Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Republicans reject 'Buffett rule' in the Senate (51 to 45)
latimes ^ | April 16, 2012, 4:18 p.m. | Lisa Mascaro

Posted on 04/16/2012 4:37:19 PM PDT by Red Steel

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-118 last
To: Vintage Freeper

One thing we absolutely do NOT do is to allow a conservative SENATOR to become Romney’s running mate. Choose any other conservative, but not Rubio, Johnson, Paul, etc. because we NEED them in the Senate. Don’t take one of the 25 most influential people in the U.S. and make one of them the most un-influential person in goverment (veep).


101 posted on 04/18/2012 5:36:33 AM PDT by LS ("Castles Made of Sand, Fall in the Sea . . . Eventually (Hendrix))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: juno67
Yeah, thanks. You're apparently the only one who agrees.

It makes sense to me because the amount at issue is so small. Passing the law -- as long as it is accompanied by a very strongly worded statement against the President using words like embarassment, immature, dishonest, caring only about reelection not the country", etc., -- would emphasize how exactly how petty and small the President really is. It would point how how unserious he is about tackling the deficit, and show that he needs to be replaced.

Instead, we go to the mat and spend political capital on people making more than a million paying a lower rate than people making $100k. Sheer stupidity on our part because that's not even a principle worth defending.

102 posted on 04/18/2012 5:49:19 AM PDT by Bruce Campbells Chin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: juno67
Yeah, thanks. You're apparently the only one who agrees.

It makes sense to me because the amount at issue is so small. Passing the law -- as long as it is accompanied by a very strongly worded statement against the President using words like embarassment, immature, dishonest, caring only about reelection not the country", etc., -- would emphasize how exactly how petty and small the President really is. It would point how how unserious he is about tackling the deficit, and show that he needs to be replaced.

Instead, we go to the mat and spend political capital on people making more than a million paying a lower rate than people making $100k. Sheer stupidity on our part because that's not even a principle worth defending.

103 posted on 04/18/2012 5:49:31 AM PDT by Bruce Campbells Chin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Only 49 Democrats voted FOR the Buffet Rule. 51 minus Collins (R) and Sanders (Independent Sozialista) = 49.


104 posted on 04/18/2012 7:58:16 AM PDT by cookcounty (We need Newt. The Black Belt Jaw-jitsu Master!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bruce Campbells Chin

There already is a Buffet Rule. It’s called the Alternative Minimum Tax.


105 posted on 04/18/2012 8:29:01 AM PDT by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Vintage Freeper
Romney would shrink the deficits and be better for business...

Really?

Mitt Romney’s Dismal Record

"As U.S. real output grew 13 percent between 2002 and 2006, Massachusetts trailed at 9 percent.

* Manufacturing employment fell 7 percent nationwide those years, but sank 14 percent under Romney, placing Massachusetts 48th among the states.

* Between fall 2003 and autumn 2006, U.S. job growth averaged 5.4 percent, nearly three times Massachusetts' anemic 1.9 percent pace.

* While 8 million Americans over age 16 found work between 2002 and 2006, the number of employed Massachusetts residents actually declined by 8,500 during those years.

"Massachusetts was the only state to have failed to post any gain in its pool of employed residents," professors Sum and McLaughlin concluded.

In an April 2003 meeting with the Massachusetts congressional delegation in Washington, Romney failed to endorse President Bush's $726 billion tax-cut proposal."

[Cato Institute annual Fiscal Policy Report Card - America's Governors, 2004.]

106 posted on 04/18/2012 8:45:11 AM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Vintage Freeper
I agree with your assessment. It is discouraging to see what is happening throughout the government of America. We are in huge trouble. The reason America has been and is prosperous is we are blessed of God, and we have been able to own private property and we have had freedom of choice, and were not overloaded with regulations and taxation all of which is metamorphosing before our very eyes now. It seems we are accepting the unacceptable. Our Congress is complacent and going along with the Obama agenda ... no matter if it is illegal, or not authorized, and against the Constitution. The health-care bill no one has read is an abomination and will positively work to kill anyone over 70, it appears. etc.,

God help America.

107 posted on 04/18/2012 9:06:28 AM PDT by geologist (The only answer to the troubles of this life is Jesus. A decision we all must make.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: geologist

Speaking about the health care bill, I received an email last week, about the Real Estate tax that is embedded in the bill, a tax that is higher than the percentage paid to the real estate broker.


108 posted on 04/18/2012 9:10:18 AM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Eva; All

Everything this adminstration has done is to hurt the populace. Higher gasoline, higher, utility bills, higher grocery bills, higher taxes, higher health costs, printing money like it was monopoly money, giving away billions, borrowing trillions ... all intended to cause the fall of America and we sit like dolts and watch

God forgive us and have mercy on America. Help us to remove the evil intended for the people of America, and return us to our former faith and values and honoring of Thee and our Constitution, in Jesus name, amen,


109 posted on 04/18/2012 9:42:55 AM PDT by geologist (The only answer to the troubles of this life is Jesus. A decision we all must make.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: NewHampshireDuo

She’s up for re-election in 2014. Hopefully they’ll be a tea party candidate like D’Amboise to put pressure on her to quit like Snowe.


110 posted on 04/18/2012 12:23:34 PM PDT by mainerforglobalwarming
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Vintage Freeper

Thanks for the ping!


111 posted on 04/18/2012 8:04:57 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: juno67

“The long and short of it is, everyone who has earned income in the US pays income taxes”

Thanks for your accurate post and for reminding people of this fact. Many low income working people are definitely still having taxes withheld from their weekly paychecks...and struggle to pay bills, buy food, gas, etc. Middle class workers are now struggling also because of the high cost of living. Point is as you said...all workers are paying taxes each week.

At the end of tax season, the very low income workers are given a “bonus” in the form of Earned Income Credit. It is not very much unless they have children; in which case they get a nice sum...but usually it is just used for more groceries to feed those children, pay bills, and possibly buy a bigger TV. That is the extent of any “luxury” for many of them.

I’ve worked at tax franchises through the years, and this is how it is. Years ago I thought the EIC was a terrible thing. But now I realize it is often the ONLY bit of financial joy that poorer workers have all year (and yes, many are hard workers, not lazy). Most of the middle class don’t understand this and possibly don’t want to understand.

I have a relative whose tax bill each year is close to a million. He has worked hard through the years to reach that level, and he and his family enjoy their “comforts.” They don’t struggle to pay bills, and I’m very glad they don’t have to.

But after these past years preparing taxes, I no longer begrudge the poor their EIC either.


112 posted on 04/18/2012 10:49:34 PM PDT by Cedar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: juno67
The long and short of it is, everyone who has earned income in the US pays income taxes. Now if you are lucky enough to make your living from dividends, interest, capital gains, or rents, to name a few (that is, if you are not actually working) then you have “unearned income” and you do not have to pay the 15.3% payroll taxes that the ordinary working people have to pay.

Whoa!!!

As you yourself seem to realize, FICA taxes are NOT "income taxes". Words mean things. Please don't misrepresent the purpose of FICA taxes -- even if the government chooses to misuse them.

Yes, of course, everybody who is eligible for FICA benefits pays FICA taxes.

However, everybody who benefits from living in this country does NOT pay income taxes. Fact is, only about half do -- and half don't...whether they're actually earning income or not.

And these are the taxes that are supposed to pay for the government's basic operations -- including national defense -- which are of benefit to all. Why is it that only half of us are paying for these things -- and the rest are getting a free ride.

And, of course, that is not to mention the non-FICA entitlements -- food stamps, AFDC, etc. -- which benefit only the few, but are paid for by the enburdened half.

Moreover, you infer that people whose income might consist of "dividends, interest, capital gains, or rents" don't actually "work". You seem to have a very convenient definition of "work". Is it not "work" to manage a business and invest its proceeds intelligently? I mean, after all, people have jobs doing this -- are they not "working"? If one is doing it for one's self, is that not "work"?

And was not the capital invested in such ventures "earned" by honest labor -- i.e. "work"? And, as such, was it not already taxed as income once? And further taxed for FICA purposes. You honestly beleive that the term "unearned income" actually represents income which was, in fact, "unearned"? Nobody worked to achieve it?

Your presence on this board suggests a conservative mindset. Yet, with these populist, class envy opinions, you call yourself a conservative...???

113 posted on 04/19/2012 11:37:16 AM PDT by okie01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: okie01

“Yet, with these populist, class envy opinions, you call yourself a conservative...???”

I have no class envy. I am a major benefactor of the tax breaks granted to the wealthiest. I had my own business for 15 years in the 80’s and 90’s and was in the top 1% to 2% of earners for each of those years. I made enough money to retire in my 40’s and have not had any “earned” income since I left work 17 years ago. My income has come from rents, dividends, capital gains and interest.

I remember well when the top tax bracket was 70%, which was too high. Thanks to Reagan’s leadership, it was reduced to 28% But many forget that under his Tax Reform Act of 1986, he set the capital gains rate at 28%, the same as for the top income tax bracket. Now capital gains are taxed at 15% and many of our conservative leaders want to eliminate them entirely.

I don’t believe there is any brightline test for conservatives that says you have to support lower taxes on the wealthy. We want taxes to be fair. For many years, conservatives felt that it was unfair that the wealthy had to pay a higher tax rate, and argued for a flat tax. Now apparently, it is in style to say that the wealthy should not have to pay as much. This is where I agree with Buffett when he says, “It is class warfare, and we (the rich) are winning.” It is a bit incredible to me to hear middle income earners get so upset about the prospect of my having to pay taxes at the same rate that they do. It’s a mystery how this came about.


114 posted on 04/19/2012 11:54:17 PM PDT by juno67
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: juno67
I have no class envy. I am a major benefactor of the tax breaks granted to the wealthiest. I had my own business for 15 years in the 80’s and 90’s and was in the top 1% to 2% of earners for each of those years. I made enough money to retire in my 40’s and have not had any “earned” income since I left work 17 years ago. My income has come from rents, dividends, capital gains and interest.

Why, then, do you seem to feel guilty about it?

Why do you feel that investment income is "unearned income"?

Didn't you work for the money you've invested? Didn't you pay income taxes on it when you first earned it? Doesn't managing your investments involve work?

There is a sound philosophical basis for capital gains tax rates being lower than income tax rates? You honestly believe they should be higher?

So, maybe you don't qualify as a populist trading in class envy. I apologize for that mistaken assessment. But I don't see why you should feel guilty for being wealthy.

And I can readily imagine a lot of causes and charities -- not mention job-creating enterprises -- that deserve your perceived excess cash far more than the U.S. Treasury.

115 posted on 04/20/2012 2:54:30 PM PDT by okie01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: okie01

“Why, then, do you seem to feel guilty about it?” I don’t feel guilty about being given all these tax breaks. I didn’t lobby anyone for them. It’s just hard for me to figure why ordinary working people feel like they should pay more taxes so that the rich can pay less.

“Why do you feel that investment income is ‘unearned income’”?

Aha! You are revealing yourself to be an honest working guy, making your money from actual work. Unearned income

“...is any income that comes from sources other than employment (work). Examples of unearned income include interest from bonds, savings accounts, and other sources; dividends from stocks; capital gains from selling investments at a profit; and income from rental property.” http://www.investorglossary.com/unearned-income.htm

Of course, unearned income has significant tax advantages over earned income. Welcome to the world of the rich.

“There is a sound philosophical basis for capital gains tax rates being lower than income tax rates? You honestly believe they should be higher?” There are probably some sound reasons for doing almost anything to the tax code, however the reason for giving rich people in the US a serious tax break for making millions of dollars buying and then selling VALE (a Brazilian mining company)is beyond my understanding. By the way, lots of millionaires made a lot of money doing just that. Likewise, investing in Chinese ETF’s. Anyway, I’m not sure that anyone has shown that the amount of investing has ever been seriously affected by the tax rate on capital gains. Buffett says he doesn’t remember anyone turning down one of his recommended deals when capital gains taxes were at 40% because they were worried about their tax rate. I know it has never affected my investing.

“...And I can readily imagine a lot of causes and charities — not mention job-creating enterprises — that deserve your perceived excess cash far more than the U.S. Treasury.” I’m sure that’s true for everyone who pays taxes. But really, I feel like the American people have done enough looking after rich people’s tax rates. If you want to cut somebody’s taxes, pick out another group.


116 posted on 04/21/2012 9:17:09 AM PDT by juno67
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: juno67
Aha! You are revealing yourself to be an honest working guy, making your money from actual work. Unearned income

“...is any income that comes from sources other than employment (work). Examples of unearned income include interest from bonds, savings accounts, and other sources; dividends from stocks; capital gains from selling investments at a profit; and income from rental property.”

Thanks for the condescension. But I know full well what the definition of "unearned income" is.

But that is an intentionally loaded term -- a liberal definition if ever there was one.

"Interest from bonds, savings accounts, and other sources; dividends from stocks; capital gains from selling investments at a profit; and income from rental property.” are every bit as "earned" as wages from digging ditches. It takes time, effort and skills to manage investments; indeed, people actually have jobs doing so. Are their wages "unearned"?

If you really believe the rich are under-taxed -- and you believe yourself rich -- then I expect you have a long and admirable record of writing an extra check to the Treasury every tax year.

If you don't, you are a hypocrite of the first order.

117 posted on 04/21/2012 6:19:28 PM PDT by okie01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: okie01

“Thanks for the condescension. But I know full well what the definition of “unearned income” is.

But that is an intentionally loaded term — a liberal definition if ever there was one.”

No, actually it is an IRS term.
http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=176508,00.html:

“What is Earned Income?

Earned income includes all the taxable income and wages you get from working.

There are two ways to get earned income:

You work for someone who pays you
or
You work in a business you own or run

Taxable earned income includes:

Wages, salaries, tips, and other taxable employee pay;
Union strike benefits;
Long-term disability benefits received prior to minimum retirement age;
Net earnings from self-employment if
you own or operate a business, or
you are a minister or member of a religious order ( see Special Rules page for more information);
Gross income received as a statutory employee.

Nontaxable Combat Pay election. You can elect to have your nontaxable combat pay included in earned income for EITC. The amount of your nontaxable combat pay should be shown on your Form W-2, in box 12, with code Q. Electing to include nontaxable combat pay in earned income may increase or decrease your EITC. See Publication 3. Armed Forces Tax Guide, for more information.
Examples of Income that is Not Earned Income:

Pay received for work while an inmate in a penal institution
Interest and dividends
Retirement Income
Social security
Unemployment benefits,
Alimony
Child support.”

You see, “earned income” is a term of art, with specific tax implications. Just like “income tax” is a term of art. Of course, we shouldn’t confuse them with their broader meanings in general usage, though people often do, like those who pontificate that those who don’t pay “income taxes” don’t pay taxes on their income.

” If you really believe the rich are under-taxed — and you believe yourself rich — then I expect you have a long and admirable record of writing an extra check to the Treasury every tax year.

If you don’t, you are a hypocrite of the first order.”

I’ll defer to your judgment (and God’s) on that one. Though I have to admit that I’m not sure I’ll feel entirely safe standing before my Maker someday when He asks me why I criticized the tax code as being too generous to me and didn’t immediately refund the extra. I’m sure it’s probably a straight shot to eternal damnation. Ummmh, now that I think about I realize that I am probably just not smart enough to understand that it is in the country’s best intersts to give me these tax breaks, and that I am actually helping the country and its noble citizens, like yourself, by accepting them. Okay, okay, ahhh, feels a lot better now. Thanks. Glad to do my part.


118 posted on 04/21/2012 11:04:11 PM PDT by juno67
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-118 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson