Buffett Rule doesn't necessarily make for the best policy

Its still better than your favorite TLGT

TheNationalFascistParty.com

Freedom, almost by definition, eliminates the possibility of equality of outcome. If one is free to be industrious or lazy then some will accrue more than others; it really is just that simple. Not everyone has the drive to devote every ounce of their existence to making themselves or their ventures highly successful. Two people could start identical companies, with identical capital, in the same region and one person ends up creating a job for themselves and maybe a handful of others and one person ends up heading a billion dollar corporation which creates jobs for hundreds of people. Jobs took a purchase order and built an international computer company from it. The founder of FedEx once took his remaining cash to Vegas and gambled his way to meeting payroll.

Yeah VL, there are going to be some who are much wealthier than others are in a free society - I wouldn't want it any other way.

All I can say to you is get educated, read a history book..You don't really want 300 million people living in squalor and a couple hundred guys OWNING and CONTROLLING everything do you?

Thats not America PrintS***

Most economists and the bipartisan deficit/tax commission recommend a simpler, reformed, pro-growth tax code that spreads the revenue fairly across all earners. Not a stupid 4 billion/yr Buffet tax. LOL

From that radical liberal, Ronald Reagan in a June 6, 1985 speech at Northside High School in Atlanta, Georgia, allowing a millionaire to pay lower taxes that a bus driver were “crazy,” because they allowed the “truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share”:

" Do you think the millionaire ought to pay more in taxes than the bus driver or less?"

Joe wrote: Most economists and the bipartisan tax commission recommend a simpler, reformed, pro-growth tax code that spreads the revenue fairly across all earners. Not a stupid 4 billion/yr Buffet tax. LOL

You don't tax people who make less than 60k a year because they spend every dime of disposalable income (it goes right back into the economy) and then some with credit- Those are the job creators..We don't have a supply problem in America..We have a demand problem. We don't have enough consumers..We have enough billionaires, we need to create more consumption with higher wages.. Now go find an economist that doesn't see it that way Joe

Trickle-down doesn't.

LadyJazzer wrote: Trickle-down doesn't.

And history shows that it NEVER has


It's called History my friends...Look into it

Vice Lord wrote:

Joe wrote: Most economists and the bipartisan tax commission recommend a simpler, reformed, pro-growth tax code that spreads the revenue fairly across all earners. Not a stupid 4 billion/yr Buffet tax. LOL

You don't tax people who make less than 60k a year because they spend every dime of disposalable income (put into the economy) and then some with credit- Those are the job creators..We don't have a supply problem in America..We have a demand problem. We don't have enough consumers..Find an economist that doesn't see it that way Joe

Bullcrap... as I mentioned to you in another thread, I just came out of a dry period and I was working at a bit above minimum wage from Feb. to July this past year, and then I landed my current programming job. So since my salary was low for the first 7 months of this year, I ended up under 50 thousand. I still owed 8 dollars for the year on top of the taxes I already paid.

Something the Dog Said wrote: From that radical liberal, Ronald Reagan in a June 6, 1985 speech at Northside High School in Atlanta, Georgia, allowing a millionaire to pay lower taxes that a bus driver were “crazy,” because they allowed the “truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share”:

" Do you think the millionaire ought to pay more in taxes than the bus driver or less?"

Mitt Romney paid a much higher total in taxes than any bus driver. Plus also donated much more to charity than any bus driver. But lets penalize the job creators.