Buffett Rule = $47 Billion over 10 years

I35

I35

5,000+ Posts
and at the rate of our Government spending it will be already spent in the next 10 days. Talk about pissing on a house fire. We can't tax our way out of this. You have to cut spending. Plain and simple.
 
It's frightening that we have reached a point where $47 billion toward our debt or even or annual deficit is merely a drop in the bucket.
 
I think the real message here is that any small, insignificant reduction in the deficit that will inflict no real pain on anybody brings howls of angry protest.

I will tend to agree that in deficit reduction, spending is avoiding bad food and raising taxes on gozillionaires is exercise. It's hard to exercise enough to work off the pizza you shouldn't have eaten. Doesn't mean you shouldn't do it though and the message of "shared" sacrifice will help build momentum for making good choices.
 
So redistribution of wealth is a "good exercise"? It's a good exercise in class warfare and placating your base.

Something akin to Nero and Rome?
 
Crockett, you failed in your attempt to spin this. The Government spending is so high that the interest built from their spending is eating up the Buffett rule taxation. Point being revenue needs to be in the pockets of all Americans and out of the hands of the Government. That would be true GDP growth. We seen what they do with the money. The only thing the Government could do to help the problem is to show up to vote spending cuts.
 
1. Most of us could support tax hikes but until the government can actually prove they can reduce spending this just seems like a net loss for the average American. The government has done absolutely nothing to make me think that if they take more they won't spend more.

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
how abut we just confiscate the fortunes of every billionaire in this country. that will allow us to pay INTEREST ONLY for about 6 months of the year(NO DEBT REDUCTION or DEFICIT REDUCTION). Then the next year we have 0 tax base from the wealthy as all their fortunes have been liquidated to pay half a year of interest. Does that drive hom the point well enough for you statist minions to understand what your policies have done to our fiscal situation? probably not.
 
The bulk of the load in deficit reduction needs to come from spending. I thought I was clear on this point but apparantly no subsequent poster understood what I meant. I also believe some of the ground in deficit reduction will have to be made up with revenue increases and this is about as fair and painless as a tax increase can be. I never advocated confiscation or class warfare. The Buffet rule would simply tax gozillionaires like it does high income people who work instead of invest for a living. As we reform to get deficits in line a lot of people will need to shoulder a lot of burdens. Folks who pay no taxes but get tax refunds are going to be targeted. So are food stamp recipients, folks in public housing, soliders, veterans, defense contractors, physicians, old folks relying primarily on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid to avoid dying poor in the streets. Middle income Americans are going to pay more and get less from government. That's sacrifice that will touch a lot of people in ways that will cause very real and dramatic pain. And again, this pretty much painless tax on billionaires draws howls of outrage. Imagine how much more outraged when the minimum wage worker's grandma, broke, unable to communicate, unable to control her bodily functions or be left alone while awake gets booted out of the nursing home because there is no money from Medicaid. Think somebody might feel some pain or get mad then? If I'd never been to an multi-level marketing presentation I honestly couldn't imagine why rank and file Republicans care so much about preseving a cushy tax situation for people with incomes more than 100 times higher than they themselves have any reaslistic hopes of ever attaining. If that cow is to sacred to slaughter, nobody is ever going to eat beef.
 
The people who "grow revenue" have the softest tax situation they've enjoyed in their lifetimes as billionaires. What the hell are those revenue growers doing with all the money as stats show they have more than ever? Do they grow revenues faster than folks who work for a living?
 
I thought 0007 the reason we let the super billionaires who invest for a living get by with a lower tax burden than ordinary high income folks is because they somehow do some disproportionate good with money saved by their lowest taxes since the start of WWII. Our government gives them a cushy tax situation and it's none of my business to even ask why?
 
Do some here really not know the difference in taxing income vs capital gains tax? Our economy depends on people to invest. People depend on people to invest. You have to tax at a lower rate to encourage them to invest. If you tax too much the investor gets a smaller reward when they make good investments which makes it not worth it. Because when they invest bad and loses $100K the Government say tough and the investor take the total loss. All the risk is on the investor. So they will turn to things like tax free bonds and ride it out. It's not as profitable for great investiments, but it's much safer than a bad investment.

Also please read the Joint Economic Committee study on the "Economic Effects of Capital Gains Taxation." History shows that increases in capital gains tax rates decreases revenue, When capital gains tax are decreased, tax revenue increases. Capitial gains tax reduction increases business spending, thereby increasing jobs, thereby increasing real GDP. It is better for the country's economic growth.....based on historical numbers as proof.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top