Buffett - Cap & Trade 'Huge, Regressive Tax'

Dungheap said:
Well, right now we have Buffett's word without any support and the CBO study. You can feel free to question the CBO numbers, but equating the CBO study and Buffett's musings is, well, stupid.

And Buffett supporting Obama's economic policies as a general matter is a whole hell of a lot different for Buffett opining about the effects of specific policy proposals. There's a big difference between "I like Obama's economic proposals" and "Obama's policy on X will result in Y."

And as I have said ad nauseum on this board, there are plenty of good reasons for plenty of people, one the left and the right, to question Obama's positions on plenty of issues. Because Warren Buffett said so is not a good reason.
Click to expand...

There have been many threads and discussions on this board about the political b.s. that would go on if cap and trade were passed. One doesn't need to add all that to post about Warren Buffett stating his opinion. I'm not under some delusion that because Warren Buffett makes a comment about a policy that his word is the final end all of any discussion. But it also doesn't mean that a comment by Buffett can't be posted and discussed.
 
TuTu Monroe said:
The poor don't pay income taxes.
Click to expand...

The very poor don't pay standard income taxes, but they still pay the 15% payroll tax. The payroll tax takes in just as much income as the standard income tax, BTW. So, they essentially pay the same rate as a billionaire for half the tax code. No one pays no income taxes.

And "poor" is subjective. There are a lot of non-"poor" people who fit into the standard income tax brackets as well.
 
15% payroll tax? Please elaborate.

And on SS there is a cap after which you do not pay in any more for that year. So not the same for a poor person and a rich one. In the case of SS the poor and up to middle class actually pay more % wise.

Middle class is 200-250K, what a joke. Look at the median wage income in the USA. That is really the middle class. What around 45K now?
 
Watermark said:
The very poor don't pay standard income taxes, but they still pay the 15% payroll tax. The payroll tax takes in just as much income as the standard income tax, BTW. So, they essentially pay the same rate as a billionaire for half the tax code. No one pays no income taxes.

And "poor" is subjective. There are a lot of non-"poor" people who fit into the standard income tax brackets as well.
Click to expand...

No, they don't pay 15% payroll tax. Sorry.

Actually, about 40% of the working public pay NO income tax.
 
I think the cap and trade stuff is crap.

Wasn't this origionally a republican thing on power plant emissions?
Carbon emissions was not the issue but a way around the clean air laws?
 
cawacko said:
Here you go Dungheap from your favorite paper The Wall Fucking Street Journal as it exposes the flaws in the CBO's analysis and why its b.s.

The Cap and Tax Fiction

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588837560750781.html
Click to expand...


I'm shocked.

As I've said before, the hyper-partisan Wall Street Journal unsigned op-eds aren't worth a warm bucket of spit. The CBO is an non-partisan research arm of Congress. If you presented maybe an article from the news pages of the Wall Street Journal I'd take the time to read it, but not this crap.

Thanks though. What's next, an analysis from the Heritage Foundation?
 
Dungheap said:
I'm shocked.

As I've said before, the hyper-partisan Wall Street Journal unsigned op-eds aren't worth a warm bucket of spit. The CBO is an non-partisan research arm of Congress. If you presented maybe an article from the news pages of the Wall Street Journal I'd take the time to read it, but not this crap.

Thanks though. What's next, an analysis from the Heritage Foundation?
Click to expand...

Because the CBO is supposedly 'non-partisan' they are immune from mistakes and are always right? The Journal article clearly lays out the methodlogy used by the CBO and its faults. As always you are free to ignore it.
 
cawacko said:
Because the CBO is supposedly 'non-partisan' they are immune from mistakes and are always right? The Journal article clearly lays out the methodlogy used by the CBO and its faults. As always you are free to ignore it.
Click to expand...


No, because the CBO is non-partisan (not supposedly, no need for scare quotes) I'm not interested in what the Wall Street Journal editors think of its report and I'm sure as shit not going to accept its analysis as fact.

But, to address momentarily the merits of the op-ed, I'd note that it's attack on the CBO addresses a wholly separate question than the one the CBO was answering (and that Buffett opined about). The CBO looked at the effect on household costs of the cap and trade proposal. (Buffet said it was a huge regressive tax). The Wall Street Journal responds to the CBO analysis on the effect on households by complaining about the cap and trade effect on the economy as a whole.

Now, we can have a discussion on the economy-wide impact of the cap and trade bill, but that's not what the CBO report addressed. Attacking the CBO on the grounds that it didn't answer the question the Wall Street Journal editors want to focus on is stupid.
 
Dungheap said:
No, because the CBO is non-partisan (not supposedly, no need for scare quotes) I'm not interested in what the Wall Street Journal editors think of its report and I'm sure as shit not going to accept its analysis as fact.

But, to address momentarily the merits of the op-ed, I'd note that it's attack on the CBO addresses a wholly separate question than the one the CBO was answering (and that Buffett opined about). The CBO looked at the effect on household costs of the cap and trade proposal. (Buffet said it was a huge regressive tax). The Wall Street Journal responds to the CBO analysis on the effect on households by complaining about the cap and trade effect on the economy as a whole.

Now, we can have a discussion on the economy-wide impact of the cap and trade bill, but that's not what the CBO report addressed. Attacking the CBO on the grounds that it didn't answer the question the Wall Street Journal editors want to focus on is stupid.
Click to expand...


Yes you are.

Rational people examine arguments on their merits, not on the identity of the speaker.
 
TuTu Monroe said:
No, they don't pay 15% payroll tax. Sorry.

Actually, about 40% of the working public pay NO income tax.
Click to expand...

Tutu, they DO pay the payroll tax. EVERYONE PAYS THE PAYROLL TAX. I REMIND YOU, YOU DON'T HAVE TO LET YOUR CONSERVATIVE PHILOSOPHY OVERRIDE OBJECTIVE REALITY. People who make more than 100k a year, however, aren't taxed on the amount over 100k, so it's poor people actually pay a much higher rate than billionaires. And this tax collects almost as much as the standard income tax. 37% of the working public don't pay anything on the standard income tax, but everyone pays the payroll tax, except billionaires who are taxed at a minuscule rate. Half our tax system is completely flat, except for people making over 100k a year, with no deduction. Get it through your head.
 
uscitizen said:
15% payroll tax? Please elaborate.

And on SS there is a cap after which you do not pay in any more for that year. So not the same for a poor person and a rich one. In the case of SS the poor and up to middle class actually pay more % wise.
Click to expand...

The payroll tax is 7.5% on the worker and 7.5% on the employer. It is effectively a 15% tax on the worker, since employers usually just adjust their wages to compensate. And yeah, the payroll tax is actually the opposite of a progressive tax, since rich people pay less.

I repeat, almost half the government's tax revenue comes from a tax that is completely flat, with no standard deduction, and that doesn't apply for people making over 100k a year. The poor don't get a free lunch. Conservatives are liars, it's as simple as that. They go out of their way to defend the rich, the rich don't give a fuck about them in return. It's kind of sad.
 
Watermark said:
Tutu, they DO pay the payroll tax. EVERYONE PAYS THE PAYROLL TAX. I REMIND YOU, YOU DON'T HAVE TO LET YOUR CONSERVATIVE PHILOSOPHY OVERRIDE OBJECTIVE REALITY. People who make more than 100k a year, however, aren't taxed on the amount over 100k, so it's poor people actually pay a much higher rate than billionaires. And this tax collects almost as much as the standard income tax. 37% of the working public don't pay anything on the standard income tax, but everyone pays the payroll tax, except billionaires who are taxed at a minuscule rate. Half our tax system is completely flat, except for people making over 100k a year, with no deduction. Get it through your head.
Click to expand...

Again, theyy DON'T pay 15%. Got it??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top