2011
        476 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: February 14, 2012, 2:53 pm - IP Logged

        Make the rich pay their fair share comes from the current government using class warfare.

        Having a billionaire pay more does nothing for me.

        We pay to much tax as a country in whole, enough is enough, government needs to curb is spending, stop the pork and the earmarks.

        Get rid of entitlements period, welfare..plain and simple ,YOU DON'T GET NONE !!!!!!

        The only people I hear screaming " make the rich pay more," are scuzzy polititions who want to get re-elected and people collecting entitlments.

        You get rid of WIC AND WELFARE, SECTION 8, GUESS WHAT, LESS PEOPLE WILL BE GETTING KNOCKED UP JUST SO THEY GET PUT INTO THE SYSTEM.

        Do you know what "mamas little money maker means? thats when people have their daughters get pregnant, they turn around and become foster parents (which pays very well ) and tada, the whole family benefits.

        Then you have the dis-abilty cheats, sucking the life out of SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICAID AND MEDICARE.

        You get rid of entitlements and 4 things will happen..

        1. People will pay more attention to birth control

        2. more people will find that job,

        3. they won't vote for <snip>s who feel they can take and take and take.

        4. with more people working and a more responsible government, guess what, no more financial problems. we all benefit.

         

        This post has been automatically changed by the Lottery Post computer system to remove inappropriate content and/or spam.

        I think everyone can agree that abuses of the system need to be eliminated.  If I'm reading your post correctly, though, it sounds like you want to eliminate our various social safety nets all together.  To that I can only say, I hope you never find yourself in a position where you need that safety net.  Unless, of course, it's your goal in life to end up on the streets through no fault of your own.

        And before anyone says anything, I'm just as gainfully employed as the rest of you.  I've never been "in the system" and I hope to keep it that way.  However, that does not mean I don't see the necessity of having social safety nets.  Not everyone is as blessed as we here at LP are.

          rdgrnr's avatar - walt
          -Ridge Runner- Oracle of the Appalachians
          Way back up in them dadgum hills, son!
          United States
          Member #73904
          April 28, 2009
          14679 Posts
          Online
          Posted: February 14, 2012, 2:59 pm - IP Logged

          How about this.

           

          Eliminate Income Tax and the IRS.  Eliminate Corporate Gains.  Take Welfare prgrams away from the Federal Government, cut 25% of the Defense budget, and 25% of our military's budget, eliminate the wasteful Departments such as Education, Housing and Urban Development, and Interior.

          Eliminate the earmarking, set our Federal Budget down to 750 billion, almost all on National Security.  Have the states raise (however they want) and send the money based on population.  And eliminate the tax burden that we face, along with the deficits.

          I think cutting defense and the military in today's world would be extremely  irresponsible.

          And that's the Number 1 reason I could never vote for Ron Paul.


                                                       
                               
                                                   

           

           

           

           

                                                                                                             

          "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

                                                                                                      --Edmund Burke

           

           

            CDanaT's avatar - tiger avatar_04_hd_pictures_169016.jpg
            TX
            United States
            Member #121198
            January 4, 2012
            1059 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: February 14, 2012, 3:06 pm - IP Logged

            I think cutting defense and the military in today's world would be extremely  irresponsible.

            And that's the Number 1 reason I could never vote for Ron Paul.

            I have to agree with you on that one Rdg, too many bad issues going on right now for cuts. Maybe eliminating  some of the chiefs and their aides...but not troops and logistics.....

            Stay Positive, Believe and good things will come your way

              Bigheadnick's avatar - badluck
              Taunton, Ma
              United States
              Member #123010
              February 11, 2012
              136 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: February 14, 2012, 4:39 pm - IP Logged

              I think everyone can agree that abuses of the system need to be eliminated.  If I'm reading your post correctly, though, it sounds like you want to eliminate our various social safety nets all together.  To that I can only say, I hope you never find yourself in a position where you need that safety net.  Unless, of course, it's your goal in life to end up on the streets through no fault of your own.

              And before anyone says anything, I'm just as gainfully employed as the rest of you.  I've never been "in the system" and I hope to keep it that way.  However, that does not mean I don't see the necessity of having social safety nets.  Not everyone is as blessed as we here at LP are.

              Exactly. However reforms definitley need to be made. I would suggest these;

              1-mandatory drug testing for anyone collecting benefits.

              2-mandatory career training.

              3-not being punished for actually TRYING to go to work, example; If your collecting aide and you get a job paying chump change they will completely take you off, instead I believe you should be gradually taken off depending on how much you make. No 1 can support a family on minimum wage.

              4-and conversely you should not be rewarded with more benefits for having more kids while on welfare.

              5-an arrest while on benifits automatically strips them.

              6-random checks on people collecting to make sure there is no lexus in the driveway, drug dealing etc...SEE HOW THEY ARE LIVING!

              There are many people out there who just have kids for the sake of having everyone else support them, but there are also many who already had kids while financially stable then through no fault of they're own lost they're jobs. These are the people welfare was intended to help as well as genuinely disabled people who can't work.

              The thought that there is a job there for anyone who wants one is a fantasy and further the jobs that are there don't always pay enough to live on. Between outsourcing, illegal immigration and an increase in foreign imports, There just aren't enough jobs to go around. Combine that with a worldwide recession and you have record numbers of people who legitimately need help, and in my opinion should get it. When we fail to help our fellow human beings, we fail to be human.

                rdgrnr's avatar - walt
                -Ridge Runner- Oracle of the Appalachians
                Way back up in them dadgum hills, son!
                United States
                Member #73904
                April 28, 2009
                14679 Posts
                Online
                Posted: February 14, 2012, 11:59 pm - IP Logged

                Exactly. However reforms definitley need to be made. I would suggest these;

                1-mandatory drug testing for anyone collecting benefits.

                2-mandatory career training.

                3-not being punished for actually TRYING to go to work, example; If your collecting aide and you get a job paying chump change they will completely take you off, instead I believe you should be gradually taken off depending on how much you make. No 1 can support a family on minimum wage.

                4-and conversely you should not be rewarded with more benefits for having more kids while on welfare.

                5-an arrest while on benifits automatically strips them.

                6-random checks on people collecting to make sure there is no lexus in the driveway, drug dealing etc...SEE HOW THEY ARE LIVING!

                There are many people out there who just have kids for the sake of having everyone else support them, but there are also many who already had kids while financially stable then through no fault of they're own lost they're jobs. These are the people welfare was intended to help as well as genuinely disabled people who can't work.

                The thought that there is a job there for anyone who wants one is a fantasy and further the jobs that are there don't always pay enough to live on. Between outsourcing, illegal immigration and an increase in foreign imports, There just aren't enough jobs to go around. Combine that with a worldwide recession and you have record numbers of people who legitimately need help, and in my opinion should get it. When we fail to help our fellow human beings, we fail to be human.

                Roger that.

                It should be a safety net, not a hammock.


                                                             
                                     
                                                         

                 

                 

                 

                 

                                                                                                                   

                "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

                                                                                                            --Edmund Burke

                 

                 

                  sully16's avatar - sharan
                  Listens to the wind

                  United States
                  Member #81740
                  October 28, 2009
                  17700 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: February 15, 2012, 7:35 am - IP Logged

                  I think everyone can agree that abuses of the system need to be eliminated.  If I'm reading your post correctly, though, it sounds like you want to eliminate our various social safety nets all together.  To that I can only say, I hope you never find yourself in a position where you need that safety net.  Unless, of course, it's your goal in life to end up on the streets through no fault of your own.

                  And before anyone says anything, I'm just as gainfully employed as the rest of you.  I've never been "in the system" and I hope to keep it that way.  However, that does not mean I don't see the necessity of having social safety nets.  Not everyone is as blessed as we here at LP are.

                  Yes, enough is enough, if people finds themselves down and out through no fault of their own they can depend on family or charity. not a government forcing me through taxation. The social saftey nets are being abused.

                  And yes, I have been down and out, a long time ago, I learned from my mistakes, and they were my mistakes. Nobody and I mean nobody, had to support me.

                  If you can't feed kids, you don't have them,

                  I am tired of telling my son no, he can't have something, because our checks are being eaten alive by taxes. We put money away for a rainy day, we go without and save, then I turn around and watch someone on welfare, buying steak and shrimp, xbox and flat screen tvs. no enough is enough.

                  There's only one US Flag

                    Bigheadnick's avatar - badluck
                    Taunton, Ma
                    United States
                    Member #123010
                    February 11, 2012
                    136 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: February 15, 2012, 3:13 pm - IP Logged

                    Yes, enough is enough, if people finds themselves down and out through no fault of their own they can depend on family or charity. not a government forcing me through taxation. The social saftey nets are being abused.

                    And yes, I have been down and out, a long time ago, I learned from my mistakes, and they were my mistakes. Nobody and I mean nobody, had to support me.

                    If you can't feed kids, you don't have them,

                    I am tired of telling my son no, he can't have something, because our checks are being eaten alive by taxes. We put money away for a rainy day, we go without and save, then I turn around and watch someone on welfare, buying steak and shrimp, xbox and flat screen tvs. no enough is enough.

                     Although I understand and share your frustration with people taking advantage, I disagree with your solution. Not everyone has family who are willing or able to help them if they fall. There are no charities that will pay your rent or bills if you fall. Not everyone has the ability to save for a rainy day as you suggest for most people live paycheck to paycheck and once it's gone, they're screwed.

                     If they eliminate these programs completely as you suggest, your taxes will be no lower than before. Our government will just spend that money somewhere else. Likely on themselves or subsidies for they're supporters. The crime rate would double, maybe even triple if people are just cut off like that. Like I said, The thought that there is a job for everyone who wants it is a fantasy, a myth, a common fallacy. Even in times of economic prosperity the people out of work will always outnumber the jobs available.

                     As far as not having kids if you can't feed them well, it's the chicken or the egg argument. For those that choose to have kids while on welfare, they should get nothing. But what about those who had the kids first and were financially stable? What of the father/mother of 2 who had they're job shipped over seas and needs a little help? I have no problem with helping them. It's the drugdealer/gangbanger who used to live upstairs from me who was collecting SSI checks that should be cut. It's my younger sister who has been on welfare her entire adult life who continues to have kids(5 now). This disgusts me and i've disowned her because she is nothing but a leach. I am as fed up as you are but there are people who genuinely need help and have no other options. I will not allow my frustration and ager at the dirtbags destroy my compassion for others.

                      time*treat's avatar - radar

                      United States
                      Member #13130
                      March 30, 2005
                      2171 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: February 15, 2012, 4:45 pm - IP Logged

                       Although I understand and share your frustration with people taking advantage, I disagree with your solution. Not everyone has family who are willing or able to help them if they fall. There are no charities that will pay your rent or bills if you fall. Not everyone has the ability to save for a rainy day as you suggest for most people live paycheck to paycheck and once it's gone, they're screwed.

                       If they eliminate these programs completely as you suggest, your taxes will be no lower than before. Our government will just spend that money somewhere else. Likely on themselves or subsidies for they're supporters. The crime rate would double, maybe even triple if people are just cut off like that. Like I said, The thought that there is a job for everyone who wants it is a fantasy, a myth, a common fallacy. Even in times of economic prosperity the people out of work will always outnumber the jobs available.

                       As far as not having kids if you can't feed them well, it's the chicken or the egg argument. For those that choose to have kids while on welfare, they should get nothing. But what about those who had the kids first and were financially stable? What of the father/mother of 2 who had they're job shipped over seas and needs a little help? I have no problem with helping them. It's the drugdealer/gangbanger who used to live upstairs from me who was collecting SSI checks that should be cut. It's my younger sister who has been on welfare her entire adult life who continues to have kids(5 now). This disgusts me and i've disowned her because she is nothing but a leach. I am as fed up as you are but there are people who genuinely need help and have no other options. I will not allow my frustration and ager at the dirtbags destroy my compassion for others.

                      I won't dissect this point by point, but nearly every problem you've described can be traced back to some direct or indirect consequence of one gov't program or other.

                      Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams have done many columns on what life was like before and after various programs were passed to "help" people -- Prohibition, Minimum wage (Davis-Bacon), War on Poverty, school subsidies, etc. There has been no problem so bad that the gov't couldn't get involved in ... and make worse.

                      Entitlement mentality causes more crime than poverty. Check out poverty vs crime rates in poorer nations and earlier times in this nation.

                      If the gov't left the money it wastes in the pockets of those that work for it, then people would be free to donate it to those that in their own judgement/compassion would put it to best use.

                      In neo-conned Amerika, bank robs you.
                      Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms should be the name of a convenience store, not a govnoment agency.

                        Boney526's avatar - NjlpLogo
                        New Jersey
                        United States
                        Member #99034
                        October 18, 2010
                        1439 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: February 15, 2012, 5:23 pm - IP Logged

                        I think cutting defense and the military in today's world would be extremely  irresponsible.

                        And that's the Number 1 reason I could never vote for Ron Paul.

                        You honestly think that after doubling the military budget, we can find NO room to scale back?  There's no waste?  I understand that the Federal Government's most important role is to defend the country, but there's LOTS of room for cuts in the military budget.  My first 2 would be to remove troops from Germany and Japan.

                        I can understand disagreeing with him on Foreign Policy (I do think we should have some involvement in protecting our interests, but I agree with him that all of that action must have Congressional approval, unless it's a response to an attack), but you should understand that he's the only one who will deal with the debt problem.  He's the only one who's been consistently for small government, and defending the Constitution.  He doesn't just say it, he actually believes it, and his voting record shows it.  (Unlike the rest of the candidiates)

                          Boney526's avatar - NjlpLogo
                          New Jersey
                          United States
                          Member #99034
                          October 18, 2010
                          1439 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: February 15, 2012, 5:36 pm - IP Logged

                          Exactly. However reforms definitley need to be made. I would suggest these;

                          1-mandatory drug testing for anyone collecting benefits.

                          2-mandatory career training.

                          3-not being punished for actually TRYING to go to work, example; If your collecting aide and you get a job paying chump change they will completely take you off, instead I believe you should be gradually taken off depending on how much you make. No 1 can support a family on minimum wage.

                          4-and conversely you should not be rewarded with more benefits for having more kids while on welfare.

                          5-an arrest while on benifits automatically strips them.

                          6-random checks on people collecting to make sure there is no lexus in the driveway, drug dealing etc...SEE HOW THEY ARE LIVING!

                          There are many people out there who just have kids for the sake of having everyone else support them, but there are also many who already had kids while financially stable then through no fault of they're own lost they're jobs. These are the people welfare was intended to help as well as genuinely disabled people who can't work.

                          The thought that there is a job there for anyone who wants one is a fantasy and further the jobs that are there don't always pay enough to live on. Between outsourcing, illegal immigration and an increase in foreign imports, There just aren't enough jobs to go around. Combine that with a worldwide recession and you have record numbers of people who legitimately need help, and in my opinion should get it. When we fail to help our fellow human beings, we fail to be human.

                          The problem I have with these ideas are that they would be horridly expensive to initiate, and would likely violate our rights.  These ideas of government oversight of day to day life is eerily similar to the violations like the Stamp Act.  I say anybody whose over X age gets to keep their benefits, and the rest of us should "fend for our selves" in the market.  (AKA, not get taxed, and buy or don't buy insurance ourselves)  Or maybe our state would come up with it's own version.  (I'd advocate the markets, but a state run system would at least be more likely to held accountable than a federal program)

                            Bigheadnick's avatar - badluck
                            Taunton, Ma
                            United States
                            Member #123010
                            February 11, 2012
                            136 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: February 15, 2012, 5:58 pm - IP Logged

                            The problem I have with these ideas are that they would be horridly expensive to initiate, and would likely violate our rights.  These ideas of government oversight of day to day life is eerily similar to the violations like the Stamp Act.  I say anybody whose over X age gets to keep their benefits, and the rest of us should "fend for our selves" in the market.  (AKA, not get taxed, and buy or don't buy insurance ourselves)  Or maybe our state would come up with it's own version.  (I'd advocate the markets, but a state run system would at least be more likely to held accountable than a federal program)

                             The same thought had crossed my mind as far as how expensive it could be to enact these reforms however, the droves of blood sucking leachers that would be booted off the system for drug use, fraud, criminal activity etc.. would absolutely outweigh the cost of enforcement.

                             With respect to Ron Paul, I love his policies of scaling back government and beaurocrasy. The propblem I have with him as well as the rest of the candidates is they're complete disregard for the problems facing our environment. Ron Paul advocates the abolishment of the EPA. Big problem for me.

                             This government is fat as hell no doubt and there are billions maybe trillions of dollars being wasted. The federal budget needs an overhaul for sure. When I started my home improvement business, I had to get this signed, fill out that form, pay this fee, that fee, that license etc, etc. This is nothing more than red tape and only makes it harder to start a business as well as costs money. It's rediculous how stifling the country and states can be to it's own economy. I believe Ron Paul is the type of guy who would say"you want to start a business, go ahead" ,that's why I like him. I just wish he felt differently about the environment.

                              Boney526's avatar - NjlpLogo
                              New Jersey
                              United States
                              Member #99034
                              October 18, 2010
                              1439 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: February 15, 2012, 7:39 pm - IP Logged

                              There are already 50 state EPAs, so my arguement would be to hand more authority back to them.  Even better, just have stronger property rights laws, and environmental protection comes as an exfension of your right to property.

                               

                              Just my thoughts on that.  I just think the Federal EPA, just like the vast majority of federal agencies, is grossly incompetent.