SWVABillsFan Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Here is a simple one word answer that has many avenues - government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 9, 2012 Author Share Posted May 9, 2012 Holy contradiction Batman!! Please explain where I've contradicted myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiggieScooby Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 How is the Buffett rule regressive? Eliminate capital gains 15% tax and move it to 35%. Sounds progressively fair to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 How is the Buffett rule regressive? Eliminate capital gains 15% tax and move it to 35%. Sounds progressively fair to me. Why do you think the rates are lower for capital gains? Do you understand the stupidity of your idea and the damage it would do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Why do you think the rates are lower for capital gains? Do you understand the stupidity of your idea and the damage it would do? He didn't even know what capital gains was until about a week ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle flap Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 (edited) Sorry I wasn't clear on what social programs. I'm referring to: Unemployment Disability (some are truly disabled and can't work however many are not) Welfare Food Stamps So the question that has yet to be answered is how have programs designed to help people until they can get back on their feet turned into a lifestyle? And why is that lifestyle tolerated and tolerated mostly by people/politicians on the left. They stopped being safety nets a long time ago. Just a theory... The left AND the right tolerate giving people money/means to live which prevents them from turning to crime to satisfy their needs. It might be considered a monetary loss, but a societal gain. Bread and Circuses, man. I don't mean societal gain as benefiting everyone evenly either. I'm talking the 1% keeping everyone else just comfy enough to stay stagnant. Edited May 10, 2012 by uncle flap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 How is the Buffett rule regressive? Eliminate capital gains 15% tax and move it to 35%. Sounds progressively fair to me. 1) I'm all for raising the capitol gains tax, however 35% is way to high even at it's peak. 2) It shouldn't be raised all at once. Highest it should go is 23%-25% and it should only go up 1% per year until it reaches those levels. Raising it too fast would be a shock to an already shaky economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Please explain where I've contradicted myself. I thought the bolded part of your statement would help you understand what I was referring to. But I guess I can spoon feed it too you since you need me too. First you ask how the programs the left holds so dear are supposed to be there to temporarily help people until they can get back on their feet, insinuating that they're not really about that. By the end of the post you're telling us about how you leaned on some of these programs temporarily when you and you wife were out of work for a while. Sounds like you used them in exactly the manner that they are intended for. You also tell us not to give you any crap about how some people didn't need help from the government because they had support from their families when there are many more who made it all on their own. You for example. Then you go on to tell us how you received half your tuition for culinary school from your dad. Does that help you understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 (edited) in reality we should probably have a 6 bracket tax system. some people make tons of money... something like 10%-40% in 6 brackets. i would put the top .01% in the 40% bracket. i would put the corporate tax rate at 0%. not sure how this would play out revenue wise. Edited May 10, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiggieScooby Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 1) I'm all for raising the capitol gains tax, however 35% is way to high even at it's peak. 2) It shouldn't be raised all at once. Highest it should go is 23%-25% and it should only go up 1% per year until it reaches those levels. Raising it too fast would be a shock to an already shaky economy. [/ So would you want to bring down the top tax rates from 35% to 23-25%? Personally the top tax rate on work, should be the same as Paris Hilton's investment portfolio, I don't like paying 35% while Ms. Hilton and mitt Romney pay 15%. Sorry mitt paid only 13-14% on his 42 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Interesting.... A thread asking about social services quickly becomes a debate about "fair share" and capital gains taxes... Talking points much folks??? Worst part of it though, is some people trumping an increase, can't even spell capital gains correctly... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 10, 2012 Author Share Posted May 10, 2012 I thought the bolded part of your statement would help you understand what I was referring to. But I guess I can spoon feed it too you since you need me too. First you ask how the programs the left holds so dear are supposed to be there to temporarily help people until they can get back on their feet, insinuating that they're not really about that. By the end of the post you're telling us about how you leaned on some of these programs temporarily when you and you wife were out of work for a while. Sounds like you used them in exactly the manner that they are intended for. You also tell us not to give you any crap about how some people didn't need help from the government because they had support from their families when there are many more who made it all on their own. You for example. Then you go on to tell us how you received half your tuition for culinary school from your dad. Does that help you understand? Not really seeing I said in my post that they're not being used as they were designed. I meant by many people, not all. See I used them for exactly what they were designed for. See the difference. I said that there were many, many people that got little or no support from their families. $6,000 is a little support. But regarless good job explaining why these short term temporary support programs have became lifetime lifestyles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Just a theory... The left AND the right tolerate giving people money/means to live which prevents them from turning to crime to satisfy their needs. It might be considered a monetary loss, but a societal gain. Bread and Circuses, man. I don't mean societal gain as benefiting everyone evenly either. I'm talking the 1% keeping everyone else just comfy enough to stay stagnant. uh huh....social unrest would be bad for everyone. it's usually cheaper to dole out subsistence wages than to make jobs and train an entire underclass. doesn't make it right or palatable but that's at least some of it. and then there are truly lazy, contemptible but capable people that play the system. if they spent as much energy and determination finding and keeping a real job they'd do much better. in this case, i agree that they should be identified and cut off, even prosecuted if fraud can be proven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 10, 2012 Author Share Posted May 10, 2012 uh huh....social unrest would be bad for everyone. it's usually cheaper to dole out subsistence wages than to make jobs and train an entire underclass. doesn't make it right or palatable but that's at least some of it. and then there are truly lazy, contemptible but capable people that play the system. if they spent as much energy and determination finding and keeping a real job they'd do much better. in this case, i agree that they should be identified and cut off, even prosecuted if fraud can be proven. So where was all that social unrest prior to the social programs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 So where was all that social unrest prior to the social programs? You don't remember all the riot's prior to FDR? He settled things with the masses and the 1% where able to dismantle their private army's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Not really seeing I said in my post that they're not being used as they were designed. I meant by many people, not all. See I used them for exactly what they were designed for. See the difference. I said that there were many, many people that got little or no support from their families. $6,000 is a little support. But regarless good job explaining why these short term temporary support programs have became lifetime lifestyles. Before I got the job I have now I was a general case worker for DEC. I really didn't see that many people who made it a lifestyle. You guys make is seem like most people on it lifetime club members. Most people use it for the same thing you did. I can't tell you how many people would break down in tears while signing papers and turning in info. If you think they have it so much better than the rest of us because, hey, they get free money! Why don't you quit your job, liquidate your assets, visit your local DEC office and you can have it just as great as they do. As for getting people who are making it a lifestyle, getting them off of cash assistance isn't as simple as you think. Would you care to share with us what plan you would have to deal with this? uh huh....social unrest would be bad for everyone. it's usually cheaper to dole out subsistence wages than to make jobs and train an entire underclass. doesn't make it right or palatable but that's at least some of it. and then there are truly lazy, contemptible but capable people that play the system. if they spent as much energy and determination finding and keeping a real job they'd do much better. in this case, i agree that they should be identified and cut off, even prosecuted if fraud can be proven. Again, this is not as simple as most people would think. So where was all that social unrest prior to the social programs? Take some time to crack open a history book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 (edited) 1) I'm all for raising the capitol gains tax, however 35% is way to high even at it's peak. 2) It shouldn't be raised all at once. Highest it should go is 23%-25% and it should only go up 1% per year until it reaches those levels. Raising it too fast would be a shock to an already shaky economy. Bill Clinton understood the importance of capital formation and lowering the cost of capital. Raising capital gains taxes effects 401ks, pension retiree funds and most importantly negatively impacts capital formation which in turn deincentivizes expansion. If you wanted to have a healthier economy, this would not be a good idea. Edited May 10, 2012 by WorldTraveller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Bill Clinton understood the importance of capital formation and lowering the cost of capital. Raising capital gains taxes effects 401ks, pension retiree funds and most importantly negatively impacts capital formation which in turn deincentivizes expansion. If you wanted to have a healthier economy, this would not be a good idea. BF2 is a social scientist. Thus, longitudinal stupidity is OK, as long as it's longitudinal. And, BF2 is a social scientist. Thus, expecting her to understand capital formation, and not simply accuse you of using phony, Republican shill words to try and trick everyone? Well...? Remember, Bush Lied, people Died....is about as much abstract thinking most of these types can handle. Perhaps BF2 is the exception, so, don't let me stop you. I imagine it would be highly entertaining for you to try to explain capital formation and it's direct effect on job growth for start-ups.....which is where 90% of expansion comes from, to BF2, and have her fumble around trying to understand it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 So where was all that social unrest prior to the social programs? ever heard of the wild wild west? really man? you should read hobbes social contract. its a good starting point. jmo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fjl2nd Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 That's been discussed here ad nauseum. Income tax/Capital gains=Apples/Oranges Yes, income tax and Capital Gains tax is different but it's not as different as apples and oranges. Capital Gains in itself is still a form of income. How is the Buffett rule regressive? Eliminate capital gains 15% tax and move it to 35%. Sounds progressively fair to me. 35% is much too high. 20% is just fine, but I'd also like to see a raise in the regular income tax rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts