Obama intensifies push for ‘Buffett Rule’

[Suudy]

Uber-rightists at WaPo are calling out Obama and his Reagan exaggerations.

washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/president-obama-quoting-reagan-out-of-context/2012/04/11/gIQAaOsZBT_blog.html

This is a great article. And Obama’s selective quoting is monumentally disingenuous. More evidence that Obama is acting politically, rather than out of any honest concern for how the tax system is structured.

 

[Ridgerunner]

What? Maybe you are referring to 1988, when it was 28%. But for all the other years, it was from 69% to 38%, and it was 50% in 1982-1986, all higher than the current 35%. So it was higher under Reagan and I think we should compromise and return it to the Reagan levels of the mid-1980s.

About Buffett, he said:

But WHY do it if it isn’t a significant revenue raiser and if Obama himself thinks it will be harmful to the economy? Just to hit a rich guy in the mouth for being rich?

Personally, I don’t care whether rich people are rich or not. It doesn’t affect me. Why is the Reagan level or any other level important if it accomplishes no useful goal? Or is the goal really to just do something mean spirited because some people hate people who have more than they do?

Yes, yes, people talk about “fairness”. But by what yardstick do we measure “fairness”? I think it would be interesting to know what the true leftists think is “fair”, if they would tell the truth about it. Wonder where they really think “fairness” should end when it comes to confiscation.

 

[Jerry_Miah]

But WHY do it if it isn’t a significant revenue raiser and if Obama himself thinks it will be harmful to the economy? Just to hit a rich guy in the mouth for being rich?

Uh, no. Do it as the first step to returning the top marginal tax rate to the levels where they were for most of the 20th century, in order to get revenues back up, to help stop the harmful and counterproductive austerity measures.

 

[SamH]

Uh, no. Do it as the first step to returning the top marginal tax rate to the levels where they were for most of the 20th century, in order to get revenues back up, to help stop the harmful and counterproductive austerity measures.

Why not put the spending levels back to where they were for most of the 20th century to prevent austerity measures?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Uh, no. Do it as the first step to returning the top marginal tax rate to the levels where they were for most of the 20th century, in order to get revenues back up, to help stop the harmful and counterproductive austerity measures.

Which austerity measures are counterproductive? Please be specific.

You are surely aware that almost nobody actually paid those super-high rates of yore, aren’t you?

But getting back to the question I asked. How much do you think people with incomes over $200,000/year should pay in federal income taxes? How much do you think people with incomes at each level over that should pay? Now, keep in mind that most middling to high earners are paying almost 50% of their incomes to taxes in one form or another right now. Where would you go with it? 75%, 90%? Where?

And how do you want to adjust for inflation, if you do? Keeping in mind that one million dollars in 1900 = twenty million dollars today solely due to inflation, and that truly massive inflation is just over the horizon in this country due to overspending, do you want to let high earners off at all, even as the real purchasing power of their incomes decline, or do you want to keep the tax rates the same and get more and more of their purchasing power?

Not to seem difficult, but you do know, don’t you, that “transfer payments” (which most “austerity” measures are intended to reduce) come out of labor’s share of GDP, and always have ever since records have been kept (since 1929)?

Realizing, then, that increasing transfer payments (like Obamacare) reduces labor’s share of GDP almost dollar for dollar, do you still oppose transfer payments to the middle class like Cash for Clunkers and Obamacare?

Realizing further that during this administration, NO new programs for the disabled needy (the poorest of all) have been enacted or even proposed, do you still oppose any kind of austerity measures like, say, reducing transfer payments like social security and medicare benefits to the wealthy?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Which austerity measures are counterproductive? Please be specific.

You are surely aware that almost nobody actually paid those super-high rates of yore, aren’t you?

But getting back to the question I asked. How much do you think people with incomes over $200,000/year should pay in federal income taxes? How much do you think people with incomes at each level over that should pay? Now, keep in mind that most middling to high earners are paying almost 50% of their incomes to taxes in one form or another right now. Where would you go with it? 75%, 90%? Where?

And how do you want to adjust for inflation, if you do? Keeping in mind that one million dollars in 1900 = twenty million dollars today solely due to inflation, and that truly massive inflation is just over the horizon in this country due to overspending, do you want to let high earners off at all, even as the real purchasing power of their incomes decline, or do you want to keep the tax rates the same and get more and more of their purchasing power?

Not to seem difficult, but you do know, don’t you, that “transfer payments” (which most “austerity” measures are intended to reduce) come out of labor’s share of GDP, and always have ever since records have been kept (since 1929)?

Realizing, then, that increasing transfer payments (like Obamacare) reduces labor’s share of GDP almost dollar for dollar, do you still favor transfer payments to the middle class like Cash for Clunkers and Obamacare?

Realizing further that during this administration, NO new programs for the disabled needy (the poorest of all) have been enacted or even proposed, do you still oppose any kind of austerity measures like, say, reducing transfer payments like social security and medicare benefits to the wealthy?

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Which austerity measures are counterproductive? Please be specific.

You are surely aware that almost nobody actually paid those super-high rates of yore, aren’t you?

But getting back to the question I asked. How much do you think people with incomes over $200,000/year should pay in federal income taxes? How much do you think people with incomes at each level over that should pay? Now, keep in mind that most middling to high earners are paying almost 50% of their incomes to taxes in one form or another right now. Where would you go with it? 75%, 90%? Where?

And how do you want to adjust for inflation, if you do? Keeping in mind that one million dollars in 1900 = twenty million dollars today solely due to inflation, and that truly massive inflation is just over the horizon in this country due to overspending, do you want to let high earners off at all, even as the real purchasing power of their incomes decline, or do you want to keep the tax rates the same and get more and more of their purchasing power?

Not to seem difficult, but you do know, don’t you, that “transfer payments” (which most “austerity” measures are intended to reduce) come out of labor’s share of GDP, and always have ever since records have been kept (since 1929)?

Realizing, then, that increasing transfer payments (like Obamacare) reduces labor’s share of GDP almost dollar for dollar, do you still oppose transfer payments to the middle class like Cash for Clunkers and Obamacare?

Realizing further that during this administration, NO new programs for the disabled needy (the poorest of all) have been enacted or even proposed, do you still oppose any kind of austerity measures like, say, reducing transfer payments like social security and medicare benefits to the wealthy?

Why not put the spending levels back to where they were for most of the 20th century to prevent austerity measures?

Boys, boys, boys… What do I keep telling you? You’ll keep getting the “tax the rich” mantra, even though the math does not work out. Any 3rd grader should be able to tell you that.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Boys, boys, boys… What do I keep telling you? You’ll keep getting the “tax the rich” mantra, even though the math does not work out. Any 3rd grader should be able to tell you that.

Aw shucks, you’re right. Pointless animosity, not math, is the motivator.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Aw shucks, you’re right. Pointless animosity, not math, is the motivator.

As they say, the devil is in the details. Simply saying “taxing the wealthy” sounds good on paper (and in political rhetoric), but in reality, there are many variables to this analysis.

Oh and didn’t I hear that Buffet owes $1 Billion in taxes and is suing the IRS?

So much for wanting to pay more taxes.

 

[estesbob]

Uh, no. Do it as the first step to returning the top marginal tax rate to the levels where they were for most of the 20th century, in order to get revenues back up, to help stop the harmful and counterproductive austerity measures.

Are** effective **tax rate on the wealthy is in line with what it has been for most of the 20th century. Marginal rates are only half the equation. The top 1% pay 37% of all Federal Income tax, The top 25% of earner pay 87% of all Federal income taxes. 43% pay no income tax at all-in fact many of them get refunds even though they paid no money in at all. How such a tax system can be described as unfair to those on the lower end is beyond me.

The problem with our income tax system is not that rich dont pay their fair share-its that nearly half of earners pay nothing at all

 

[markomalley]

Are** effective **tax rate on the wealtyhy is in line with what it has been for most of the 20th century. Marginal rates are only half the equation. The top 1% pay 37% of all Federal Income tax, The top 25% of earner pay 87% of all Federal income taxes. 43% pay no income tax at all-in fact many of them get refunds even though they paid no money in at all. How such a tax system can be described as unfair to those on the lower end is beyond me.

The problem with our income tax system is not that rich dont pay their fair share-its that nearly half of earners pay nothing at all

I have always noted that it is far easier to espouse the virtue of liberality with other peoples’ money.

 

[markomalley]

As they say, the devil is in the details. Simply saying “taxing the wealthy” sounds good on paper (and in political rhetoric), but in reality, there are many variables to this analysis.

Oh and didn’t I hear that Buffet owes $1 Billion in taxes and is suing the IRS?

So much for wanting to pay more taxes.

Right here: businessweek.com/news/2011-11-21/buffett-s-netjets-sues-u-s-over-642-7-million-in-taxes.html

 

[estesbob]

I have always noted that it is far easier to espouse the virtue of liberality with other peoples’ money.

And as Margaret Thatcher pointed out the problem with that is sooner or later you run out of other peoples money.

 

[_Abyssinia]

How ‘Buffett Rule’ could still be escaped by highest-earning households

The highest-earning U.S. households have ways to escape President Barack Obama’s Buffett rule with tax-planning techniques that would limit their liability and undermine the proposal’s purpose.

Those affected taxpayers – the fewer than 0.5 percent of Americans with annual incomes exceeding $1 million and tax rates of less than 30 percent – could take advantage of tax-free investments such as municipal bonds to escape the Buffett rule’s bite. They also could time asset sales for maximum tax benefits, engage in transactions that don’t result in taxable income and make charitable contributions that yield deductions.

“Largely, the Buffett rule is going to be manageable,” said David Miller, a partner at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP in New York. “That is, with tax planning, people will be able to avoid it.”

The proposal would deny high-income taxpayers many deductions and other breaks they use to drive down their average tax rate without closing out the tactics employed by the wealthiest, most sophisticated taxpayers.

washingtonpost.com/business/how-buffett-rule-could-still-be-escaped-by-highest-earning-households/2012/04/13/gIQADsAwET_story.html

Why isn’t Barack Obama closing the loopholes that will allow people to get around the Buffet rule if he really cared about those earning $1 million or more to pay more tax? The Buffet rule is an election gimmick.

 

[rlg94086]

How ‘Buffett Rule’ could still be escaped by highest-earning households

washingtonpost.com/business/how-buffett-rule-could-still-be-escaped-by-highest-earning-households/2012/04/13/gIQADsAwET_story.html

Why isn’t Barack Obama closing the loopholes that will allow people to get around the Buffet rule if he really cared about those earning $1 million or more to pay more tax? The Buffet rule is an election gimmick.

Exactly. President Obama doesn’t really care about revenue or fairness. He just wants to look tough on the 1%, so he can win by using class warfare.

 

[Pork_Roll]

Exactly. President Obama doesn’t really care about revenue or fairness. He just wants to look tough on the 1%, so he can win by using class warfare.

The richest 0.1% are undertaxed relative to the rest of the top 1%. This is a fact because of capital gains 15% tax rate. The GOP are the ones who want to cut federal salaries because they are overpaid. How is that not class warfare? Or maybe the GOP wants incompetant regulators to allow big buisness to do as they wish.

I can’t complain and I’m only taxed at most 10% because of my deductions. What do I care that people who make more money pay more in taxes because they benefit the most from the system.

 

[rlg94086]

What do I care that people who make more money pay more in taxes because they benefit the most from the system.

They do pay more in taxes - much more. It’s a math thing though, so I realize many can’t figure it out.

 

[LisaA]

The richest 0.1% are undertaxed relative to the rest of the top 1%. This is a fact because of capital gains 15% tax rate. The GOP are the ones who want to cut federal salaries because they are overpaid. How is that not class warfare? Or maybe the GOP wants incompetant regulators to allow big buisness to do as they wish.

I can’t complain and I’m only taxed at most 10% because of my deductions. What do I care that people who make more money pay more in taxes because they benefit the most from the system.

Oh my goodness you have this totally bass ackwards! Those who pay the most in taxes benefit the LEAST from the system, particularly with respect to what they take from the system vis a vis what they give to the system. Something like 40% of Americans now get more than they give and at some point we’re either going to be like one of the PIGS (Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain) or hopefully someone with an understanding of economics will have the courage to stop the madness.

Also love that strawman. Heaven knows that federal workers are underpaid (NOT) and all are shining examples of humanity, slaving away for minimal salaries and benefits (NOT). But gee if we try to cut government spending that immediately unleashes the evil world of business to pollute, destroy, rape and pillage. Gosh I hope you rethink this argument.

There is nothing wrong with aspiring to have more, to make more money, to have a better life for your children. What IS wrong is wanting what someone else has. THAT is envy and it’s evil. Check the Bible. We heard this message long ago. I guess Barack’s form of Christianity didn’t get the memo

Lisa

 

[TEPO]

Obama has never been a leader. It’s no suprise that what he’s pushing for is known as the “Buffett Rule”.

 

[jilly4ski]

Are** effective **tax rate on the wealthy is in line with what it has been for most of the 20th century. Marginal rates are only half the equation. The top 1% pay 37% of all Federal Income tax, The top 25% of earner pay 87% of all Federal income taxes. 43% pay no income tax at all-in fact many of them get refunds even though they paid no money in at all. How such a tax system can be described as unfair to those on the lower end is beyond me.

The problem with our income tax system is not that rich dont pay their fair share-its that nearly half of earners pay nothing at all

Indeed, My family reported less than $20,000 in income for last year (no capital gains at all). Thus we paid no taxes (besides the required SS and medicare) into the system, but received a rebate of 5k! The first year this happened I went back and and checked the program I was using, because that didn’t seem right. I finally found the link that explained the EIC. We also got one from the state. I am having a hard time understanding how the tax system is unfair to me. The fact is that these class warfare battles will continue to keep my family (and others like it) down. My employer right now (a temp contractual job) pays really nicely, but you know what (Gasp) I am employed by a law firm who has been hired by a big bank. Yikes!! That is like a double wammy of evil rich “corporations” doing whatever they want (obviously the law firm is not a corporation, but still run by rich people ). Those who are highly educated, (potential middle class) but poor because they cannot find work, will not benefit from class warfare any better than the poor who are undereducated.