Will Buffett profit from the Buffett Rule?

mad_machine wrote: And Phranc.. knock of the personal attacks.. calling somebody an intellictual lightweight because they are either out of their area of expertise or do not feel like arguing with you does nothing but make you feel good and make everyone else hate you.

Well if people want to hate me for being honest I can live that. Doesn't change that hes an intellectual lightweight and accused me of doing what he did when I actually didn't. I have no problem calling dishonest people, dishonest either.

I'm not sorry if that annoyed you. You didn't have to read it nor was it even directed at you.

Yeah, well that one time you said I did a thing, but it was Bobby who did it, not me, but then the very next day I saw you doing that same thing that Bobby did and you said I did (but I never did it!) and you thought it was okay when it was you who was doing it and not me or bobby. I told teacher too, and teacher didn't do anything about it!

You're being intellectually dishonest!!

The math is simple on this one folks. They try to make it complicated, but it's pretty simple.

We have programs. They cost money. Right now they cost more money than we're collecting. Not all that long ago, we collected more money than they cost. Not rocket science. Right-wing says "cut the programs", but unfortunately, everybody kinda likes them... a lot. So, we're spending the money. Yeah. We are. Get over it. We're spending it already. If you want to cut the programs, then elect people and get the programs cut. But quit with the "tax cuts pay for themselves" nonsense (aka berkeleyING LYING) and pay the god damned bills.

ThePhranc wrote: How exactly does it help to run a country by confiscating money from successful people and giving to people who did nothing to earn it?

Nobody is "confiscating" your money. Stop drinking the Hannity koolaid for 5 minutes. It takes money to have a civilized society. Roads, police, armed forces, running water. I'm sure if you feel sooooo put upon you could renounce your citizenship and move to some 3rd world craphole where they have none of the above and you wouldn't have any of your money "confiscated"; oh wait nope, some shiny happy person will just come and take your money because those countries have no law and order. Oh well, I guess you're just berkeleyed.

You are right Eddie.. to get out of the hole we are in.. we need to cut spending and raise taxes.. it's just that simple.

eliminating pork would help then mebbe we could bring home more bacon

mad_machine wrote: You are right Eddie.. to get out of the hole we are in.. we need to cut spending and raise taxes.. it's just that simple.

No doubt. Only problem is, Rmoney has already vowed to LOWER taxes. Every candidate on the Republican side vowed to LOWER taxes.

ThePhranc wrote: Well if people want to hate me for being honest I can live that.

1. No one wants to hate you. Much as I hate to admit it, I kinda like you.

2. Only time anyone thinks about hating you is when you start calling everyone names and saying stupid crap. Knock it the berkeley off already.

3. Why are you about to call me a Chump? There's that name calling again.

4. You do go to personal attacks pretty quickly. You do that a lot. It's okay. I know why you do it.

5. Which reminds me, you can be condescending too. It's okay. I know you better than you know yourself. One day I'll explain why you feel the need to do this. But you're not ready yet.

6. Why do you hate America? Why do you hate freedom?

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

mad_machine wrote: You are right Eddie.. to get out of the hole we are in.. we need to cut spending and raise taxes.. it's just that simple.

No doubt. Only problem is, Rmoney has already vowed to LOWER taxes. Every candidate on the Republican side vowed to LOWER taxes.

and no democrat wants to lower spending... so unless both sides can work towards an (un)happy medium.. nothing is going to change

mad_machine wrote:

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

mad_machine wrote: You are right Eddie.. to get out of the hole we are in.. we need to cut spending and raise taxes.. it's just that simple.

No doubt. Only problem is, Rmoney has already vowed to LOWER taxes. Every candidate on the Republican side vowed to LOWER taxes.

and no democrat wants to lower spending... so unless both sides can work towards an (un)happy medium.. nothing is going to change

Don't want to? Maybe so. And yet they do it. They compromise. Why? I can only postulate it's because they love America. They respect that freedom means elections and they respect the people free Americans elected. But no Republican will compromise on the other side of the equation. Why? I can only postulate it's because the hate America and they hate freedom.

You're being intellectually dishonest.

Okay, but you make a good point. I think the Republicans are right. If we eliminated NPR and Planned Parenthood we'd have the budget balanced in a snap. I'm glad they're serious about balancing the budget and not just playing politics. Oh, sure the damned Democrats act like those programs don't add up to squat, but they know that they would wipe out the problem in one swoop. It's just like when all the Republicans voted to end the subsidies for the oil companies- the ones that added up to way, way, WAY more than anything they have proposed to cut. Remember that? Yeah, me neither. It didn't happen.

Remember the last time the voted on the Ryan budget? The Dems procrastinated long enough to get a load of Republican votes in. Then they voted "present". The Republicans, pale with the news that the damn thing would actually pass and they'd have to explain how they eliminated Medicaid rushed in to change a mess of their votes. It was comical. And the "liberal media" didn't report on their blatant hypocrisy. Oh yeah. They're serious. Serious about going on TV and sounding all righteous. About cutting popular programs? Not so much.

<img src="" />

I thought it was so good I took a picture of it!

OK going to say this as a guy who pays a metric E36 M3 ton in taxes. I seriously pay over 50% in taxes between state, federal, sales, property, rental, car, investment, bonus combined.

Give me a AGI percentage that everyone pays and be done with it. Everyone, pitches in no exception. All income treated the same. Not working, not voting, when you have skin in the game you can help.

Don't care if its 12K a year or 40 million. Roll the state tax in their as well and distribute it based on the paying members in each state.

If I had a easy too understand number of what I was going to pay on every dollar and was sure everybody else was paying the same thing I would not have any sort of problem funding programs if we had the money.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Yeah, well that one time you said I did a thing, but it was Bobby who did it, not me, but then the very next day I saw you doing that same thing that Bobby did and you said I did (but I never did it!) and you thought it was okay when it was you who was doing it and not me or bobby. I told teacher too, and teacher didn't do anything about it! You're being intellectually dishonest!!

Perfect example of an intellectual light weight who covers it up by pretending to be witty. You aren't that clever, chump.

ThePhranc wrote:

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Yeah, well that one time you said I did a thing, but it was Bobby who did it, not me, but then the very next day I saw you doing that same thing that Bobby did and you said I did (but I never did it!) and you thought it was okay when it was you who was doing it and not me or bobby. I told teacher too, and teacher didn't do anything about it! You're being intellectually dishonest!!

Perfect example of an intellectual light weight who covers it up by pretending to be witty. You aren't that clever, chump.

And all you ever bring up is the idea that money is given to people who don't earn it. So how, exactly, is that a clever, intellectual, argument? And when they disagree with you, the best you can do is insult them.

Dude, YOU changed the subject from taxes and how they are skewed toward the rich (which is what the Buffet rule is all about) and moved that toward the ideolical point of giving money to people who you don't deem should get it.

Talk about being a chump.

Oh boy...

Guess I stepped in it. Obviously people would much rather argue politics than make any attempt at trying to understand the question.

Better watch out, boys. Margie's about to have to come and lock it up.

Toyman01 wrote: To Alfa, I get the feeling your idea of fair and mine are slightly different, like polar opposites. As far as where to park money, pick one. They want the investors, not their tax money.

OMG, that is SOOO freaking funny. Yes, every one of those countries want your money. Which one of them has an economy that's more than, say, Alabama? The only one that has any kind of economy that makes something is Switzerland. Thre rest is a place to put your money and have it do absolutely nothing. They don't make anything, they can't produce anything.

You let the scheme of "I want to take my money and leave" idea to the Nth degree. If you want to make money, and not just have it sit there, you invest into economies that are signifcicant- as in the US, which is the largest economy in ther world- there is money to be made here- both in finding space, resourses, and people to make stuff, and buyer who will get that.

You can't find much of that on the Cook Islands.

Or do you really think that if ALL of Wall Street moved all of their money to those 15 places, they will all of a sudden be able to make money with that? Seriously?

Rich people don't park their money. They invest it so that they can make MORE of it. The only reasonable place you can do that is here in the US, en mass.

SVreX wrote: Oh boy... Guess I stepped in it. Obviously people would much rather argue politics than make any attempt at trying to understand the question. Better watch out, boys. Margie's about to have to come and lock it up.

I hope she does.. this E36 M3 is getting annoying.. maybe she needs a patio addition too?

ThePhranc wrote: Perfect example of an intellectual light weight who covers it up by pretending to be witty. You aren't that clever, chump.

You're being intellectually dishonest. It's okay. I know why you do it.

SVreX wrote: Oh boy... Guess I stepped in it. Obviously people would much rather argue politics than make any attempt at trying to understand the question. Better watch out, boys. Margie's about to have to come and lock it up.

Here's my answer to the article- I find doubt in their data. So I decide to look it up on IRS.gov to find statistics- you can to- http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=96981,00.html#_grp8

So first, I look at the individual returns, and see that as income goes up, barely levels off, or actually goes down to 22% if you make over 10M in 2009. Interesting- one would think that the amount of deductions one needs the richer you get goes down, so that more of the income you get can be taxed. But no, it does not. (that's the 2009 individual return data).

Oh, as for earnings- the top 0.5% ($500k and up) earns about 15.6% of the reported income. Well, I say earned lightly- that $500k and up accounts for only 8.6% of the salaries and wages, which is what we call earned income. They had an overwhelming 72.9% of all reported capital gains. Interesting.

As for earning, there's a nice table on where income comes from- it's interesting to see that for people reporting over $10M in income, the average income for that bracket is about $29M, but the average salary/wage is only $6.7. So basically, the average person who reports income over $10M brings in only 23% of their income in wages, the rest is from other income.

I know I don't even come close to earning my living via investments....

So, lets look at just the argument about capital gains- more about what is being lost in tax revenue. 2007 is the last Capital gains data the IRS puts up- but in it, it brackets the millionaires perfectly. In 2007, people earning over $1M reported at total of $565 Trillion in long term capitol gains (about 350k returns, there, or an average long term gain income of almost $1.5M per report).

So our start is $565,829,263,000 of income.

At the current rate if 15%, that's $84.9B in taxes.

If you adjust that to just the average rate of pay for the range, which is 25%, that's $141.4B, an increase of almost $60B. Somehow, the article you posted claims only $5B, and I'm not sure where they get that math.

If you adjust it to normal income tax rate of 35%, it's $198B of tax revenue, over $100B MORE revenue.

This is simple math with the data provided by the IRS. How that's twisted to $5B, is beyond me. Again, you can read the simple math here- the IRS invividual statistics site- http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=96981,00.html#_grp8

Maybe when we read articles, real citation of data would be nice, as opposed to one like the Forbes article, that then goes on to argue policy.

A guy I used to work for used to say 'I want to make enough money that I have tax problems'.

It's time to quit screwing around with all the loopholes that have been generated over the years and go to a flat rate. Maybe that rate should be graduated, you hit a you pay b percentage, you hit x you pay y percentage, dump all the deductions and crap which, when you look carefully, are sometimes no more than sleight of hand that mean absolutely zero. Or are social engineering through tax policy.

No more spending hours digging for some nebulous arcane bullE36 M3; no more $700 an hour tax lawyers. Just a form the size of a postcard that reminds you that you have paid your fair share for the year.

Along with that, spending cuts and term limits. We are all adults; we all realize that 'bringing the bacon back to the home district' is a way for elected officials to keep getting reelected at public expense. Remove that motivation and watch what happens.

All this is a pipe dream, unfortunately.