Post Reply
Page 2 of 3  •  Prev 1 2 3 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Stephen King declares war on the 0.1%
2 years ago  ::  May 01, 2012 - 3:37PM #11
Jasr
Posts: 11,813

May 1, 2012 -- 2:49PM, Girlchristian wrote:


Come on, Jasr, you're just making excuses for them. They don't have to take advantage of tax breaks or loopholes and if they honestly believe that they're not paying enough in taxes, they can choose not to take advantage of them.




Which would have a vanishingly small impact on the problems they propose solving by returning to a pre-Bush tax structure.


May 1, 2012 -- 2:49PM, Girlchristian wrote:


 The fact is, they say they don't feel they pay enough and then turn around and take advantage of all the tax breaks and loopholes they're entitled to, which means they're not really willing to put their money where their mouth is.




I do not believe we have access to the tax returns of either of them, so we have no idea whether they have taken advantage of all the tax breaks and loopholes they are entitled to.


What we do know is that Buffet is a prolific philanthropist, and has expressed his intention to leave very little of his multi billion dollar fortune to his offspring. So I would say that he most certainly does put his money where his mouth is.


I believe Buffet would leave Mitt Romney in the dust, in this area, and I certainly don't see him turning over a list of political campaign donors over to his son to hit up as venture capital clients, as Romney did.


May 1, 2012 -- 2:49PM, Girlchristian wrote:


Even a pre-Bush tax rate allowed for loopholes and tax breaks and the wealthy still weren't paying their 'fair share' (not to mention, Bush's tax breaks also benefitted the poor and the middle class). You want people to pay their fair share? Get rid of all tax breaks and loopholes and just have a flat rate based on income.





I certainly agree that the tax code should be simplified, and many loopholes should be phased out.


May 1, 2012 -- 3:36PM, Girlchristian wrote:


Except they're not bringing a greater change. Saying "I should pay more in taxes" does nothing. Actually setting the example and choosing to pay the rate they should be paying would do a lot more. It's just more politics.




One billionaire paying more in taxes does very little more than nothing. And as we can observe, Buffett does in fact set a fine and very public example.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 01, 2012 - 3:45PM #12
Girlchristian
Posts: 11,393

May 1, 2012 -- 3:37PM, Jasr wrote:


One billionaire paying more in taxes does very little more than nothing. And as we can observe, Buffett does in fact set a fine and very public example.





No, I'm not saying that it fixes our financial issues BUT it does show that they're serious about the message they're trying to send and it gives them more credibility when calling out other billionaires. If it's about the message they're trying to send then actually doing what they say rather than just talking about it means far more and sets a far greater example. They'd gain a tremendous amount of respect by actually paying the rate in taxes that they think they should pay rather than just saying they should.

"No matter how dark the moment, love and hope are always possible." George Chakiris

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.” Stuart Chase
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 01, 2012 - 3:48PM #13
Jasr
Posts: 11,813

May 1, 2012 -- 3:45PM, Girlchristian wrote:


May 1, 2012 -- 3:37PM, Jasr wrote:


One billionaire paying more in taxes does very little more than nothing. And as we can observe, Buffett does in fact set a fine and very public example.





No, I'm not saying that it fixes our financial issues BUT it does show that they're serious about the message they're trying to send and it gives them more credibility when calling out other billionaires. If it's about the message they're trying to send then actually doing what they say rather than just talking about it means far more and sets a far greater example. They'd gain a tremendous amount of respect by actually paying the rate in taxes that they think they should pay rather than just saying they should.





They gain even more respect by donating to charitable causes (and in particular causes that benefit the less fortunate) an amount that dwarfs what they would have paid in taxes if they had ignored their loopholes, or even paid at the payroll rate rather than the capital gains rate.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 01, 2012 - 4:02PM #14
Girlchristian
Posts: 11,393

May 1, 2012 -- 3:48PM, Jasr wrote:


May 1, 2012 -- 3:45PM, Girlchristian wrote:


May 1, 2012 -- 3:37PM, Jasr wrote:


One billionaire paying more in taxes does very little more than nothing. And as we can observe, Buffett does in fact set a fine and very public example.





No, I'm not saying that it fixes our financial issues BUT it does show that they're serious about the message they're trying to send and it gives them more credibility when calling out other billionaires. If it's about the message they're trying to send then actually doing what they say rather than just talking about it means far more and sets a far greater example. They'd gain a tremendous amount of respect by actually paying the rate in taxes that they think they should pay rather than just saying they should.





They gain even more respect by donating to charitable causes (and in particular causes that benefit the less fortunate) an amount that dwarfs what they would have paid in taxes if they had ignored their loopholes, or even paid at the payroll rate rather than the capital gains rate.




Now you sound like a conservative. Laughing


Many on the left would disagree with you and feel that the rich paying higher taxes means far more than how much they give to charity.

"No matter how dark the moment, love and hope are always possible." George Chakiris

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.” Stuart Chase
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 01, 2012 - 4:58PM #15
Jasr
Posts: 11,813

May 1, 2012 -- 4:02PM, Girlchristian wrote:


Now you sound like a conservative. Laughing


Many on the left would disagree with you and feel that the rich paying higher taxes means far more than how much they give to charity.





Oh don't get me wrong...Warren Buffet's charitable donations are no substitute for what we need to do to bring the federal budget back into balance.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 01, 2012 - 5:51PM #16
Druac
Posts: 12,141

Flat Tax(%)...No loopholes for ANYBODY and no tax breaks for ANYBODY.


Why isn't this ever going to happen? Because it would screw those who currently rely on the cluster-f*ck of a tax system (those who have the most influence in Washington and those who can afford to pay money handlers to find those loopholes and use them) we currently have to get away with murder and rip-off our citizens.

Jesus Is My Savior...He Saves Me From REALITY!
---------------------------------------------
We created god in our own image and likeness!
[George Carlin]
---------------------------------------------
"Reason & Logic" - A Damn Good Slogan!
---------------------------------------------
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg, an American physicist
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 01, 2012 - 11:57PM #17
Hatman
Posts: 9,634

May 1, 2012 -- 5:51PM, Druac wrote:

Flat Tax(%)...No loopholes for ANYBODY and no tax breaks for ANYBODY.


Why isn't this ever going to happen? Because it would screw those who currently rely on the cluster-f*ck of a tax system (those who have the most influence in Washington and those who can afford to pay money handlers to find those loopholes and use them) we currently have to get away with murder and rip-off our citizens.


Probably a good place to re-introduce an idea i read about awhile ago...

A modified Tobin tax plan involving a mere 1% tax on all financial transactions involving banks or bank-like institutions would place the lion's share directly where it belongs(on those most able to afford it) while having the advantage of ELIMINATING ALL (that's ALL) other taxes.

For Joe and Jane Citizen, this would mean 10bux out of every thousand deposited or withdrawn; for Corporation Scylla or Corporation Charybdis, who speculate on 1 trillion or more in the money markets EVERY TRADING day, this would mean 10billion PER DAY going into Treasury coffers from this ONE activity alone.  Add in all the OTHER trading(stocks, commodities, etc.), as well as Joe and Jane's deposits and withdrawals, and a quite tidy sum is collected.

If one considers ONLY trading, there are hundreds of thousands(if not millions) of transactions every day; a mere 10billion per day (assuming a minimum of 200 trading days per year), and a TRILLION gets deposited, more than enough to swiftly reduce and eliminate not only the current National Debt, but meet all future obligations, as well.

Would something like this EVER pass?  No.  Not under the defacto Corporatocracy/Oligarchy/Plutocracy currently extant.
The rich LIKE being rich, and they like being able to oppress the poor/middle class through their bought-'n'-paid-for pet CongressCretins.  Free the people of their burdens?  You gotta be kidding.  Set the slaves free?  Are you nutz?

But indulge your imagination for a moment.  Suppose such a tax WERE imposed, and all others eliminated.

What would happen when the price of goods and services drops a great deal?

No more taxes on gasoline, you see; no more sales taxes.  No more taxes on your ph. bill or water or electric or natural gas or cable or internet.  No more "fees" for State inspections or "licenses" of any kind.

Lots more dough in the pockets of Joe and Jane; lots less in the hands of speculators, and it's a relatively miniscule tax, as well---not truly punitive at all.

But fair, as in no more "deductions" for corporate jets, luxury liners, homes, shipping lines, "Foundations," etc. etc. ad nauseum.

With goodwill to all the People(except lying Oathbreakers)-

Hatman

"History records that the moneychangers have used every form of abuse, deceit, intrigue, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and it's issuance."
-- James Madison(1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 02, 2012 - 1:56AM #18
davelaw40
Posts: 19,669

May 1, 2012 -- 2:26PM, Jasr wrote:


May 1, 2012 -- 12:12PM, Girlchristian wrote:


Stephen King's words, like Buffet's and others, are no more than a ploy. IF they really want to pay more in taxes all they have to do is tell their accountants that they don't want to take advantage of any tax credits or loopholes they're entitled to. Problem is, we all know they're not going to do that so they'll 'say' they want to pay more and then do the complete opposite.





Stating that King and Buffet "have the right to pay more taxes if they want" is actually the ploy.


King and Buffet are well known wealthy men who believe that the wealthy as a group are not taxed enough. Their expressed opinions carry some weight simply because their own contributions would rise as a consequence, and they cannot be accused of any form of self-dealing.


A check written by a single wealthy individual would make no difference at all. A fair pre-Bush tax rate applied to all the wealthy would make an enormous difference. That is why some are so anxious to change the subject.




what Buffet and King really need to be doing is following in the footsteps of Allen and Branson: fund research, create new technologies, which in turn create jobs and grow the economy

Non Quis, Sed Quid
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 02, 2012 - 2:09AM #19
arielg
Posts: 9,116

It is a matter of policy, not whether  an individual or two decide to pay more than it is required or give more to charity.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 02, 2012 - 6:30AM #20
ZafodB
Posts: 4,776

May 1, 2012 -- 11:57PM, Hatman wrote:

May 1, 2012 -- 5:51PM, Druac wrote:


Flat Tax(%)...No loopholes for ANYBODY and no tax breaks for ANYBODY.


Why isn't this ever going to happen? Because it would screw those who currently rely on the cluster-f*ck of a tax system (those who have the most influence in Washington and those who can afford to pay money handlers to find those loopholes and use them) we currently have to get away with murder and rip-off our citizens.



Probably a good place to re-introduce an idea i read about awhile ago... A modified Tobin tax plan involving a mere 1% tax on all financial transactions involving banks or bank-like institutions would place the lion's share directly where it belongs(on those most able to afford it) while having the advantage of ELIMINATING ALL (that's ALL) other taxes. For Joe and Jane Citizen, this would mean 10bux out of every thousand deposited or withdrawn; for Corporation Scylla or Corporation Charybdis, who speculate on 1 trillion or more in the money markets EVERY TRADING day, this would mean 10billion PER DAY going into Treasury coffers from this ONE activity alone. Add in all the OTHER trading(stocks, commodities, etc.), as well as Joe and Jane's deposits and withdrawals, and a quite tidy sum is collected. If one considers ONLY trading, there are hundreds of thousands(if not millions) of transactions every day; a mere 10billion per day (assuming a minimum of 200 trading days per year), and a TRILLION gets deposited, more than enough to swiftly reduce and eliminate not only the current National Debt, but meet all future obligations, as well. Would something like this EVER pass? No. Not under the defacto Corporatocracy/Oligarchy/Plutocracy currently extant. The rich LIKE being rich, and they like being able to oppress the poor/middle class through their bought-'n'-paid-for pet CongressCretins. Free the people of their burdens? You gotta be kidding. Set the slaves free? Are you nutz? But indulge your imagination for a moment. Suppose such a tax WERE imposed, and all others eliminated. What would happen when the price of goods and services drops a great deal? No more taxes on gasoline, you see; no more sales taxes. No more taxes on your ph. bill or water or electric or natural gas or cable or internet. No more "fees" for State inspections or "licenses" of any kind. Lots more dough in the pockets of Joe and Jane; lots less in the hands of speculators, and it's a relatively miniscule tax, as well---not truly punitive at all. But fair, as in no more "deductions" for corporate jets, luxury liners, homes, shipping lines, "Foundations," etc. etc. ad nauseum. With goodwill to all the People(except lying Oathbreakers)- Hatman



 


Hatman


 


Lets say I agree with your plan. The idea of all contributing and paying their "FAIR SHARE" is gone forever. Whne people who pay NO TAXES get to vote for people to raise taxes the system would devolves into the  stranglehold of takers. However that isn't the biggest problem "Congress and the White House", They would gleefully spend all the new money plus a few trillion more, every year, knowing  all that is needed is to increse the percentage of this new tax to cover the deficit. At this point most Americans would applaud and say GO FOR IT. In theory your plan has merit...in practice >>>>nNO WAY

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 2 of 3  •  Prev 1 2 3 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook