# What is so bad about the fiscal cliff? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 27, 2012, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-so-bad-about-the-fiscal-cliff/642278 "2012-11-27T16:54:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2012, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-so-bad-about-the-fiscal-cliff/642278/141 "2012-12-10T16:52:40Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > Who are going to be barely affected at all by this increase. Even if we concede a 3% overall increase in federal taxes is a supreme sacrifice and hurts very much, it’s not until we hit $750k or so that the cumulative marginal increase in their tax rates even breaks 2%. A dual-income lawyer family (at around $500k if they’re both at the absolute theoretical peak of their careers, unless one happens to be an executive or an extreme outlier) is going to see a 1.5% aggregate increase, which is peanuts. > > So it’s possible to concede that a two-surgeon family might feel the full 3% bite, but otherwise this tax increase is squarely targeted at business owners, C-level types, and the wealthy. > > So talking about “incomes over 250,000” as though they’re square in the crosshairs of this tax increase is misleading. You have to be well into the 7-figure incomes before you feel the full wrath of this already laughably low top tier tax rate. How about we look at context when you look at where my quote of comes from. I was responding to the post that this will affect people ranging from Warren Buffett to Mitt Romney. Don’t you perhaps think that the range falls quite a bit below the Mitt Romney level? Furthermore, how do you propose that I refer to the people that will be affected that can be written in a reasonably short-hand manner? \>$250,000/$200,000 or upper income earners or top 2% of earners all seem like reasonably simple ways to refer to them, which is what I have done. I see nothing misleading about referring to them in that manner. ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2012, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-so-bad-about-the-fiscal-cliff/642278/142 "2012-12-10T17:04:35Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Why would we want to hijack the thread for those interested in the topic? > > If your pleasure is to misrepresent and insult me, do so in the Pit. Alright, whatever. You’ve stated over and over how I have misrepresented you, but you refuse to say how. Now, you say I have insulted you. Considering the way you acted on the misrepresentation claim, I’m sure you won’t ever bother to say how I have insulted you either. I’ve actually gone through every comment that I made to you and see zero insults. I think you are acting like a victim here for some reason. I guess we’re done here. I don’t pit people, just like I don’t deliberately misrepresent or insult people. If you’re just going to shut-down and act like a victim then there’s nothing left to discuss. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2012, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-so-bad-about-the-fiscal-cliff/642278/143 "2012-12-10T19:19:58Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > Alright, whatever. You’ve stated over and over how I have misrepresented you, but you refuse to say how. Now, you say I have insulted you. Considering the way you acted on the misrepresentation claim, I’m sure you won’t ever bother to say how I have insulted you either. I’ve actually gone through every comment that I made to you and see zero insults. > > I think you are acting like a victim here for some reason. I guess we’re done here. I don’t pit people, just like I don’t deliberately misrepresent or insult people. If you’re just going to shut-down and act like a victim then there’s nothing left to discuss. I just checked the thread to see what all your fuss is about. Someone mentioned the Buffett Rule. I wrote “Warren Buffett (along with most of the very rich) really does pay a lower aggregate tax rate than the middle class.” That’s how all this started, believe it or not. A simple fact … a true and well-known fact. But then what happened to you? Names get attached to things. It’s Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, Gresham’s Law, etc. If it had been somebody named Pronghorn who had called attention to a tax code peculiarity we might be speaking of Pronghorn’s Rule, instead of Buffett’s Rule. Clear enough? But you posted over and over and over and over, declaiming me for focusing on a single man (despite that I’d written “along with most of the very rich”), while making error after error. You fell victim to the right-wingers who made up a lie about Buffett’s secretary’s salary. You show lack of any practical understanding of _marginal_ tax rates. You mention that Buffett has unrealized income as if that hurt rather than helped the case for his taxes being too low. But most of all you nattered on and on and on about a complete irrelevancy – your false claim that I was focused on Buffett specifically, despite that it’s just his name that got attached to the “Buffett Rule.” We’d have spoken of the Pronghorn Rule if that’s what it were called. I explained all this before, and you still post repeatedly, claiming you know better than I what my intent was in mentioning Buffett and his “Rule”. Now you poke me again for the same explanation. (I suggest trying Google Translate if you still can’t understand me.) I was tired of you hijacking the thread, so suggested you shut up or go to the Pit … But no … You need to poke again with “Alright, whatever. … I guess we’re done here. … If you’re just going to shut-down and act like a victim then there’s nothing left to discuss.” And what in tarnation does this have to do with OP? So Please just Stifle or take it to the Pit. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2012, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-so-bad-about-the-fiscal-cliff/642278/144 "2012-12-10T19:46:13Z")
Let me answer clearly why I felt insulted. In #108 **LonghornDave** wrote > [@LonghornDave](#): > > No, I think it came about because people like to throw out stupid talking points that they don’t understand. Since I was the one allegedly throwing out the talking point, can you see what I might felt insulted? (Yes, I understand you may obey forum rules by calling the point stupid rather than the pointer. :D) Your #79 was condescending. (I admit I eventually began addressing you condescendingly in turn.) But what is especially annoying is what I’ve mentioned 3 or 4 times now: > [@septimus](#): > > I explained all this before, and you still post repeatedly, claiming you know better than I what my intent was … Would you be insulted if I told you that I know better than you what your posts’ intents are? ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2012, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-so-bad-about-the-fiscal-cliff/642278/145 "2012-12-10T21:24:50Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > I just checked the thread to see what all your fuss is about. Someone mentioned the Buffett Rule. I wrote “Warren Buffett (along with most of the very rich) really does pay a lower aggregate tax rate than the middle class.” That’s how all this started, believe it or not. A simple fact … a true and well-known fact. But then what happened to you? I have searched and do not see any mention of Buffett before you bring him up. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think anyone mentioned the Buffett Rule or Warren Buffett until your post. Please show otherwise. I have stated multiple times now that my clear and simple reading was that you stated your Buffett line to counter what you thought was something misleading. Is that not correct? > [@septimus](#): > > Names get attached to things. It’s Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, Gresham’s Law, etc. If it had been somebody named Pronghorn who had called attention to a tax code peculiarity we might be speaking of Pronghorn’s Rule, instead of Buffett’s Rule. > Clear enough? I just simply don’t think this is the case. You’ve stated that it being Warren Buffett attached to the concept is irrelevant. I see it being of the utmost relevancy. We have the first or second wealthiest person in America saying he doesn’t pay enough taxes and that his secretary pays a higher rate. He is extraordinarily well known for his wealth. Could it have been someone else? Sure, but it would have to be someone else that would resonate with the American public such as Bill Gates; I don’t even think he would work with the American people as perfectly as Buffett does since his wealth is attached to a successful company while Buffett’s is more attached to his unique individual ability to make investments and speak about money, the economy, and investing in such simple but enlightening ways. > [@septimus](#): > > You fell victim to the right-wingers who made up a lie about Buffett’s secretary’s salary. You have shown absolutely zero evidence that she makes $60,000. Your only attempt was an article that states how she can’t possibly pay 35.8% if she only made $60,000. I mean here is the direct quote from your article. [QUOTE=Miller] Mr. Buffett also wrote that his secretary, who makes $60,000 a year, pays over 30 percent of her income in taxes. The Internal Revenue Service reports the average tax rate for someone making that amount is 11.6 percent. Even adding on payroll taxes, she isn’t paying anywhere near 30 percent. [/QUOTE] I understand that this was a source you looked up quickly, but I have now looked in an attempt to fight my own ignorance, and I see nothing that gives us a very good clue on how much she made. There certainly seems to be no way that she made only $60,000 and paid 35.8% in federal income taxes even if you add in payroll taxes even if you add in the employer paid portion of payroll taxes (which is really inappropriate unless adjustments are made). There are lots of different sources that guess at a higher income for the secretary: I seen guesses in The Atlantic, Forbes, WSJ, CNBC, and others and it looks like Forbes is the primary source that others quote. If it makes you feel better, I will say we don’t know how much she makes and that saying she makes $250,000 was completely wrong. My point though, still stands: Buffett and his secretary are not a great example to use to compare high earners to middle class earners. > [@septimus](#): > > You show lack of any practical understanding of marginal tax rates. No idea, where you think I have said anything incorrect about marginal rates versus effective rates. If it is because I am referring to people effected as the \>$250,000/$200,000 earners then how should I be referring to them? That’s what they are. > [@septimus](#): > > You mention that Buffett has unrealized income as if that hurt rather than helped the case for his taxes being too low. But I am not arguing that his tax rates aren’t too low. I am using his massive unrealized income to show that he is essentially outside the system and therefore not a good example to use of a person that will be effected by the proposed tax changes. I’ve stated this multiple times. > [@septimus](#): > > But most of all you nattered on and on and on about a complete irrelevancy – your false claim that I was focused on Buffett specifically, despite that it’s just his name that got attached to the “Buffett Rule.” We’d have spoken of the Pronghorn Rule if that’s what it were called. I’ve said it time and time again now. You seem to think I’m making an argument that I am not. I am saying that Buffett is not a good example to use. I am not saying you came up with Buffett all on your own. I know that you are referring to a well known talking point. I’ve said so multiple times. I am saying that your counter to someone else saying something misleading is also misleading. It’s really as simple as that. > [@septimus](#): > > I explained all this before, and you still post repeatedly, claiming you know better than I what my intent was in mentioning Buffett and his “Rule”. Now you poke me again for the same explanation. Here’s your chance to clear it up. Were you or were you not using this as a counter to what you believed to be misleading statistics from the prior poster? I think that was your intent. You have not ever said it wasn’t your intent. You just keep saying I am misrepresenting you. How exactly am I misrepresenting you? I really don’t understand why this is so difficult. What is the intent that you had that you think I am misrepresenting? ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2012, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-so-bad-about-the-fiscal-cliff/642278/146 "2012-12-10T21:58:17Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Let me answer clearly why I felt insulted. In #108 **LonghornDave** wrote > > Since I was the one allegedly throwing out the talking point, can you see what I might felt insulted? (Yes, I understand you may obey forum rules by calling the point stupid rather than the pointer. :D) I can understand why you felt that; however, I was honestly talking about politicians and media that use the talking point and not you. I was saying that the popularity of Buffett’s point is not as a result of some resonating truthfulness but instead because of its frequency as a talking point by politicians that were throwing out misleading stupid bullshit. > [@septimus](#): > > Your #79 was condescending. (I admit I eventually began addressing you condescendingly in turn.) I don’t think it was too condescending. I thought it was nicer in tone than your #74 post, which I don’t think was out of line either. I thought I was responding in a manner that would leave it unclear as to where I was coming from. > [@septimus](#): > > But what is especially annoying is what I’ve mentioned 3 or 4 times now: > > [Quote=septimus] > I explained all this before, and you still post repeatedly, claiming you know better than I what my intent was … Would you be insulted if I told you that I know better than you what your posts’ intents are? [/QUOTE] Sure, I guess I would be insulted. I just don’t think I am claiming to know your intents better than what you are. You made the statement in post #85 that I was misrepresenting you. You used big bold letters to tell me to re-read your original post and see what point you were really making. I think I then responded in post #93 in a pretty cordial way saying here is how I am interpreting you and why and asking you where I am off. You have never told me where I am off. You just keep telling me I am misrepresenting you. So, I think in summary I read your intent as follows. You think [spactransient@gmail.com](mailto:spactransient@gmail.com) used misleading statistics to show that the rich really do pay high taxes. You intended to correct him by saying that the popular Buffett statement of him paying a lower rate than his secretary isn’t just a statement but really is true. You mean for this to be an example of the rich in general, not just Buffett, paying too little compared to the middle class. I am wrong on this? If so, please correct me. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-so-bad-about-the-fiscal-cliff/642278.md?page=7)