Buffet and other Lefties complaining about not paying enough.

[Danno 1,228]

https://www.pay.gov/paygov/forms/formInstance.html?agencyFormId=23779454

Somehow I doubt they will have this in their book marked, folder.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

A voluntary tax system. What a genius idea, Danno. You should run for President.

[Danno 1,228]

A voluntary tax system. What a genius idea, Danno. You should run for President.

This is actually an "in addition too" taxing system...... if you feel you have not done enough.... or would simply like to do more to offset the burden of growing the Federal Budget... you can.

Pretty cool huh

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

This is actually an "in addition too" taxing system...... if you feel you have not done enough.... or would simply like to do more to offset the burden of growing the Federal Budget... you can.

Pretty cool huh

Yeah, just as cool as Crack Perry's proposal. Are you on crack, too?

[Pooky 3,828]

So, the "Buffett Brigade" want to pay more, but only if everyone in a similar-ish situation is made to do the same?

Why not make voluntary contributions, if they are that way inclined? Or is that considered "bad form" in billionaire circles?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Why do Right Wingers come up with the stupidest arguments? Oh, never mind.

[Pooky 3,828]

Why do radicals from either wing fail to answer questions?

[Danno 1,228]

So, the "Buffett Brigade" want to pay more, but only if everyone in a similar-ish situation is made to do the same?

Why not make voluntary contributions, if they are that way inclined? Or is that considered "bad form" in billionaire circles?

Yeah not only that but I find it pretty telling that these same "Gov't has the answer" Billionaire types are always creating trust funds and foundations to help the poor and needy (which is great) ....

but why don't they just turn that huge pile of money over to the already existing Gov't programs?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Why do radicals from either wing fail to answer questions?

Even a flat tax rate means that those who are making more will pay more taxes in terms of dollars, so how is that any more fair than the progressive taxes we've had in this country for nearly a century? Those who oppose ending the Bush Tax Cuts aren't really arguing for what they truly think is fair, they are then arguing for what they think is less unfair, which would be somewhat logical if they were actually making it as a compromise, but they aren't. Fairness, according to their logic would be for everyone to pay the same amount of taxes, just like your cable bill or newspaper subscription. The Right doesn't believe that if those who are wealthy benefit more from government. In fact, they say the opposite is true. Okay then, tax the poor more.

So once you get past the inconsistency of their logic, we can then argue about fairness by ratio and when talking about ratios of income to tax liability, it's hard to argue against having someone who earns over a million dollars pay a miniscule amount more, especially considering our current debt and deficit. The Bush Tax Cuts are the largest single contributing factor to our growing debt. It's beyond absurd that in these times, regular joe's are arguing against ending the Bush Tax Cuts.

Edited November 7, 2011 by DFH

[mawilson 2,133]

Perry's 20 percent flat tax would have Buffett pay more than what he's paying now (15 percent).

I'm not saying it's necessarily a good proposal, but a flat tax would certainly diminish the ability of the rich to hide their income and capital gains in various tax code loopholes.

[Danno 1,228]

Even a flat tax rate means that those who are making more will pay more taxes in terms of dollars, so how is that any more fair than the progressive taxes we've had in this country for nearly a century? Those who oppose ending the Bush Tax Cuts aren't really arguing for what they truly think is fair, they are then arguing for what they think is less unfair, which would be somewhat logical if they were actually making it as a compromise, but they aren't. Fairness, according to their logic would be for everyone to pay the same amount of taxes, just like your cable bill or newspaper subscription. The Right doesn't believe that if those who are wealthy benefit more from government. In fact, they say the opposite is true. Okay then, tax the poor more.

So once you get past the inconsistency of their logic, we can then argue about fairness by ratio and when talking about ratios of income to tax liability, it's hard to argue against having someone who earns over a million dollars pay a miniscule amount more, especially considering our current debt and deficit. The Bush Tax Cuts are the largest single contributing factor to our growing debt. It's beyond absurd that in these times, regular joe's are arguing against ending the Bush Tax Cuts.

There are 2 separate issues here, you are stuck on only on of them.

1. Has a lack of funds caused overspending by the Gov't?

-My opinion is the Gov't needs to be starved to get it to reduce, nothing else will work, for this reason alone, I don't want anyone to increase what they send in.

2. Fairness of the tax code.

You seem to skip 1. and focus on 2. only.

To me you have to deal with the first question before you move on to the second.

Edited November 7, 2011 by Danno

[Pooky 3,828]

...

Not quite the question I asked ...

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Perry's 20 percent flat tax would have Buffett pay more than what he's paying now (15 percent).

I'm not saying it's necessarily a good proposal, but a flat tax would certainly diminish the ability of the rich to hide their income and capital gains in various tax code loopholes.

Especially if there is a basic living rebates based on family size and nothing else...(don't tell Gary I said this)

Edited November 8, 2011 by Sousuke

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Perry's 20 percent flat tax would have Buffett pay more than what he's paying now (15 percent).

No, it wouldn't. It would have him pay significantly less since non-work income would no longer be subject to a federal income tax. And even if the 20% tax would have him pay more, according to Perry, Buffet could then simply continue to pay less under the current tax code. Do you really take that kind of bullshite seriously?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So, the "Buffett Brigade" want to pay more, but only if everyone in a similar-ish situation is made to do the same?

Why not make voluntary contributions, if they are that way inclined? Or is that considered "bad form" in billionaire circles?

The "Buffet Brigade" as you would label it is addressing issues they see with our current tax policy. There's something fundamentally wrong with our tax system. That's the point we can all agree on. What needs to happen to fix it is where people natuarally have different views. What everyone with a sound mind should be able to concede, however, is that voluntary contributions are NOT a viable path to fixing the tax system.