A 1% Spending Cut Is Six Times As Effective as the "Buffett Rule" - Polidicks

[quote]Obama’s solution to health care costs? Raising taxes on tanning salons and medical device manufacturers. Obama’s solution to high gas prices? Raising taxes on oil companies. Obama’s solution to a struggling economy? Raising taxes on investors through the “Buffett Rule.” Notice a pattern here? Of course, even if the “Buffett Rule” were enacted, the amount of revenue to the government is miniscule compared to both the annual deficit and our accumulated debt. Savings from instituting the “Buffett Rule” in one year, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation: $5.1 billion. By 2022, the committee estimates the Buffett Rule could be generating an additional $7 billion in revenue. Savings from cutting federal spending from its fiscal 2011 level by one percent: $33.6 billion. In other words, asking every federal agency and department to get by with 99 percent of what it received last year would generate six times the savings of the Buffett Rule.[/quote] [url=http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/295653/1-spending-cut-six-times-effective-buffett-rule]Source[/url]

Doesn't take a genius to figure this one out.

You're not going to be able to put a dent in the deficit without raising taxes. You would have to cut nearly everything to reduce the deficit. That isn't to say cuts aren't beneficial. We're going through hard times, taxes are going to go up, and certain cuts need to be made. People need to stop fishing for excuses as to why we don't need to raise taxes on the upper tiers. I don't think they should be astronomical, but there is no reason for them to be as low as they are at times like this. Republicans are very guilty of being misleading on this subject. Even my economics professor who was an extreme conservative who wanted to impeach Obama says that if someone tells you they're going to reduce the national debt and cut taxes, they're a damned liar. And you can't reduce the national debt without eliminating the budget deficit.

The word Buffett Rule makes me hungry for some reason.

thats cause it sounds like buffet bro

What about a compromise where we both cut spending and raise taxes? I say cut defense expenditures.

You know who controls spending? Congress.

[QUOTE=mac338;35551034]What about a compromise where we both cut spending and raise taxes? I say cut defense expenditures.[/QUOTE] If we cut defense, we aren't going to do it responsibly. Our soldiers paychecks and benefits are going to be the first targets, which simply isn't right. So generally, I'm not a big fan of politicians talking about cutting our defense budget, because I know it's not going to be in the right areas.

This article isn't really brining up an issue as it is pointing out the obvious and not proposing any reasonable solution.

Also, I don't like to downplay the national debt, because it is serious, but a lot of people get the misconception that we owe all of our debt to foreign countries, which simply isn't the case. America owes most of its debt to American citizens.

Everyone knows the Buffet rule will not solve the debt problem. That is not the point. The point is keeping the rich from getting away with paying less relative taxes than poorer people. It is about income redistribution and justice. [editline]13th April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Funcoot;35551097]Also, I don't like to downplay the national debt, because it is serious, but a lot of people get the misconception that we owe all of our debt to foreign countries, which simply isn't the case. America owes most of its debt to American citizens.[/QUOTE] Massive Debt is not even a problem until people lose faith in the institution holding the debt. Greece, Italy, Spain, Ireland, and Portugal are all having crises because the world is on the brink of losing all faith in the Governments' ability to pay anyone back. People have misgivings about the US Government, but they at least know that the USA is perfectly capable of paying back its debt over the long term, and will be around for a long time.

[QUOTE=person11;35551143]Everyone knows the Buffet rule will not solve the debt problem. That is not the point. The point is keeping the rich from getting away with paying less relative taxes than poorer people. It is about income redistribution and justice.[/QUOTE] So it's a pointless symbolic move, essentially punishing the rich. Whatever floats your boat man, but I'm pretty sure that a couple months ago you guys were all championing it as the solution to all our problems.

[QUOTE=MBB;35551162]So it's a pointless symbolic move, essentially punishing the rich. Whatever floats your boat man, but I'm pretty sure that a couple months ago you were all championing it as the solution to all our problems.[/QUOTE] I never said it was a solution. Getting the rich to pay their fair share (I am actually using those words, yes) is simply returning to normality, and adding a bit of extra income as well. There is no downside. This cannot possibly punish the rich, they will shrug this off. [editline]13th April 2012[/editline] I hate how people argue against this modest tax increase because they say it will not raise a ton of funds. It really is not the point. The point is to have a tax system that makes sense. I would be ok with the rich paying what they pay now if we reduced the tax rate for everyone else.

[QUOTE=person11;35551174]I never said it was a solution. Getting the rich to pay their fair share (I am actually using those words, yes) is simply returning to normality, and adding a bit of extra income as well. There is no downside. This cannot possibly punish the rich, they will shrug this off.[/QUOTE] I don't understand why we need to punish investors any more than we already do. Ideally investments shouldn't even be taxed because they are already taxed when the money originally reaches the investor and to tax the returns would be taxing the same money twice. [editline]13th April 2012[/editline] You seem to think that wealthy people pay less in taxes than the rest of people. This is false, the top income tax bracket is already at 38%. The Buffet Rule raises the capital gains tax rate, which applies to all investors, no matter how rich they are.

[QUOTE=MBB;35551192]I don't understand why we need to punish investors any more than we already do. Ideally investments shouldn't even be taxed because they are already taxed when the money originally reaches the investor and to tax the returns would be taxing the same money twice.[/QUOTE] Taxes are not fucking punishments. Taxes are payments to the government to keep it running. The most effective and moral way to tax people is to tax rich people more than anyone else, which is not how things are done right now. The Buffet rule would help with that. Also, the posts you make sound frighteningly Reaganomics/trickle-down -ish. You realize that entire ideal is bullshit, right? [editline]13th April 2012[/editline] Even if trickle down economics worked, it is essentially a glorified way of saying that the poor can eat the table scraps of the rich. Taxing the rich slightly more (and still much less than most other Western Nations) will not harm their ability to invest in things or "create jobs".

[QUOTE=MBB;35551192]I don't understand why we need to punish investors any more than we already do. Ideally investments shouldn't even be taxed because they are already taxed when the money originally reaches the investor and to tax the returns would be taxing the same money twice. [editline]13th April 2012[/editline] You seem to think that wealthy people pay less in taxes than the rest of people. This is false, the top income tax bracket is already at 38%. The Buffet Rule raises the capital gains tax rate, which applies to all investors, no matter how rich they are.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes"]http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes[/URL] [URL="http://www.kiplinger.com/features/archives/how-your-income-stacks-up.html"]http://www.kiplinger.com/features/archives/how-your-income-stacks-up.html[/URL] [URL="http://visualizingeconomics.com/2010/02/12/how-much-taxes-are-paid-by-the-poor-middle-class-and-rich/"]http://visualizingeconomics.com/2010/02/12/how-much-taxes-are-paid-by-the-poor-middle-class-and-rich/[/URL] [URL="http://www.theburningplatform.com/?p=14698"]http://www.theburningplatform.com/?p=14698[/URL] [URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/20/obama-buffett-rich-taxes_n_971388.html"]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/20/obama-buffett-rich-taxes_n_971388.html[/URL] [URL="http://www.joshuakennon.com/how-much-money-does-it-take-to-be-in-the-top-1-of-wealth-and-net-worth-in-the-united-states/"]http://www.joshuakennon.com/how-much-money-does-it-take-to-be-in-the-top-1-of-wealth-and-net-worth-in-the-united-states/[/URL] [URL="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20120147-503544.html"]http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20120147-503544.html[/URL]

[QUOTE=person11;35551205]Taxes are not fucking punishments. Taxes are payments to the government to keep it running. The most effective and moral way to tax people is to tax rich people more than anyone else, which is not how things are done right now. The Buffet rule would help with that. Also, the posts you make sound frighteningly Reaganomics/trickle-down -ish. You realize that entire ideal is bullshit, right? [editline]13th April 2012[/editline] Even if trickle down economics worked, it is essentially a glorified way of saying that the poor can eat the table scraps of the rich. Taxing the rich slightly more (and still much less than most other Western Nations) will not harm their ability to invest in things or "create jobs".[/QUOTE] Wow, just wow. I support progressive taxation, calm down. What I don't support is a meaningless increase in the capital gains rate that will only hurt investment.

Stop acting like taxing the rich slightly more is some sort of morally abhorrent thing to do. If you hate taxes so much, why not try getting them cut for the poor, who barely have a voice in this country? Why defend the rich? I am not saying that all rich people are evil or something, far from that. I am just saying that the rich are not victims of anything here, and certainly won't be, even if the Buffet rule passes.

[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;35551217][URL="http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes"]http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes[/URL] [URL="http://www.kiplinger.com/features/archives/how-your-income-stacks-up.html"]http://www.kiplinger.com/features/archives/how-your-income-stacks-up.html[/URL] [URL="http://visualizingeconomics.com/2010/02/12/how-much-taxes-are-paid-by-the-poor-middle-class-and-rich/"]http://visualizingeconomics.com/2010/02/12/how-much-taxes-are-paid-by-the-poor-middle-class-and-rich/[/URL] [URL="http://www.theburningplatform.com/?p=14698"]http://www.theburningplatform.com/?p=14698[/URL] [URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/20/obama-buffett-rich-taxes_n_971388.html"]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/20/obama-buffett-rich-taxes_n_971388.html[/URL] [URL="http://www.joshuakennon.com/how-much-money-does-it-take-to-be-in-the-top-1-of-wealth-and-net-worth-in-the-united-states/"]http://www.joshuakennon.com/how-much-money-does-it-take-to-be-in-the-top-1-of-wealth-and-net-worth-in-the-united-states/[/URL] [URL="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20120147-503544.html"]http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20120147-503544.html[/URL][/QUOTE] I was talking about wage income not capital gains income. Capital gains is hardly even income anyways, it's just accrued wealth in the stock market.

[QUOTE=MBB;35551224]Wow, just wow. I support progressive taxation, calm down. What I don't support is a meaningless increase in the capital gains rate that will only hurt investment.[/QUOTE] In that light, I have not seen any proof that raising taxes slightly will hurt investment. Progressive taxation dictates that the rich should pay a higher relative tax rate than everyone else. That is not the case right now. The Buffet rule takes care of that. I can't be any more clear on that.

[QUOTE=person11;35551228]Stop acting like taxing the rich slightly more is some sort of morally abhorrent thing to do. If you hate taxes so much, why not try getting them cut for the poor, who barely have a voice in this country? Why defend the rich? I am not saying that all rich people are evil or something, far from that. I am just saying that the rich are not victims of anything here, and certainly won't be, even if the Buffet rule passes.[/QUOTE] The poor don't even pay taxes, that's why I'm not fighting for lower taxes on them. 48% of Americans don't pay income taxes. I support keeping taxation the way it is for the upper and lower classes and then dropping the rate for the middle class. [editline]13th April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=person11;35551236]In that light, I have not seen any proof that raising taxes slightly will hurt investment. Progressive taxation dictates that the rich should pay a higher relative tax rate than everyone else. That is not the case right now. The Buffet rule takes care of that. I can't be any more clear on that.[/QUOTE] The Buffet Rule is about capital gains though, which is the same rate for everyone. You're raising taxes on all investments, including the lower class' investments.

The reality is that the bush tax cats have been around for years and they haven't actually grown the economy. Where are those investors investing? Probably overseas.

[QUOTE=MBB;35551243]The poor don't even pay taxes, that's why I'm not fighting for lower taxes on them. 48% of Americans don't pay income taxes. I support keeping taxation the way it is for the upper and lower classes and then dropping the rate for the middle class.[/QUOTE] The poorest people who pay taxes* And there are only two sensible options to keep a good progressive taxation system: 1: Raise taxes on the rich so that they have the highest relative tax rate on all total earnings, including capital gains. 2. Lower taxes for everyone else, so that the rich pay the same amount, but more than anyone else.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;35551257]The reality is that the bush tax cats have been around for years and they haven't actually grown the economy. Where are those investors investing? Probably overseas.[/QUOTE] Bush tax cuts were on income not capital gains

why not you know raising taxes proportionally as well as cutting spending but fuck compromise

The theory behind the tax cuts was still the same flawed trickledown ideal: with extra money, the rich would invest more. This is not necessarily true. Even if they did invest more, it probably did not result in any raising up of the poor. [editline]13th April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Furioso;35551298]why not you know raising taxes proportionally as well as cutting spending but fuck compromise[/QUOTE] Well, the Obama administration also wants to cut spending on certain things, but all we hear about is this Buffet rule. I am hungry for some sort of buffet now

[QUOTE=Furioso;35551298]why not you know raising taxes proportionally as well as cutting spending but fuck compromise[/QUOTE] Obama has been cutting spending. Congress controls most of the budget though.

[quote]Obama’s solution to health care costs? Raising taxes on tanning salons and medical device manufacturers. [/quote] oh come on the National Review isn't even trying anymore.

Curses, I won't be able to afford that extra servant anymore.

Couldn't he reduce military funding? I mean christ.