Will the Democrats have a party after obama?

[KlokWyze]

Using the 'if he thinks we should pay more taxes he should send a check to the IRS' argument is so full of fail it is difficult to put into words.

Yes, but it's repeated so much to staunch Republicans that it's actually become a good point to make!

 

[Ausm]

Buffett donating his entire lifetime fortune wouldn't make a dent in our deficit. Raising the amount that all people (including himself) earning $1mill+ a year pay in taxes will make a dent in our deficit.

Using the 'if he thinks we should pay more taxes he should send a check to the IRS' argument is so full of fail it is difficult to put into words.

http://www.tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/Permalink/CHAS-89LPZ9

This may clarify the true situation for you.

 

[werepossum]

How is he doing that in any way? I am unaware of him ever saying that people should not pay the least possible amount in taxes possible so long as it is legal. He is advocating that the minimum amount that you can legally pay should be higher.

You don't spend years fighting the IRS because you're paying the least possible amount in taxes. That's for paying less than the least possible amount in taxes. If he truly thinks he should be paying more, surely he should be happy to at the least pay what the IRS says he's supposed to pay.

Buffett donating his entire lifetime fortune wouldn't make a dent in our deficit. Raising the amount that all people (including himself) earning $1mill+ a year pay in taxes will make a dent in our deficit.

Using the 'if he thinks we should pay more taxes he should send a check to the IRS' argument is so full of fail it is difficult to put into words.

The federal government seizing every penny of wealth earned above $250,000 a year won't fix our deficit. As for the other, if you don't believe that people should lead by example, well, you're a good Democrat. You guys are always ready to give someone the shirt off someone else's back.

 

[fskimospy]

You don't spend years fighting the IRS because you're paying the least possible amount in taxes. That's for paying less than the least possible amount in taxes. If he truly thinks he should be paying more, surely he should be happy to at the least pay what the IRS says he's supposed to pay.

Why should he pay what the IRS says he's supposed to pay? The IRS is not actually the sole arbiter of a citizen's tax burden, they are the government's representative for that. If Buffet has been found guilty of violating the US code and tax evasion, then you would have a point. I am unaware of any such determination, therefore he has not paid 'less than the least possible [legal] amount'.

The argument is for a national policy, not an individual policy. I swear I will die a happy man if I can just get people to realize how dumb the argument is that if someone supports higher taxation as a national policy that it doesn't mean they should voluntarily donate to the government.

 

[Blackjack200]

And LOL at libtards defending his AMT 2.0

That's my only problem with it; $1 million is a lot now, but it won't be forever. Just set the cap gains tax equal to the same graduated scale that income is on and be done with it.

 

[spidey07]

Why should he pay what the IRS says he's supposed to pay? The IRS is not actually the sole arbiter of a citizen's tax burden, they are the government's representative for that. If Buffet has been found guilty of violating the US code and tax evasion, then you would have a point. I am unaware of any such determination, therefore he has not paid 'less than the least possible [legal] amount'.

The argument is for a national policy, not an individual policy. I swear I will die a happy man if I can just get people to realize how dumb the argument is that if someone supports higher taxation as a national policy that it doesn't mean they should voluntarily donate to the government.

That's because of how the libtard mind works, rationale and common sense are absent. It's almost as if reality doesn't matter to the mind of a libtard, they'll just make up their own.

If he thinks he should pay more taxes, then he should set an example and pay more taxes and not be the biggest hypocrite possible.

 

[werepossum]

Why should he pay what the IRS says he's supposed to pay? The IRS is not actually the sole arbiter of a citizen's tax burden, they are the government's representative for that. If Buffet has been found guilty of violating the US code and tax evasion, then you would have a point. I am unaware of any such determination, therefore he has not paid 'less than the least possible [legal] amount'.

The argument is for a national policy, not an individual policy. I swear I will die a happy man if I can just get people to realize how dumb the argument is that if someone supports higher taxation as a national policy that it doesn't mean they should voluntarily donate to the government.

You are never going to convince people that it's legitimate to say YOU should have to pay more taxes, but I should have these extra deductions and pay less than I do now. That's an Algorism - do as I say, not as I do, because the problem is YOU, not ME. If Buffet truly believes he should pay more taxes, then he should freely donate more to the government and try to convince his fellow billionaires to do the same.

That's one of the simplest concepts in humanity - lead by example.

 

[spidey07]

That's my only problem with it; $1 million is a lot now, but it won't be forever. Just set the cap gains tax equal to the same graduated scale that income is on and be done with it.

The problem with that, and what Obama's REAL goal is here, is to discourage capital investment so industry turns to the government for that investment. Remember, to the marxist the government should control the means of production/investment.

That is truly what Obama's real goal is here, and anybody that doesn't see it is ignoring reality and hasn't been paying attention to him, his words, his deeds and actions.

 

[dank69]

You are never going to convince people that it's legitimate to say YOU should have to pay more taxes, but I should have these extra deductions and pay less than I do now. That's an Algorism - do as I say, not as I do, because the problem is YOU, not ME. If Buffet truly believes he should pay more taxes, then he should freely donate more to the government and try to convince his fellow billionaires to do the same.

That's one of the simplest concepts in humanity - lead by example.

Of course you realize that is NOT what Buffett has said.

 

[werepossum]

Of course you realize that is NOT what Buffett has said.

Of course I realize that is NOT what Buffett has said. And of course you realize that this is what Buffet is doing.

Most of us put a lot more stock in what a man DOES than in what he SAYS.

 

[fskimospy]

Of course I realize that is NOT what Buffett has said. And of course you realize that this is what Buffet is doing.

Most of us put a lot more stock in what a man DOES than in what he SAYS.

Explain how that's what he is doing.

 

[spidey07]

Explain how that's what he is doing.

Is he using every deduction and loss available to him to lower his tax liability or not? If he is, then that's what he's doing. A complete hypocrite of the highest degree.

 

[fskimospy]

Is he using every deduction and loss available to him to lower his tax liability or not? If he is, then that's what he's doing. A complete hypocrite of the highest degree.

Spidey, nobody cares what you think. You're mentally ill.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

It would screw the middle class because in order to create a flat tax that equals current federal revenue, the percentage would have to be approximately 34%. Middle class people currently pay considerably less than 34% in federal taxes, therefore they would be seeing a large tax hike.

where'd you get this 34% horseshit when the top bracket is 35% at the moment? lol you're talking about increasing taxes on 99% of people in your flat tax system that "equals current federal revenue."

lol

 

[fskimospy]

where'd you get this 34% horseshit when the top bracket is 35% at the moment? lol you're talking about increasing taxes on 99% of people in your flat tax system that "equals current federal revenue."

lol

President Bush's Tax Reform Panel Report, chapter 9. To be fair, the report admits that 34% is probably on the low end and things would likely be higher.

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/taxreformpanel/final-report/TaxPanel_8-9.pdf

 

[dank69]

Of course I realize that is NOT what Buffett has said. And of course you realize that this is what Buffet is doing.

Most of us put a lot more stock in what a man DOES than in what he SAYS.

Please consider the following analogy:
A man's entire extended family (lets say 20 people) is in the ER watching him bleed out. The doctor informs the family that the man will need 10 pints of blood to sustain him through the surgery that is needed to save his life. What you are saying in the quote above is that if only 1 family member is willing to donate blood to save the dying man's life, he should donate the blood knowing full well that he cannot donate enough blood by himself to save him and the man will die anyway.

 

[fskimospy]

Please consider the following analogy:
A man's entire extended family (lets say 20 people) is in the ER watching him bleed out. The doctor informs the family that the man will need 10 pints of blood to sustain him through the surgery that is needed to save his life. What you are saying in the quote above is that if only 1 family member is willing to donate blood to save the dying man's life, he should donate the blood knowing full well that he cannot donate enough blood by himself to save him and the man will die anyway.

I have tried to explain collective action problems on this board so many times it's not even funny.

Maybe you will succeed where I have failed.

 

[spidey07]

Please consider the following analogy:
A man's entire extended family (lets say 20 people) is in the ER watching him bleed out. The doctor informs the family that the man will need 10 pints of blood to sustain him through the surgery that is needed to save his life. What you are saying in the quote above is that if only 1 family member is willing to donate blood to save the dying man's life, he should donate the blood knowing full well that he cannot donate enough blood by himself to save him and the man will die anyway.

Bad analogy, if they believed what they said like buffet, then they would donate anyway out of principle. But we all know libtards have no principles and simply expect others to do for them or force others via iron fist of law to give up their hard earned money. You see in the mind of a liberal, that money belongs to the government in the first place and as such should be confiscated to do what government deems is proper (like giving it to people that don't pay taxes) aka, wealth redistribution and fund the growing class war.

 

[fskimospy]

Bad analogy, if they believed what they said like buffet, then they would donate anyway out of principle. But we all know libtards have no principles and simply expect others to do for them or force others via iron fist of law to give up their hard earned money. You see in the mind of a liberal, that money belongs to the government in the first place and as such should be confiscated to do what government deems is proper (like giving it to people that don't pay taxes) aka, wealth redistribution and fund the growing class war.

Yeah guys, if you really believed that blood transfusions worked you would undergo a purposeless and self harming medical procedure just to show everyone how much you meant it, knowing full well that it was pointless.

In the mind of Spidey this sort of thing actually makes sense.

 

[senseamp]

We can't afford Bush tax cuts anymore. End of story.

 

[spidey07]

We can't afford Bush tax cuts anymore. End of story.

Tax cuts aren't spending, spending is spending and Obama has shoved us right over the cliff. It's on purpose of course. When you can't afford something you don't go try to rob your fellow countryman of his money (which is what obama is proposing), you cut back on your expenses just like everybody in this nation.

Obama's math simply fails.

 

[davmat787]

Explain how that's what he is doing.

Spidey, nobody cares what you think. You're mentally ill.

Wait, you are the one that asked him to explain it, then you don't like the answer so you resort to insults. That makes sense.

 

[fskimospy]

Wait, you are the one that asked him to explain it, then you don't like the answer so you resort to insults. That makes sense.

I asked werepossum, not spidey. When a crazy person responds to a question he wasn't asked with a crazy answer, notifying them that they are in fact insane makes perfect sense to me.

Can you maybe explain the confusion?

 

[hans030390]

The way to fix that - reduce federal spending.

You spend what you bring in. The government has a budget, that budget is that is brought in though taxes.

How many of us can go to our boss and say "I just bought 3 new houses, so I need a raise."

It sounds like you're taking for granted EVERYTHING the government does for us. Yeah, we need to cut down on spending for certain things...I agree. But all this nonsense about reducing government and cutting spending just doesn't make any sense.

Would you really rather have a private company build your roads? Your parks? Schools that children NEED in order to be competitive in this day and age (we're already quite behind in this area? Would you rather have a private company say who does and does not get medical care simply because of how much they make? You know, the world is not an even playing field. Yes, some people abuse the system, and we should make every effort to get rid of that. But there are countless numbers of people that NEED services that the government provides.

I'm not saying government runs the country perfectly, but I'd sure as hell rather see it running the country than the private sector, which doesn't hide the fact that it's more interested in money than people. That is what will happen if we start cutting government down and reducing spending for the sake of "living within our means".

Based on your analogy, it's actually more like, "Hey, I only have half of a house that is half functioning. I really need more money from you if you want me to, you know, survive so that I can work for you."

Unless you're making a lot of money (you really don't need millions of dollars to live a more-than-comfortable life), Obama isn't out to raise your taxes. He primarily wants to get rid of the Bush tax cuts, which were meant to be temporary from the start, and end loopholes that allow the rich to end up paying less in taxes than the non-rich.

Here's an idea...get taxes back to how they were in the 90s (which is what Obama wants to do) AND cut spending. Two for one solution to help pay off our debt, which we were WELL on our way to doing in the 90s under Clinton.

 

[Patranus]

When did the TARP (bank bailout bill) get signed into law?

Oh wait, Wikipedia to the rescue:

TARP has more or less been paid back.