Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
DieChecker

Obama's Millionares Tax (Buffett Plan)

53 posts in this topic

Question: Obama is going around saying his millionares tax, AKA the Buffett Plan, will help the economy. But some of his words and logic seem contradictory to me.

The president touted his millionaires tax in Florida, a battleground state which could play a decisive role in the November 6 election.

The initiative, calling for a minimum tax of 30 percent on those earning more than $1 million a year has no chance of quickly becoming law, but it anchors Obama's vow to forge an economy where everyone has "a fair shot."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jYNnXmbp_gohfoJDBpBtHzr-wSZQ?docId=CNG.cb4770974eab911d9a2c05f1ffc24871.7f1

How does taking more money from the rich make everyone get a fair shot? I'm not saying we should not raise taxes, even on everyone, but let's not be delusional that the rich are just going to roll over. Wouldn't a fair shot mean lowering taxes on the Lower and Middle Class so that they have more money to use as they please?

Maybe he is suggesting that a tax on the rich will allow for the FedGov to provide all the myrid multiple services that the Lower and Middle Class can ever want? Personally as a individual citizen, I'd like to keep more of what I earn and then spend it as I see fit, but that is just me. I don't especially trust the FedGov to take care of me.

Congress was expected to vote on the millionaires tax next week and the plan has almost no chance of passing.

But Democrats want to force Republicans to cast a vote to oppose the tax, which Obama and party allies can then use to castigate their foes on the campaign trail ahead of November's election.

Republicans argue that Obama's tax plans would hamper job creation and growth by forcing many small business owners to pay more money to the government -- cash which could be used to expand their businesses.

They also say the Buffett rule is a bid to deflect attention from Obama's failure to ignite a strong rebound and would do nothing to fix problems haunting the recovery, including the bloated deficit and high gas prices.

I feel sorry for Obama. He came into 2008 saying he was going to fix the economy, or at least his fanatical fans said so. And yet, here we are in 2012 and we're not much better off then 2009. Housing is still down. Unemployment is still Up. National Debt and Deficit are still WAY up. In 2009, we were told we'd be back to 2002 levels of Deficit, and that the Debt would be under control. Well it isn't and now Obama is going to have to eat that sandwich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious... what do you suggest is done to correct all the problems listed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious... what do you suggest is done to correct all the problems listed?

Just curious...do you really believe that any increased tax revenue will be coupled with spending reductions to actually lower the debt and deficit? Or will this increased revenue just be added to the spending machine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Just curious...do you really believe that any increased tax revenue will be coupled with spending reductions to actually lower the debt and deficit? Or will this increased revenue just be added to the spending machine?

Naturally not, but not making the debt they are making thanks to the Bush tax cuts would already help

Edited by questionmark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does taking more money from the rich make everyone get a fair shot?

it would provide a more fair tax policy since currently they pay a lower tax rate than the rest of the country.

Wouldn't a fair shot mean lowering taxes on the Lower and Middle Class so that they have more money to use as they please?

No. Our tax rates were ALREADY lowered with the Bush tax cuts. Which by the way is one of the major causes of FedGov economic problems. What have you been doing with all that money in the past decade? <snark>

Maybe he is suggesting that a tax on the rich will allow for the FedGov to provide all the myrid multiple services that the Lower and Middle Class can ever want?

No. We need to pay for stuff already spent before Obama (War, War, Tax Cuts, Medicare Part D, ...). The graphic has been posted on UM many times. The Bush tax cuts should not be renewed. We should end the wars. That would stop some of the monetary bleeding.

He came into 2008 saying he was going to fix the economy, or at least his fanatical fans said so. And yet, here we are in 2012 and we're not much better off then 2009. Housing is still down. Unemployment is still Up.

No. Unemployment is going down. Job growth has been created nearly every month since the economic collapse of 2008. That graphic has been posted here on UM many times as well. The stock market has completely recovered. Business is generally making large sums of money. Manufacturing is growing again. (from my personal experience) It will take a year or two more to clear out the housing inventory. (again from personal experience and advice) If that's not fixed, it's certainly mended.

STOP watching Fox news and other people who want America to fail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Naturally not, but not making the debt they are making thanks to the Bush tax cuts would already help

Then it won't do any good if it's not coupled with spending decreases and this Administration has shown time and time again that they are not interested in that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Die

The goal is to increase revenue and cut spending.

Buffett is correct that our present tax system is grossly unfair and downright stupid.

Obama is a typical politician and moral midget. Further, he is running for re-election and for that reason alone will tell people whatever they want to hear.

It's all political theater, and I can't believe I've even posting on this thread... :cry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Die

The goal is to increase revenue and cut spending.

Buffett is correct that our present tax system is grossly unfair and downright stupid.

Obama is a typical politician and moral midget. Further, he is running for re-election and for that reason alone will tell people whatever they want to hear.

It's all political theater, and I can't believe I've even posting on this thread... :cry:

:tu: .. will the tax pass? nope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it would provide a more fair tax policy since currently they pay a lower tax rate than the rest of the country.

No. Our tax rates were ALREADY lowered with the Bush tax cuts. Which by the way is one of the major causes of FedGov economic problems. What have you been doing with all that money in the past decade? <snark>

No. We need to pay for stuff already spent before Obama (War, War, Tax Cuts, Medicare Part D, ...). The graphic has been posted on UM many times. The Bush tax cuts should not be renewed. We should end the wars. That would stop some of the monetary bleeding.

No. Unemployment is going down. Job growth has been created nearly every month since the economic collapse of 2008. That graphic has been posted here on UM many times as well. The stock market has completely recovered. Business is generally making large sums of money. Manufacturing is growing again. (from my personal experience) It will take a year or two more to clear out the housing inventory. (again from personal experience and advice) If that's not fixed, it's certainly mended.

STOP watching Fox news and other people who want America to fail.

Even with the Bush tax cuts Fed revenue has risen at least 250 BILLION dollars EVERY year. Problem is that spending is increasing faster than revenues. Our government does NOT have a revenue problem, it has a SPENDING problem. Until they solve their spending problem revenue doesn't really matter. Doesn't matter how much you make if you spend more then you make your debt goes up. Simple math.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Die

The goal is to increase revenue and cut spending.

Buffett is correct that our present tax system is grossly unfair and downright stupid.

Obama is a typical politician and moral midget. Further, he is running for re-election and for that reason alone will tell people whatever they want to hear.

It's all political theater, and I can't believe I've even posting on this thread... :cry:

Buffet is just a hypocrit. I don't know why y'all pay any attention to him. He claims that he should pay more in taxes. Question: Why doesn't he? The Fed Gov will accept his money, yet he doesn't pay more. That makes him a hypocrit. I don't pay much attention to folks that say one thing and do another. But hey, that's just me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then it won't do any good if it's not coupled with spending decreases and this Administration has shown time and time again that they are not interested in that.

"This Administration" does not make the budget, that would be Congress and last I looked the majority was Republican. They have this great scheme of reducing taxes for the rich and leave the tab to our grandchildren.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"This Administration" does not make the budget, that would be Congress and last I looked the majority was Republican. They have this great scheme of reducing taxes for the rich and leave the tab to our grandchildren.

Incorrect.

The Administration proposes a budget. It is then sent to Congress for approval. The House of Representatives Republican majority. Budgets have been approved in the House and have been passed along to the Senate. The Senate has a Democrat majority and has not passed a budget in several years - 2009 in fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incorrect.

The Administration proposes a budget. It is then sent to Congress for approval. The House of Representatives Republican majority. Budgets have been approved in the House and have been passed along to the Senate. The Senate has a Democrat majority and has not passed a budget in several years - 2009 in fact.

So, why is a budget that is 100% made in Congress up for approval now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, why is a budget that is 100% made in Congress up for approval now?

Why don't you learn the answer form those who proposed it: http://budget.house.gov/fy2013Prosperity/

Congress has the ability if they want to do it, but it is typically done by the President. And a budget proposed by one house of Congress typically has the same chance at passage as they one to which you are referring.

Here's a fairly in-depth explanation of the entire process.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/federalbudgetprocess/a/budget_page1.htm

Perhaps it will assist you in future discussions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The buffet tax will be the nail in the coffin for small business owners and the middle class as a whole. It weakens the market when the trickle down effect is bureaucratically influencing the process. This runs from home renovations to family vacations. Listen, the dollar is failing to retain it's inflationary sustainability. The cost of living is rising faster at any time in modern history. Another tax on individuals driving the market place only strengthens the larger corporations and limits the consumers personal choices. This tax is a scam and Barak Obama was appointed president to sell it to everybody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious... what do you suggest is done to correct all the problems listed?

I'd suggest raising taxes and lowering spending. I'm not against taxing the rich. I'm against the politics of implying that it will make life better for the rest of us. Because you make it harder on those at the top does not naturally make those toward the bottom any better off.

Even if the money was directly used to improve areas of Federal Spending, it is then simply increasing spending equal to the tax. It would do nothing for the Deficit or the National Debt. Any "Improvement" made to spending areas, would be entirely political in scope and application.

Simply raising the taxes on the rich is not going to wipe out more then a small fraction of the Deficit, and do nothing to reduce the Debt. Even if the Bush Tax Cuts were wiped out today, we'd still be overspending, as that 300 billion per year would be generated would reduce the 1.5 Trillion 2012 Deficit by only about 20%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd suggest raising taxes and lowering spending. I'm not against taxing the rich. I'm against the politics of implying that it will make life better for the rest of us. Because you make it harder on those at the top does not naturally make those toward the bottom any better off.

Even if the money was directly used to improve areas of Federal Spending, it is then simply increasing spending equal to the tax. It would do nothing for the Deficit or the National Debt. Any "Improvement" made to spending areas, would be entirely political in scope and application.

Simply raising the taxes on the rich is not going to wipe out more then a small fraction of the Deficit, and do nothing to reduce the Debt. Even if the Bush Tax Cuts were wiped out today, we'd still be overspending, as that 300 billion per year would be generated would reduce the 1.5 Trillion 2012 Deficit by only about 20%.

Agreed. The cuts being touted by the prez and the gop, except for RP, are referring to cuts which only affect the the overall interest on the national debt. It's all a scam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it would provide a more fair tax policy since currently they pay a lower tax rate than the rest of the country.

They pay a lower EFFECTIVE Rate, correct? That is due partly to their making charitible donations in large part, correct? So is it better that say... Bill Gates gets no tax break for donating/philonthropy, and instead closes down all his charity? And then sends in that money to the FedGov?

I'm in favor of re-vamping the tax codes to wipe out some of the loopholes, but raising the actual rate without closing loopholes, is just a political stunt.

No. Our tax rates were ALREADY lowered with the Bush tax cuts. Which by the way is one of the major causes of FedGov economic problems. What have you been doing with all that money in the past decade? <snark>

And those worked Brilliantly. What is wrong with a little more? :devil::innocent:

No. We need to pay for stuff already spent before Obama (War, War, Tax Cuts, Medicare Part D, ...). The graphic has been posted on UM many times. The Bush tax cuts should not be renewed. We should end the wars. That would stop some of the monetary bleeding.

Well, I certainly agree with you there Ninja. We should really get to work paying off those things, and ending the various Wars going on. I also agree that the Bush Tax Cuts should have been let go, but I don't agree that they would fix anything. That would only be a small part of what needs to be done.

No. Unemployment is going down. Job growth has been created nearly every month since the economic collapse of 2008. That graphic has been posted here on UM many times as well. The stock market has completely recovered. Business is generally making large sums of money. Manufacturing is growing again. (from my personal experience) It will take a year or two more to clear out the housing inventory. (again from personal experience and advice) If that's not fixed, it's certainly mended.

STOP watching Fox news and other people who want America to fail.

Plase excuse me if I think 8% unemployment is still high. True, it is declining. But my statement was that it was still high.

I did not say job growth was down, I said it was slow. And slow is a good description of what has happened the last 4 years.

I think enough is still Wrong, that it certainly is not Fixed. Mended, or band-aided is probably a good metaphor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Die

The goal is to increase revenue and cut spending.

Buffett is correct that our present tax system is grossly unfair and downright stupid.

Obama is a typical politician and moral midget. Further, he is running for re-election and for that reason alone will tell people whatever they want to hear.

It's all political theater, and I can't believe I've even posting on this thread... :cry:

Gotcha!!! Got you to post!!

I pretty much agree with that assessment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"This Administration" does not make the budget, that would be Congress and last I looked the majority was Republican. They have this great scheme of reducing taxes for the rich and leave the tab to our grandchildren.

It's called Non-Discretionary Spending combined with the Military.

You wouldn't expect the GOP to vote for less Defense spending and they are not populous enough to go after those Non-Discrectionary Spending tidbits. Isn't the Senate still basically 50/50? Can the House pass a GOP Budget without the Senate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's called Non-Discretionary Spending combined with the Military.

You wouldn't expect the GOP to vote for less Defense spending and they are not populous enough to go after those Non-Discrectionary Spending tidbits. Isn't the Senate still basically 50/50? Can the House pass a GOP Budget without the Senate?

They can't, but we have seen what happens if a minority within the Reps don't get their way, latest last years budget, which was basically no real spending cut and at the same time reenact the tax cuts, result is 1/3 of the budget is new credits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They pay a lower EFFECTIVE Rate, correct? That is due partly to their making charitible donations in large part, correct? So is it better that say... Bill Gates gets no tax break for donating/philonthropy, and instead closes down all his charity? And then sends in that money to the FedGov?

I'm definately no expert on taxes and the economy but does it not make sense that if the rich were paying their fair share they would not have to be so charitable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The buffet tax will be the nail in the coffin for small business owners and the middle class as a whole.

I think you misunderstand. By definition, small business owners and middle class are not millionaires.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the biggest load. Does anyone actually think that "the millionaires" will pay more, even if there's new laws? They'll just work around the system like they always have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Obama were honest, he would embrace the proposal put forth by one of the nursing associations here in the US--put a small tax on Wall Street stock market transactions. Various European countries do it, and it provides a decent revenue stream.

The Stock Market is pretty well just a type of casino. Minimal taxes on those transactions would also discourage speculation schemes which influence so many commodities, such as gasoline.

I think a 1% tax on such transactions could generate as much as $350 per year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.