Obama intensifies push for ‘Buffett Rule’

[Jerry_Miah]

Thank you for injecting some logic into this thread.

The rich can certainly be generous and the poor can certianly be greedy. Simply white washing one group is a slippery slope.

I only brought that up because someone accused me and those of us calling for a sane tax structure “greedy”. I answered that if anybody is greedy in this situation, it’s not the poor or those of us trying for a rational tax structure, it’s the rich. But we should dispense with these accusations and just talk about basic fairness. There’s no logical reason for the rich to be paying the lowest tax rate in living memory, especially in these last ten years of deficits.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Seems to me the “Buffett Rule” is symbolic only. If it won’t raise significant revenue and especially if it alters investment patterns in a negative way, why do it?

Because it provides a sop to the envy of others. Not even a worthwhile sop, it appears. Nobody benefits from it other than psychologically; the sense of satisfaction that someone with more has been taken down a peg. And why would we be interested in seeing some rich person taken down a peg? (Though by altering his/her investment strategy, he might find a way around it anyway.)

Because when we envy, we sometimes let it descend to the level of hate. What is hate, after all? It’s desiring harm to another for the sake of harming him.

Seems pretty plain to me. This appeal to the “Buffett Rule” is mighty low on the motivation pole, morally.

 

[Jerry_Miah]

Seems to me the “Buffett Rule” is symbolic only.

Symbols are important. It could begin the national debate on changing the top tax rate, which is so historically low right now. Under Reagan it was 50% most of his term, but Romney only paid 14% last year.

 

[Orogeny]

But we should dispense with these accusations and just talk about basic fairness. There’s no logical reason for the rich to be paying the lowest tax rate in living memory, especially in these last ten years of deficits.

The question has been asked by others and not answered, so I will ask again. What percentage is fair? Is it ever fair if someone has more than anyone else? What is your solution?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

There’s no logical reason for the rich to be paying the lowest tax rate in living memory, especially in these last ten years of deficits.

What percentage of income from the rich can we take to erase those deficits?

Peace

Tim

 

[Jerry_Miah]

The question has been asked by others and not answered, so I will ask again. What percentage is fair? Is it ever fair if someone has more than anyone else? What is your solution?

Peace

Tim

Yes, it is fair if someone has more than someone else.

Maybe you missed my previous answer. I have suggested that the top tax rate during most of Reagan’s presidency would be a good, compromise solution that most Conservatives should support since Reagan is so popular among them. During most of his presidency, the top tax rate was 50%.

By the way, according to this study, even if we cut and eliminated most of the Federal budget on social services and eliminated entire agencies of the government, we would still have a $200 Billion deficit. In other words, the Austerity Measures are just not going to work.

The study proposed that the only actual way to solve the debt crisis was cutting funding for Iraq and Afghanistan wars, eliminating the Bush tax cuts, creating a financial transaction tax, taxing capital gains as ordinary income, restoring the estate tax of $3.5 million, increasing employment to increase tax revenue, closing corporate tax loopholes, raising taxes on the upper 1 percent.

Peace

 

[revert_jen]

Symbols are important. It could begin the national debate on changing the top tax rate, which is so historically low right now. Under Reagan it was 50% most of his term, but Romney only paid 14% last year.

There has always been a discrepancy between the tax rate and the amount any individual rich person pays. Your statement above is about the most classic example of comparing apples and oranges. If you want to talk about 50% vs. 35% (the current rate), that is OK, although given many changes to tax laws since then, that is still comparing Granny Smiths and Red Delicious, because the tax rate only applies to taxable income, and different tax laws can cause people to have different taxable income amounts with the same income.

In addition, if you look at the income levels that the highest levels are charged at, the nominal numbers are about the same. In 1986, for example, a married couple filing jointly paid 50% tax on taxable income over $358,782. In 2011, a married couple filing jointly pay the top rate of 35% on taxable income over $379,150. According to the government’s CPI calculator, $358,782 in 1986 was worth $979,418 in 2011. Merely raising the current 35% tax rate to 50% would hardly bring things back to the way they were.

OTOH, If you can find out how much tax Romney paid in the 80s and want to compare that to 14%, that is OK. Comparing the tax rate under Reagan to the percentage of tax actually paid by Romney is just misleading.

And that isn’t even addressing the issue of the completely unnamed criteria you use to determine what tax rate is more “rational,” “fair,” and “logical.” You just keep asserting that your position is more rational, fair and logical, without saying why or how. Maybe you’re right, but you sure haven’t proved it, and it’s not rational to expect us to just take your word for it.

–Jen

 

[Ridgerunner]

Yes, it is fair if someone has more than someone else.

Maybe you missed my previous answer. I have suggested that the top tax rate during most of Reagan’s presidency would be a good, compromise solution that most Conservatives should support since Reagan is so popular among them. During most of his presidency, the top tax rate was 50%.

By the way, according to this study, even if we cut and eliminated most of the Federal budget on social services and eliminated entire agencies of the government, we would still have a $200 Billion deficit. In other words, the Austerity Measures are just not going to work.

The study proposed that the only actual way to solve the debt crisis was cutting funding for Iraq and Afghanistan wars, eliminating the Bush tax cuts, creating a financial transaction tax, taxing capital gains as ordinary income, restoring the estate tax of $3.5 million, increasing employment to increase tax revenue, closing corporate tax loopholes, raising taxes on the upper 1 percent.

Peace

This does not automatically persuade. During the Bush years, the deficit increased significantly with the wars, but then started shrinking until 2008. We had all of those programs (not Obamacare, of course) plus two wars going full bore, and the annual deficit was around $163 billion, less than what your source says it would be with no wars and getting rid of all social programs. And that was with a Democrat Congress that spent what it wanted to spend.

I’m not saying a $163 billion deficit is a good thing. But something is wrong with an analysis that says if we cut out the wars, increased taxes quite significantly and reduced social programs to the near vanishing point, then, and only then, we would have a deficit of $200 billion, and that only truly massive tax increases, with even greater taxes than during the Clinton years, would prevent that.

yes, I am aware that you can count deficits differently, particularly if you make certain assuptions about Social Security and Medicare and project them out at current unemployment and birth rates.

Also, of course, some assumptions about Obamacare could make it a budget breaker of enormous proportions, all by itself.

 

[CatholicGOPer]

Its all Obama’s class warfare

 

[Orogeny]

Yes, it is fair if someone has more than someone else.

Maybe you missed my previous answer. I have suggested that the top tax rate during most of Reagan’s presidency would be a good, compromise solution that most Conservatives should support since Reagan is so popular among them. During most of his presidency, the top tax rate was 50%.

What do you expect will happen if you raise the top tax rate to 50%? Will the deficit go away?

By the way, according to this study, even if we cut and eliminated most of the Federal budget on social services and eliminated entire agencies of the government, we would still have a $200 Billion deficit. In other words, the Austerity Measures are just not going to work.
The study proposed that the only actual way to solve the debt crisis was cutting funding for Iraq and Afghanistan wars, eliminating the Bush tax cuts, creating a financial transaction tax, taxing capital gains as ordinary income, restoring the estate tax of $3.5 million, increasing employment to increase tax revenue, closing corporate tax loopholes, raising taxes on the upper 1 percent.

Peace

That’s not a study, that’s a union political piece by a union leader whose job is to protect unionized government jobs!!!

If that is the ONLY way to do it, why isn’t the President proposing such measures?

Peace

Tim

 

[Ridgerunner]

Symbols are important. It could begin the national debate on changing the top tax rate, which is so historically low right now. Under Reagan it was 50% most of his term, but Romney only paid 14% last year.

Yes, symbols are important, but no one can seriously believe engaging the seemingly economically purposeless “Buffett rule” is the appropriate way of doing it.

The tax code is chock full of deductions, exclusions and exceptions, all of which, at the time of adoption, were intended to serve some economic purpose. There are likewise many, many subsidies that ought to be looked at. Likely, much of that should be re-examined. But to ignore the possibilities for real analysis and perhaps reform in favor of a “Let’s hit the rich guys. Won’t do us any good, but it will feel good” approach is the wrong kind of symbolism. It’s just an appeal to some of the worst human motivations. In no way is it a serious beginning of a serious national debate on tax policies.

 

[estesbob]

Yes, symbols are important, but no one can seriously believe engaging the seemingly economically purposeless “Buffett rule” is the appropriate way of doing it.

The tax code is chock full of deductions, exclusions and exceptions, all of which, at the time of adoption, were intended to serve some economic purpose. There are likewise many, many subsidies that ought to be looked at. Likely, much of that should be re-examined. But to ignore the possibilities for real analysis and perhaps reform in favor of a “Let’s hit the rich guys. Won’t do us any good, but it will feel good” approach is the wrong kind of symbolism. It’s just an appeal to some of the worst human motivations. In no way is it a serious beginning of a serious national debate on tax policies.

Looks like Obama is proposing a new improved AMT. like the AMT his will start out targeting millionaires end end up quickly filtering down to the upper middle class.

 

[Roselle]

The Buffet rule is not intended to bring in more money for government. All it is about is class warfare and the politics of envy. We even had a recent example to see on this. The UK tried a rule similar to what is being proposed here in the US. The result was less revenue came into government. Obama knows this. His administration even said so recently.

“Obama administration: Buffett Rule never intended as a way to reduce the deficit”

michellemalkin.com/2012/04/10/obama-administration-buffett-rule/

The similar Buffet rule with the idea of class warfare in the UK did not work for Prime Minister Gordon Brown. He lost after the rule was past. Surprisingly the Buffet Rule looks to be a central idea for Obama’s re-election campaign. I wouldn’t be surprised if a similar result occurred.

 

[Jerry_Miah]

The Buffet rule is not intended to bring in more money for government. All it is about is class warfare and the politics of envy. We even had a recent example to see on this. The UK tried a rule similar to what is being proposed here in the US. The result was less revenue came into government. Obama knows this. His administration even said so recently.

“Obama administration: Buffett Rule never intended as a way to reduce the deficit”

michellemalkin.com/2012/04/10/obama-administration-buffett-rule/

The similar Buffet rule with the idea of class warfare in the UK did not work for Prime Minister Gordon Brown. He lost after the rule was past. Surprisingly the Buffet Rule looks to be a central idea for Obama’s re-election campaign. I wouldn’t be surprised if a similar result occurred.

How is returning the tax code to Reagan levels “class warfare”?

You will do much better in life if you avoid Michele Malkin’s parade of hate and deception.

 

[rlg94086]

How is returning the tax code to Reagan levels “class warfare”?

You will do much better in life if you avoid Michele Malkin’s parade of hate and deception.

If you return the tax code to “Reagan levels,” the top 1% will pay much less of the tax burden than they do now. Also, the lowest tax rates would be increased, and many who pay no taxes now…or actually receive an EITC…would be paying taxes.

Is that what you are looking for?

 

[Jerry_Miah]

If you return the tax code to “Reagan levels,” the top 1% will pay much less of the tax burden than they do now. Also, the lowest tax rates would be increased, and many who pay no taxes now…or actually receive an EITC…would be paying taxes.

Is that what you are looking for?

What are you talking about? Top marginal rate under Reagan was 50% for most of this term. It is now 35%. Of course, many of the extremely wealthy find ways to pay even less.

 

[rlg94086]

What are you talking about? Top marginal rate under Reagan was 50% for most of this term. It is now 35%

You obviously don’t understand how the tax code works. Also, you may have difficulty reading charts:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9166504&postcount=17

 

[Jeanne_S]

Its all Obama’s class warfare

What else is he going to run on?Class envy is the ace card for the left…

 

[Jerry_Miah]

You obviously don’t understand how the tax code works. Also, you may have difficulty reading charts:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9166504&postcount=17

I will ignore the insult and say only that seem to want to distract from the basic fact of the top marginal tax rate. Your chart about the “tax burden” is pure distraction and you might want to learn more about their ties to the scandalous ALEC, which Bill Gates recently pulled out of, before touting their spin again.

I focus on the top marginal tax rate because it is basic stuff, as in the tax break that Bush gave to the rich when he lowered it and that has been continued every year by Obama.

 

[rlg94086]

I focus on the top marginal tax rate because it is basic stuff, as in the tax break that Bush gave to the rich when he lowered it and that has been continued every year by Obama.

Again, I’m okay with reversing all the Bush tax cuts, across the board. Are you? The top 1%'s portion of the tax burden would decrease. Is that what you are looking for?