Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
The time is now 7:25 pm
You last visited September 1, 2014, 7:20 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 3 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 ]  
Avatar
NEW YORK
United States
Member #90537
April 29, 2010
3248 Posts
Offline
Posted: February 15, 2012, 7:40 pm - IP Logged

Buffett is a jerk who's always trying to make himself look good. If he paid his secretary in stock, she'd be paying the same rate as him but that wouldn't make a nice touchy-feely story to deflect from his fighting tooth and nail to keep from paying taxes he already owes. He's just a fraud.

And when you say you want the rich to "pay their fair share" as obama puts it, are you saying you want them to pay less taxes?

Because factually, they already pay most of the taxes paid in this country.

Ridge you seems to be a millionaire. Obama does not play around. He is like the Roman emperor  Julius Caesar .

    Boney526's avatar - NjlpLogo
    New Jersey
    United States
    Member #99034
    October 18, 2010
    1439 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: February 15, 2012, 7:49 pm - IP Logged

    Ridge you seems to be a millionaire. Obama does not play around. He is like the Roman emperor  Julius Caesar .

    Nah, Ridge just seems to have his facts straight.

     

    The tax code is ridiculous, but most "rich" people pay a ridiculously high tax rate.  Very few (well, relatively few), politically connected people and people investing for a living pay a lower rate.  The best way to solve these problems is to elimnate the tax code, and make a simple one.  My opinion is, we should allocate a share of taxes to states based on population, thus eliminating the need for an IRS.  Or put in place a flat sales tax, and no other taxes.  I'd even be happy with a compromise where there's a flat sales tax, and a small (either) income tax on the top income earners or a small corporate gains.

    The only problem with the last parts is that there's no way the government would limit itself to low taxes, if the people will accept a government which spends 3.5 trillion dollars in a year.  That's 11,000 dollars per person.  The average income for a family of 4(?) is 44,000 dollars.  That is NOT sustainable spending.

      Avatar
      NEW YORK
      United States
      Member #90537
      April 29, 2010
      3248 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: February 15, 2012, 7:57 pm - IP Logged

      Nah, Ridge just seems to have his facts straight.

       

      The tax code is ridiculous, but most "rich" people pay a ridiculously high tax rate.  Very few (well, relatively few), politically connected people and people investing for a living pay a lower rate.  The best way to solve these problems is to elimnate the tax code, and make a simple one.  My opinion is, we should allocate a share of taxes to states based on population, thus eliminating the need for an IRS.  Or put in place a flat sales tax, and no other taxes.  I'd even be happy with a compromise where there's a flat sales tax, and a small (either) income tax on the top income earners or a small corporate gains.

      The only problem with the last parts is that there's no way the government would limit itself to low taxes, if the people will accept a government which spends 3.5 trillion dollars in a year.  That's 11,000 dollars per person.  The average income for a family of 4(?) is 44,000 dollars.  That is NOT sustainable spending.

      Obama gives it to everybody including the banks. Since he took office the federal reserve has not  bullied the world like it used to.He has made the federal reserve pay for causing the recession by taxing the <snip> out of the banks.They are crying on tv everyday.

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

        Boney526's avatar - NjlpLogo
        New Jersey
        United States
        Member #99034
        October 18, 2010
        1439 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: February 15, 2012, 8:18 pm - IP Logged

        The Federal Reserve has still injected trillions into the economy and manipulated interest rates under Obama (although not necessarilly because of him).  They've been doing so for a long, long time.  That's not really a Republican vs. Democrat issue, that's mostly an executive power problem, and a misunderstanding of economic principles.  There's little correlation between party and support, or resistance to, a Federal Reserve audit.  Both Democrats and Republicans are for and against transparency or abolishment.

         

        Obama has not stuck it to the Fed.  The Federal Reserve was necessary, and still is, necessarry for his plans.  Without the Federal Reserve, the Federal Government wouldn't have a free line of credit that leaves us on the hook.

          Avatar
          NEW YORK
          United States
          Member #90537
          April 29, 2010
          3248 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: February 15, 2012, 9:00 pm - IP Logged

          The Federal Reserve has still injected trillions into the economy and manipulated interest rates under Obama (although not necessarilly because of him).  They've been doing so for a long, long time.  That's not really a Republican vs. Democrat issue, that's mostly an executive power problem, and a misunderstanding of economic principles.  There's little correlation between party and support, or resistance to, a Federal Reserve audit.  Both Democrats and Republicans are for and against transparency or abolishment.

           

          Obama has not stuck it to the Fed.  The Federal Reserve was necessary, and still is, necessarry for his plans.  Without the Federal Reserve, the Federal Government wouldn't have a free line of credit that leaves us on the hook.

          Well, the federal reserve job is to get the whole world in debt and create wars behind the scene against any government that refuses to be in debt or even murder any leader that refuses the federal reserve control over his or her citizens.

          Obama allows the federal reserve to get us in debt, but he tax the banks and businesses that work with the federal reserve.Therefore preventing the federal reserve from creating another great depression by tightening the money supply.Taxing the banks and millionaires is the only way of getting freedom from the federal reserve. Obama has thought about printing our own money and supplying the central banks with it , so we can borrow our own money and resulting in no federal reserve like Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln did, but he does not want the federal reserve to hurt him personally. He is playing the right game.

            Bigheadnick's avatar - badluck
            Taunton, Ma
            United States
            Member #123010
            February 11, 2012
            136 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: February 15, 2012, 10:20 pm - IP Logged

            Nah, Ridge just seems to have his facts straight.

             

            The tax code is ridiculous, but most "rich" people pay a ridiculously high tax rate.  Very few (well, relatively few), politically connected people and people investing for a living pay a lower rate.  The best way to solve these problems is to elimnate the tax code, and make a simple one.  My opinion is, we should allocate a share of taxes to states based on population, thus eliminating the need for an IRS.  Or put in place a flat sales tax, and no other taxes.  I'd even be happy with a compromise where there's a flat sales tax, and a small (either) income tax on the top income earners or a small corporate gains.

            The only problem with the last parts is that there's no way the government would limit itself to low taxes, if the people will accept a government which spends 3.5 trillion dollars in a year.  That's 11,000 dollars per person.  The average income for a family of 4(?) is 44,000 dollars.  That is NOT sustainable spending.

            Preaching to the choir on this one. A flat federal sales tax would be the best way to go. It eliminates the need for the complicated mess that is filing taxes each year. It eliminates the need for the IRS which would save money. Would be so much simpler. What kills me is state income tax. States taxing sales and income is rediculous. Good ol Taxachusettes for ya.


              United States
              Member #111446
              May 25, 2011
              6323 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: February 15, 2012, 10:30 pm - IP Logged

              Preaching to the choir on this one. A flat federal sales tax would be the best way to go. It eliminates the need for the complicated mess that is filing taxes each year. It eliminates the need for the IRS which would save money. Would be so much simpler. What kills me is state income tax. States taxing sales and income is rediculous. Good ol Taxachusettes for ya.

              Hey NH is right next door. No sales or income tax!    See Ya!

              We don't preach to our choir's either.   No No

                Boney526's avatar - NjlpLogo
                New Jersey
                United States
                Member #99034
                October 18, 2010
                1439 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: February 15, 2012, 10:54 pm - IP Logged

                Well, the federal reserve job is to get the whole world in debt and create wars behind the scene against any government that refuses to be in debt or even murder any leader that refuses the federal reserve control over his or her citizens.

                Obama allows the federal reserve to get us in debt, but he tax the banks and businesses that work with the federal reserve.Therefore preventing the federal reserve from creating another great depression by tightening the money supply.Taxing the banks and millionaires is the only way of getting freedom from the federal reserve. Obama has thought about printing our own money and supplying the central banks with it , so we can borrow our own money and resulting in no federal reserve like Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln did, but he does not want the federal reserve to hurt him personally. He is playing the right game.

                I don't really believe that, I just think central planning always fails, no matter how well intentioned, or by which expert.

                 

                The citizens of the US will eventually get so fed up with the dollar that we legalize precious metals as commodities.  The fiat money game is fairly new, and the experiment has failed dramatically.  I advocate what Paul does, that we should stop taxing gold and silver, so they can be used as money as the constitution intended.  Allow the dollar to stay and compete.  This will make a "transition" process.  If the Government, and/or Fed, choose to debase the dollar more, more people will use commodities for trade, because they will still have buying power.

                  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
                  14903 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: February 15, 2012, 11:11 pm - IP Logged

                  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)

                  Oh yes, I think there's probably tons of waste that could be cut as there is with anything administered by the government but Obama is already cutting half a trillion dollars out of the defense budget now which is a huge mistake. And I think Ron Paul would cut even further. That is dangerous.

                  And sticking our head in the sand about Iran's nuclear intentions is even more dangerous. When they get the bomb we will suffer the consequences and you can bet the ranch on that one.

                  I agree about removing forces from Germany but instead of removing them from Japan, I would remove them from Korea. I would then put all those troops on our own borders, north and south, to be used for border defense and nothing else.

                  I like almost all of his other stands but he's throwing a lot of support away by being weak on defense.


                                                               
                                       
                                                           

                   

                   

                   

                   

                                                                                                                     

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

                                                                                                              --Edmund Burke

                   

                   

                    Boney526's avatar - NjlpLogo
                    New Jersey
                    United States
                    Member #99034
                    October 18, 2010
                    1439 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: February 15, 2012, 11:22 pm - IP Logged

                    That is the biggest complaint among Republicans that I get, but among everyone else who supports him, this is a strong point.  Not to mention that 50% of all donations from active military members go to Ron Paul, and he's the only candidate to have served.

                    I support a foreign policy more like our founders, who said we should stay uninvolved in the domestic affairs of other nations altogether, and uninvolved in their conflicts when possible (when they didn't directly involve us).  I think the media overstates Paul's "weak" national security stand.  His belief is that we should always try diplomacy, and always declare our intentions if we are going to use military action.  Actually, you'd be suprised to find out that he would agree with you about removing troops from Korea, and using them to secure our borders.

                    I also believe the monetary and fiscal problems facing this country are the biggest threat, and there's simply no way to solve the debt problem while staying in a state of constant warfare.  Defend ourselves? Make sure we're safe?  Of course.  Make sure that dictators half way across the world are safe and have guns?  Hell no!

                    Just think about this, we are so far in debt to China that we are now paying for the People's Army.  Uncle Sam is covering the cost of the Chinese Military.  Just think about that, and how much more of a burden our debt is to national security than Iran.  If we left them alone from the beginning, they wouldn't be a threat, because they would have no problem with the US.  Now that they do, I think we have to recognize that Israel can defend itself against Iran, and we can easily take them out.  We shouldn't have sanctioned them, when we could have just ignored them.  Had we not taken out the (I'll admit - brutal) dictatorship in Iraq, that would have been a major buffer in the region.

                    The CIA talks about blowback from our actions.  We are now facing that.  It's a question of whether we try to learn from our mistakes, or start making even bigger ones.

                      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
                      14903 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: February 15, 2012, 11:29 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.

                      Agreed.

                      The EPA has become the political arm of the ultra-leftwing, extreme lunatic fringe wack-jobs of the democrat party.

                      Nobody wants dirty air or dirty water but we don't need these "Democrats Gone Wild" declaring war on industry and investment just because of their extremist views on everything.

                      We need fairness and balance and intelligent consideration, not some wacked-out, vegetarian occupier-type loons calling the shots.

                      Let the states handle it. 


                                                                   
                                           
                                                               

                       

                       

                       

                       

                                                                                                                         

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

                                                                                                                  --Edmund Burke

                       

                       

                        Bigheadnick's avatar - badluck
                        Taunton, Ma
                        United States
                        Member #123010
                        February 11, 2012
                        136 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: February 16, 2012, 1:41 am - IP Logged

                        Agreed.

                        The EPA has become the political arm of the ultra-leftwing, extreme lunatic fringe wack-jobs of the democrat party.

                        Nobody wants dirty air or dirty water but we don't need these "Democrats Gone Wild" declaring war on industry and investment just because of their extremist views on everything.

                        We need fairness and balance and intelligent consideration, not some wacked-out, vegetarian occupier-type loons calling the shots.

                        Let the states handle it. 

                         Completely disagree with you on this one. If anything environmental protection should be a bigger global authority. I'm not a democrat, I'm an independant. My political beliefs are like a left,right,left,right checklist. So it's not coming from a loony lefty. The future of our habitat is more important than anything. It is a world wide concensus that global temps are rising at an increasing rate. This isn't lefty propoganda, this is fact. Backed by the entire scientific community. What good is economic prosperity if we have to wear respirators to go outside? The only, ONLY people on the planet saying it's a myth are those invested in fossil fuels. I mean seriously, "declaring war on industry" ? What does anyone have to gain by this ? Now think about what oil companys have to gain by leading you with misinformation? billions. I honestly could care less about the endangered speckled fill in the blank animal. I do care about the future of OUR species.

                          NightStalker's avatar - IMG00073 20100720-1609_2.jpg
                          Nothing Good Happens After Midnight
                          East of Columbus, OH
                          United States
                          Member #120848
                          December 28, 2011
                          415 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: February 16, 2012, 8:44 am - IP Logged

                          It is NOT a world wide consensus that global temps are rising.  There are hundreds of results on google just searching "scientists against global warming" and several articles about the thousands of scientists against it.

                          Here is a link to one article that has 31,000 scientists that reject global warming.

                          http://www.wnd.com/2008/05/64734/

                           

                          The global warming hoax is about control.  In the 70's these "scientists" claimed there would be a new ice age by the year 2000.  We see how that worked out.

                           

                          Don't get me wrong, I'm all for alternative energies, but don't cram it down my throat.  The free market should determine the next alternative energy not the government. 

                          President Empty Suit bans drilling in the gulf, blocks the Keystone Pipeline, hates coal fired electrical plants and told us before we elected him that he wanted those costs to necessarily skyrocket.  And then wants us all to buy crappy electric cars.  Control is what he wants. 

                          How am I smart enough to vote for my elected officials but not smart enough to decide what kind of car I should drive or what kind of light bulb I should use.

                          I'd let them build a nuclear power plant in my back yard to help, but that won't ever happen either.

                          Life's Too Short To Be Unhappy Cool

                            CDanaT's avatar - tiger avatar_04_hd_pictures_169016.jpg
                            TX
                            United States
                            Member #121198
                            January 4, 2012
                            1127 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: February 16, 2012, 9:54 am - IP Logged

                             Completely disagree with you on this one. If anything environmental protection should be a bigger global authority. I'm not a democrat, I'm an independant. My political beliefs are like a left,right,left,right checklist. So it's not coming from a loony lefty. The future of our habitat is more important than anything. It is a world wide concensus that global temps are rising at an increasing rate. This isn't lefty propoganda, this is fact. Backed by the entire scientific community. What good is economic prosperity if we have to wear respirators to go outside? The only, ONLY people on the planet saying it's a myth are those invested in fossil fuels. I mean seriously, "declaring war on industry" ? What does anyone have to gain by this ? Now think about what oil companys have to gain by leading you with misinformation? billions. I honestly could care less about the endangered speckled fill in the blank animal. I do care about the future of OUR species.

                            Hey BHnick, I have to respectfully disagree on having BIGGER government authority like the EPA.....They are definitely going to try and outlaw,regulate and rule any activity you do. From noise,to breathing and emitting CO2..pretty soon you will be having to wear gas masks and body suits because you create global warming with body heat from sweating or carbon dioxide from breathing......Remember, its not just about protecting the environment, its also about power and control... Its just like money, the more you have, the more you seek to have.......Right now, the United States government cant control their spending, so what do they want ???  more money and more control on how to get it.,,,, how do they get that ? gotta raise taxes someplace and or regulations..look at the tax codes,costs for various business licenses,corporate tax, safety policies and programs, etc etc.....Gotta go through the government to get anything...Look at the after taxes you pay for a plane ticket or on your cell phone bill....its all about money and control...How many levels of Gov. and their regulations  do we need ?   I have 4 right now,, city, county, state and federal....Enough is enough...and you want the EPA to have more control ??......hmmm, I will respectfully disagree....Besides..lets stick to the main topic, shall we ? Thumbs Up....Investing and the Buffet rule:  we give enough money to the government, set a flat tax and live within those means Patriot

                            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 16, 2012, 12:31 pm - IP Logged

                              It is NOT a world wide consensus that global temps are rising.  There are hundreds of results on google just searching "scientists against global warming" and several articles about the thousands of scientists against it.

                              Here is a link to one article that has 31,000 scientists that reject global warming.

                              http://www.wnd.com/2008/05/64734/

                               

                              The global warming hoax is about control.  In the 70's these "scientists" claimed there would be a new ice age by the year 2000.  We see how that worked out.

                               

                              Don't get me wrong, I'm all for alternative energies, but don't cram it down my throat.  The free market should determine the next alternative energy not the government. 

                              President Empty Suit bans drilling in the gulf, blocks the Keystone Pipeline, hates coal fired electrical plants and told us before we elected him that he wanted those costs to necessarily skyrocket.  And then wants us all to buy crappy electric cars.  Control is what he wants. 

                              How am I smart enough to vote for my elected officials but not smart enough to decide what kind of car I should drive or what kind of light bulb I should use.

                              I'd let them build a nuclear power plant in my back yard to help, but that won't ever happen either.

                               Of course you're going to cherry pick that example, FROM A RIGHT WING FORUM!!. A selection of 31,000, 3,000 of which aren't even scientists rather doctors and 13,000 of them only have BA's compared to the vast majority of the scientific community. You believe what you want to believe. You want to belive that we're fine, that we can do whatever we want on this planet and no consequences shall arise.  How can you be so blind? It is crap like that that leaves me tempted to vote for the libs. You can't pump billions of tons of chemicals into the air and expect nothing to happen from it. The thought that we can't affect climate is lunacy.

                               I also understand that we can't just break from fossil fuels cold turkey, but we need to hurry the F up because I fear we are approaching a tipping point if we haven't already. I could list for you a barrage of non-political scientific site links but for some reason copy-paste doesn't work in mozilla. But heres a thought, google climate change itself and don't just read what American republicans say about it. Read what the scientific cummunity as a whole says about it. Even the tobacco companies had scientists years ago who said cigarettes don't cause cancer.

                               You speak of conspiracy theories, that it's just about control. This is laughable. I don't even like Obama but that's a joke. The politicians are controlled by they're contributors, the polititions themselves control nothing. The money behind them controls everything. Look at all they're voting records compared to who gives they're campaigns the most money. Left, Right, they're all the same when it comes to this (with few exceptions). Try looking at the evidence OBJECTIVELY without preconceptions that Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity drilled into your head.