Buffet Bitchslaps Barack !

Warren Buffet is Obama's boss! He's just one of Obama's masters. A puppeteer who pulls the strings of Obama. When Buffet comes out and says, "tax me harder," thats all just a bunch of bullshit. Then media is meant to catch him saying such a statement! It's meant to be played on the news because he's not the one who's going to be getting taxed harder. It's you! It's going to be a tax on millionaires and the middle class who don't have the protection that Buffet has, and aren't as financially astute. It helps if your one of the people writing the tax code so you know all the loopholes. Or if your one of the few people getting your piece of the banker bail out money. Originally Posted by CPT Savajo

Sorry I can’t get too worked up about the proposed tax increase. Your outrage is over a $1100 tax increase on taxable income of $300000 (which probably means a gross income near $350000) and higher amounts on incomes larger than that. If I made that much, I would pay the extra $1100. I can point out prior service to this country and the fact that $1100 against $300000 is not much but you still won’t believe me not complaining about doing it. I won’t get too worked up about that either.

Even when Buffet rebukes Obama's Buffet Rule; these zombies march onward moaning "Busssshhhhhh's Faaaaaauuuuulllllt". Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Nobody has said that in this thread.

When you mock someone for supposedly not being able to quote your thread correctly, you really shouldn't follow that up (in the same thread, no less) by not quoting your thread correctly. It makes you look silly.

Just tryin' to help.

Sorry I can’t get too worked up about the proposed tax increase. Your outrage is over a $1100 tax increase on taxable income of $300000 (which probably means a gross income near $350000) and higher amounts on incomes larger than that. If I made that much, I would pay the extra $1100. I can point out prior service to this country and the fact that $1100 against $300000 is not much but you still won’t believe me not complaining about doing it. I won’t get too worked up about that either. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Well the so-called rule isn't set into stone yet but it will more than likely come to light. Just look at the trend of the nation as a whole. When was the last time taxes ever went down? $1100 dollars is chump change. Anyone grossing $300,000 a year probably pays nearly 1/3 or 33% of it toward taxes, just to be nice. Someone that is grossing $350,000 will surely pay more than $50,000 in taxes, that I can promise you. High paid "employees" have no kind of tax protection AT ALL! Investments fall into another tax category. Plus, depending on what state your making that money in will play a BIG PART. Especially if it's "earned income," the highest type of income that is taxed. Meaning that person is a high payed wage slave such as a doctor, an attorney, a professor with a Ph.D, or an accountant. Employees in general have no protection AT ALL under the current tax system that is imposed on them and the answer isn't to shit more kids. The current tax system punishes wage slaves. If you did make $350K I guarantee you will pay more than a measly $1100 if the Buffet Rule does get passed, just give it time so the thiefs can devise up a scheme to take more. Someone that makes $350K a year is nowhere near being rich in my book!

It's hard to jump start an economy that is turning more service based and is pretty much based on football and hamburgers! And yeah that is sarcasm!

that what Buffet means is not to raise the tax rates, simply do away with the various means that allow many of the ultra rich to not pay much in the way of taxes. He then said that this would probably affect about 50,000 people.

From what I have seen and experienced.....every time taxes get raised on the "wealthy" is seems somehow that taxes also increase on the middle income group at the same time (example the current minimum tax rules). Liberals should be careful what the ask for. They might just get bit in the ass.

that what Buffet means is not to raise the tax rates, simply do away with the various means that allow many of the ultra rich to not pay much in the way of taxes. He then said that this would probably affect about 50,000 people. Originally Posted by Jackie S

Jdriller's got the idea. The ultra rich in this country have always, always found a way to put it up the ass of the little guys. Thats how this country works. Thats how it's always worked in human history. He who has the gold makes the rules, period! It's not the other way around. If this bill gets passed it's not the multi-billionaire's club that is going to be feeling the pain. The ultra rich know how to protect their wealth, the average Joe does not and he/she can't if their an employee. Plus if your corporate and are able to fund millions of dollars into a candidates campaign you think their going to get favors? How about if most of the presidential cabinet is composed of and for Wall St. bankers and you've got the insiders in power to constuct the law to favor the few. There isn't shit people can do about it, not much atleast. The people who are financially smarter and play by the rules that the rich play by will be favored, the one's who don't know the rules will pay the price!

Most of these candidates running for president are already bought and paid for except 2 of them now. I'm sure you can guess which candidates right? Herman Cain is coming right out and saying that he wants to raise taxes with his 666 plan! Or is it 999? Get the point. He's making a statement straight to the Illuminists and BIG WIGS that he wants to be their man. The man is pre-packaged evil just like Perry, Romney, Obama, Bachman, Newt, and Santorum. The list goes on and on.

I'm not going to lay my life on the line to keep some rich guys from being taxed. My problem with it is that it is just for show. There is not enough wealth out there to tax which will make a significant dent in our deficit, let alone the national debt. Spending has to stop.

I'm sure Munch has some statistics showing the effect of the tax on the rich on the debt.

Oregon serves as a microcosm of how a "tax the rich" policy really works.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++

'A Pretty Historic Win'

On election night 2010, Oregonians voted to increase income taxes on people making over $125,000 a year, and to increase corporate taxes.
"It is my great honor and delight to be able to tell you that tonight the voters of the great state of Oregon decided to protect education," said campaign spokesman Steve Novick.

Fighting over the cheers, Novick went on to say Oregonians decided to protect public safety, social services — and the middle class. . . .

"The great eureka moment was realizing that, you know what, in voters' minds, this battle is not left-right. It's up-down," [Kevin] Looper says. "You know, it's class war when we're cutting Medicare. It's class war when we're cutting teachers out of our public schools."

Looper says research showed Oregonians had a keen sense that the wealthiest folks weren't doing their fair share. And the campaign to pass ballot measures 66 and 67 made use of that sense — with ads picturing executives walking off private jets and well-dressed couples sipping champagne.

"It's easy to show a big fat cat and drum up a little animosity to him. But it's the wrong way to do it," says Marty Kehoe, a prominent Portland real estate developer and a wealthy man.

He says taxing the rich is all well and good, but over the past couple of years, the city, the county and now the state have all taken a slice — and in the long run, he says, it's hurting the area.

"We need an economic base in order to make Oregon and Portland livable," Kehoe says. "But when you bring in [bills] like measure 66 and 67, do those themselves cause the exodus of successful people and business people from Oregon? The answer is no. But they are the straw that breaks the camel's back."

He says hundreds of [rich] Oregonians have crossed the Columbia River to live in Washington.

Capital Gains Down

But wherever you stand on taxing the rich, Oregon's coffers did not get all the money it expected. The state projected an extra $180 million, but only $130 million materialized.

Chris Allanach, an economist with Oregon's revenue office, says the numbers aren't detailed enough to say the loss was because richer Oregonians moved out of state. But what he can say is that capital gains were down almost 60 percent.

"It certainly could be that people saw the rates in 2009, or what they might be, and then decided not to realize some of those gains," Allanach says.

So, some people saw the tax coming and delayed selling stock or other investments.

http://www.kclu.org/npr/?id=141013128

I'm not going to lay my life on the line to keep some rich guys from being taxed. My problem with it is that it is just for show. There is not enough wealth out there to tax which will make a significant dent in our deficit, let alone the national debt. Spending has to stop.

I'm sure Munch has some statistics showing the effect of the tax on the rich on the debt. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I'm not either and your right, there isn't enough wealth out there to tax that will make a difference. Especially since currency has to be borrowed into existence just to pay the existing debts. I have a good idea what this will all lead to. Overall it's easier to change yourself instead of the system. Although I do support the cause of the people rather than a crony system based on fraud.

All this noise were hearing now is called feedback, plain and simple and it's hard to imagine just how many disillusioned people there are in this country. It's amazing that the people would rather go after each other rather than the ones who are truly responsible in such a divided country. The pen is truly mightier than the sword.

On the other hand I do think there has to be drastic changes inorder for this country to be put back on the path to prosperity. From what I see going on were not headed in that direction. The madness thats been going on in Greece has been going on for quite some time. This country hasn't quite gotten to that point yet. I admire the people of Greece.

Well the so-called rule isn't set into stone yet but it will more than likely come to light. Just look at the trend of the nation as a whole. When was the last time taxes ever went down? $1100 dollars is chump change. Anyone grossing $300,000 a year probably pays nearly 1/3 or 33% of it toward taxes, just to be nice. Someone that is grossing $350,000 will surely pay more than $50,000 in taxes, that I can promise you. High paid "employees" have no kind of tax protection AT ALL! Investments fall into another tax category. Plus, depending on what state your making that money in will play a BIG PART. Especially if it's "earned income," the highest type of income that is taxed. Meaning that person is a high payed wage slave such as a doctor, an attorney, a professor with a Ph.D, or an accountant. Employees in general have no protection AT ALL under the current tax system that is imposed on them and the answer isn't to shit more kids. The current tax system punishes wage slaves. If you did make $350K I guarantee you will pay more than a measly $1100 if the Buffet Rule does get passed, just give it time so the thiefs can devise up a scheme to take more. Someone that makes $350K a year is nowhere near being rich in my book!

It's hard to jump start an economy that is turning more service based and is pretty much based on football and hamburgers! And yeah that is sarcasm! Originally Posted by CPT Savajo

Taxes go down on $50,000 earners, stay the same for $125000, and go down $6800 for $150000. $300000 earners will pay $60200, an increase of $1100 in federal taxes per the tables posted in post #10 of this thread. An increase of $1100, not a total of. Gross income is pointless to discuss because you pay taxes on net, commonly called taxable income. Reducing gross to net is determined by many different factors (number of dependents, deductions for all kinds of stuff specific to the taxpayer, etc.) A $300000 earner pays 20% to the feds. The “Buffet Rule” is for $1 mil and above. The $300 and $500k (up to $1 mil) earners would be affected by letting the Bush tax cuts expire.

I'm not going to lay my life on the line to keep some rich guys from being taxed. My problem with it is that it is just for show. There is not enough wealth out there to tax which will make a significant dent in our deficit, let alone the national debt. Spending has to stop.

I'm sure Munch has some statistics showing the effect of the tax on the rich on the debt. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Why would I have those? Another thing you're sure of that is wrong. I know how to find them if I needed them. You know, like we teach our kids to do.
It seems to me you would have those numbers handy or some kind of numbers since you claim there isn't enough wealth to tax to make a dent in the deficit or the national debt.
Oh wait. This is how you have fun. You make statements you know aren't true, then yuck it up while people go research to prove you wrong.

A word to the less wise. Learn how to use the index card files at the library (or their modern equivalents). You go look at them when you need to find information. They tell you where the information is at so you don't have to rely on your memory to remember the things you are sure of that are wrong and the things that you are sure of that you aren't sure of.

that what Buffet means is not to raise the tax rates, simply do away with the various means that allow many of the ultra rich to not pay much in the way of taxes. He then said that this would probably affect about 50,000 people. Originally Posted by Jackie S

That is it in a nutshell

Below is what a nut case reads into it, the dumb SOB can't even get the jest of the article/thread he starts.

You can't even quote My Thread correctly (dumbass)!

My OP says Obama's tax plan will apply to those households making $50 K and more;

The ABC News article clearly states Buffet believes only a tax on the urber wealthy is appropriate = those making $50 million or more.............alot of day light between Buffet and Obam's Buffet Rule !!!!!



Your a dumbshit WTF; can't read english i guess. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

I can read and I can understand just wtf I read.

I read where you do not understand a thing unless Sean Hannity force feeds it to you.

Obama plans to raise taxes on those hoseholds making more than $50,000/year...

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

This is your stupid lie.

You can not run from it, it is there in black and red.

Read Obama's tax and spend plan (now DOA); and you will see that it will increases taxes on those making substantially less than his claimed millionaires of $200 k. In fact Obama taxes will reach down into households making around $50K..........

Fact !

IB: they only comprehend what they want to hear ! Originally Posted by Whirlaway

If you don't hear something you want to, you don't comprehend anything.

What can I say that you haven't alluded to?

Read Obama's tax and spend plan (now DOA); and you will see that it will increases taxes on those making substantially less than his claimed millionaires of $200 k. In fact Obama taxes will reach down into households making around $50K..........

Fact ! Originally Posted by Whirlaway

You claim taxes increase on incomes substantially less than $200K. And as usual, you offer no proof. Just your word.

We all know what that's worth.

Look at post #10. It has a link to where the posted tables come from.

Feel free to believe the Obama bullshit. I bet you belived him when he said he promised to close Gitmo in a year (from his inauguration), or when he promised that Obamacare would bring down your cost of insurance and wouldn't insure illegals !

And as usual, you offer no proof. Just your word.

We all know what that's worth.
Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Read Obama's tax and spend plan (now DOA); and you will see that it will increases taxes on those making substantially less than his claimed millionaires of $200 k. In fact Obama taxes will reach down into households making around $50K..........

Fact ! Originally Posted by Whirlaway

***This from the link you provided! Where the fuc do you get your numbers? There is nothing wrong with being mistaken (like you were in your initial post) but do you really wanna come off as a lying sac of chit after it was pointed out that you misspoke? You mistook 50k people making over 50million , with people making 50k.

***As ABC News’ Jake Tapper reported, the president has not laid out the specifics on what the income cut-off or the higher tax rate would be under the Buffett Rule, but officials said it would affect fewer than 450,000 taxpayers, or 0.3 percent. In a press release announcing his plan, the White House said that “people making more than $1 million a year should not pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than middle-class families pay.”
According to IRS reports, there were about 237,000 millionaires, or about 0.1 percent of all filers, that filed income tax returns in 2009, the most recent year for which data is available. There were about 8,000 filers who reported gross incomes of more than $10 million, the largest income group reported in the IRS documents.
Thus, under Obama’s proposed Buffet Rule, which seems to include all millionaires, about a quarter of a million millionaires would pay higher taxes. Under Buffett’s version of the rule, which he said today would not include people earning $50 million, significantly less than 8,000 people would be impacted.
White House Spokesman Jay Carney pushed back against reports that Buffett spoke out against the president’s proposed “Buffett Rule” today, saying there has been “deliberate misrepresentation for political reasons” and that what Buffett said “absolutely fits the Buffett rule as the president described it.”
Carney said the goal of the Buffett Rule was not to raise taxes on every millionaire because “many are paying an effective tax rate that is at least as high as middle American,” instead it was intended to target the “many others who are paying an effective tax rate that is much lower because of the nature of their income.”
Buffett said in the CNBC interview that the White House asked his permission before using his name. When asked if he is happy that he said “yes,” Buffett responded, “Sure.”