Americans Favor "Buffett Rule" by 60% to 37%

[daveman]

LINK

Bloomberg News reporter Richard Rubin won’t be invited to any state-controlled-media dinner parties for a long time. Liberals are sure to be furious with him for committing an act of journalism.

As evidence, take his headline: “Buffet Rule or Not, Most Rich People Already Pay.” Here’s the first paragraph: “President Obama’s sales pitch for the so-called Buffett Rule is simple: It’s only fair that those who make more than $1 million a year should pay a higher tax rate than middle-class workers. Here’s what he tends not to mention: for the most part, they already do.”

For all the figures, look up the article, but here’s all you need to know. Warren Buffett’s tax situation is the exception, not the rule. Most rich people are paying a tax rate of almost 30 percent. That’s a lot higher rate than anybody else is paying.

Bloomberg: Buffett Rule or Not, Most Rich People Already Pay - Richard Rubin



_________________________

Obama's "Clas Warfare" Machine marches on.

Here is the entire article:

President Obama’s sales pitch for the so-called Buffett Rule is simple: It’s only fair that those who make more than $1 million a year should pay a higher tax rate than middle-class workers. Here’s what he tends not to mention: For the most part, they already do.

Latching onto Warren Buffett’s lament that the law allows him to pay a lower rate than his secretary, Obama is urging Congress to pass a bill that would require households with adjusted gross incomes exceeding $2 million a year to pay a minimum tax rate of 30 percent, beginning in 2013. Households with incomes from $1 million to $2 million would see their taxes increase on a sliding scale up to 30 percent.

Obama is making tax fairness a central campaign issue—no surprise, since it allows the president to continually remind voters that Mitt Romney, who opposes the Buffett Rule as a burden on business, is one of those rich guys who pays tax rates in the mid-teens despite making millions. “Right now, the share of our national income flowing to the top 1 percent has climbed to levels we haven’t seen since the 1920s,” Obama said on April 10 in a speech at Florida Atlantic University. “Those same people are also paying taxes at one of the lowest rates in 50 years.”

Yet Romney—and Buffett, for that matter—are the exception. According to government tax data, the median effective tax rate for the middle 20 percent of U.S. taxpayers is 13.3 percent, including income, payroll, and corporate taxes. The top 1 percent of taxpayers pay a median rate of 29.6 percent, according to the 2012 Economic Report of the President. Just one-tenth of these highest-income households have tax rates of 8.7 percent or less.

If the Buffett Rule—officially named the Paying a Fair Share Act of 2012—became law, the number of people required to pay substantially more in taxes would be relatively small. Of the 217,000 households that would be affected by the rule, 4,000 will have incomes exceeding $1 million and tax rates below 15 percent, according to estimates for 2015 by the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan research group. The average rate, including payroll tax, for the middle 20 percent of taxpayers will be 15.9 percent, the center projects.

Although investors including Buffett and Romney—who are now taxed no more than 15 percent on capital gains and dividends—would be “clobbered” by the Buffett Rule, says Tax Policy Center senior fellow Roberton Williams, the tax rate of top executives, movie stars, and pro athletes wouldn’t change as much because their pay is already taxed as ordinary income. High-income households with a mix of ordinary and capital income currently have rates from 15 percent to 30 percent. Their taxes would rise, though they already pay more than middle-class households.

Democrats say the law has another benefit: It would increase U.S. tax revenue by $47 billion over the next decade, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the nonpartisan scorekeeper for Congress. Of course, that assumes the bill can get through Congress—which it almost certainly can’t. A procedural vote is set for April 16 in the Senate, where Democrats likely won’t overcome Republican opposition. In the GOP-led House, it will never see daylight. Representative Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), chairman of the House Budget Committee, mocked the Buffett Rule as “budget pixie dust” that would pay for only 6 percent of Obama’s proposed deficit spending. Not that he’s arguing for a larger tax hike. Ryan and other Republicans want to close the country’s future fiscal gap with spending cuts alone.

The president may be just as happy to have an issue to campaign on as a law to sign. “It may be an uphill battle,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said this week. “But it’s not an impossible battle.” Either way, the bill named after a billionaire is helping Obama make himself out to be a champion of the little guy.

The bottom line: Among the superrich, Romney’s 13.9 percent tax bill is the exception, not the rule. The top 1 percent pay a median rate of 29.6 percent.

217,000 households would be effected. You really want to risk the entire election on that?

And how much revenue will be collected from those 217,000 households?

This is nothing but a sop to the class-war-fighting base. It won't have any practical effect.

But it sure has the base drooling over money they didn't earn.

 

[Dick Tuck]

LINK



Bloomberg: Buffett Rule or Not, Most Rich People Already Pay - Richard Rubin



_________________________

Obama's "Clas Warfare" Machine marches on.

Here is the entire article:

President Obama’s sales pitch for the so-called Buffett Rule is simple: It’s only fair that those who make more than $1 million a year should pay a higher tax rate than middle-class workers. Here’s what he tends not to mention: For the most part, they already do.

Latching onto Warren Buffett’s lament that the law allows him to pay a lower rate than his secretary, Obama is urging Congress to pass a bill that would require households with adjusted gross incomes exceeding $2 million a year to pay a minimum tax rate of 30 percent, beginning in 2013. Households with incomes from $1 million to $2 million would see their taxes increase on a sliding scale up to 30 percent.

Obama is making tax fairness a central campaign issue—no surprise, since it allows the president to continually remind voters that Mitt Romney, who opposes the Buffett Rule as a burden on business, is one of those rich guys who pays tax rates in the mid-teens despite making millions. “Right now, the share of our national income flowing to the top 1 percent has climbed to levels we haven’t seen since the 1920s,” Obama said on April 10 in a speech at Florida Atlantic University. “Those same people are also paying taxes at one of the lowest rates in 50 years.”

Yet Romney—and Buffett, for that matter—are the exception. According to government tax data, the median effective tax rate for the middle 20 percent of U.S. taxpayers is 13.3 percent, including income, payroll, and corporate taxes. The top 1 percent of taxpayers pay a median rate of 29.6 percent, according to the 2012 Economic Report of the President. Just one-tenth of these highest-income households have tax rates of 8.7 percent or less.

If the Buffett Rule—officially named the Paying a Fair Share Act of 2012—became law, the number of people required to pay substantially more in taxes would be relatively small. Of the 217,000 households that would be affected by the rule, 4,000 will have incomes exceeding $1 million and tax rates below 15 percent, according to estimates for 2015 by the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan research group. The average rate, including payroll tax, for the middle 20 percent of taxpayers will be 15.9 percent, the center projects.

Although investors including Buffett and Romney—who are now taxed no more than 15 percent on capital gains and dividends—would be “clobbered” by the Buffett Rule, says Tax Policy Center senior fellow Roberton Williams, the tax rate of top executives, movie stars, and pro athletes wouldn’t change as much because their pay is already taxed as ordinary income. High-income households with a mix of ordinary and capital income currently have rates from 15 percent to 30 percent. Their taxes would rise, though they already pay more than middle-class households.

Democrats say the law has another benefit: It would increase U.S. tax revenue by $47 billion over the next decade, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the nonpartisan scorekeeper for Congress. Of course, that assumes the bill can get through Congress—which it almost certainly can’t. A procedural vote is set for April 16 in the Senate, where Democrats likely won’t overcome Republican opposition. In the GOP-led House, it will never see daylight. Representative Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), chairman of the House Budget Committee, mocked the Buffett Rule as “budget pixie dust” that would pay for only 6 percent of Obama’s proposed deficit spending. Not that he’s arguing for a larger tax hike. Ryan and other Republicans want to close the country’s future fiscal gap with spending cuts alone.

The president may be just as happy to have an issue to campaign on as a law to sign. “It may be an uphill battle,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said this week. “But it’s not an impossible battle.” Either way, the bill named after a billionaire is helping Obama make himself out to be a champion of the little guy.

The bottom line: Among the superrich, Romney’s 13.9 percent tax bill is the exception, not the rule. The top 1 percent pay a median rate of 29.6 percent.

217,000 households would be effected. You really want to risk the entire election on that?

And how much revenue will be collected from those 217,000 households?

This is nothing but a sop to the class-war-fighting base. It won't have any practical effect.

But it sure has the base drooling over money they didn't earn.

The real class warfare is those who support those with more disposable income paying a lower tax rate than those with less disposable income. I'm amazed at how big a bunch of rubes the right wing is.

The fact remains that Mr. Etch-a-Sketch payed a lower tax rate than President Obama, in spite of Mittens having a much higher income. That is class warfare, and the poor and middle class are losing it.

 

[daveman]

"I will cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term"
Not he will try but he said he WOULD do it.
You are not interested in the truth when it comes to Obama. Quit Bull Shitting us. You do not hold him accountable for a damn thing.
The deficit is 1.2 fucking trillion dollars and you are worried about a measly 5 billion a year that the Buffett Rule will bring in instead of the 600 billion Obama promised to cut.
Do you realize how stupid that makes you look falling for this Buffett Rule farce?
600 billion versus 5 billion. Damn son, you need to start listening up and soon.

Its interesting...I was listening to a program on NPR a while ago, and they were talking about how when numbers get into the trillions people just can't register it anymore. Maybe thats why no one is understanding what you are saying...they just can't register the difference.

This is scary as hell:

US debt visualized: Stacked in 100 dollar bills @ 15 Trillion Dollars - Equal to US GDP 2011

 

[daveman]

Americans favor the Buffett Rule AFTER obama told them it was a gimmick that can't work. Americans believe that Warren Buffet wants to pay more taxes AFTER he's being sued by the government for NOT PAYING the taxes he already owed.

How stupid are Americans really? It deserves thought exploration.

Stupid enough to believe Obama's bullshit.

 

[daveman]

And how much revenue will be collected from those 217,000 households?

This is nothing but a sop to the class-war-fighting base. It won't have any practical effect.

But it sure has the base drooling over money they didn't earn.

The real class warfare is those who support those with more disposable income paying a lower tax rate than those with less disposable income. I'm amazed at how big a bunch of rubes the right wing is.

The fact remains that Mr. Etch-a-Sketch payed a lower tax rate than President Obama, in spite of Mittens having a much higher income. That is class warfare, and the poor and middle class are losing it.

You didn't answer the question:

How much revenue will be raised?

And thanks for proving me right: But it sure has the base drooling over money they didn't earn.

 

[Dick Tuck]

And how much revenue will be collected from those 217,000 households?

This is nothing but a sop to the class-war-fighting base. It won't have any practical effect.

But it sure has the base drooling over money they didn't earn.

The real class warfare is those who support those with more disposable income paying a lower tax rate than those with less disposable income. I'm amazed at how big a bunch of rubes the right wing is.

The fact remains that Mr. Etch-a-Sketch payed a lower tax rate than President Obama, in spite of Mittens having a much higher income. That is class warfare, and the poor and middle class are losing it.

You didn't answer the question:

How much revenue will be raised?

And thanks for proving me right: But it sure has the base drooling over money they didn't earn.

We'll see how much is raised when it makes more sense to reinvest in a business rather than buy a new mansion. Not that it's that important. It's still a question of simple fairness. What I do know is the greatest cause of our current deficits is due to Bush's tax cut on the wealthy, and financed through debt.

The fact remains that tax fairness is that those with greater discretionary income pay at a higher rate, not a lower rate than those with less discretionary income.

Do you dispute that premise?

 

[daveman]

The real class warfare is those who support those with more disposable income paying a lower tax rate than those with less disposable income. I'm amazed at how big a bunch of rubes the right wing is.

The fact remains that Mr. Etch-a-Sketch payed a lower tax rate than President Obama, in spite of Mittens having a much higher income. That is class warfare, and the poor and middle class are losing it.

You didn't answer the question:

How much revenue will be raised?

And thanks for proving me right: But it sure has the base drooling over money they didn't earn.

We'll see how much is raised when it makes more sense to reinvest in a business rather than buy a new mansion. Not that it's that important. It's still a question of simple fairness. What I do know is the greatest cause of our current deficits is due to Bush's tax cut on the wealthy, and financed through debt.

The fact remains that tax fairness is that those with greater discretionary income pay at a higher rate, not a lower rate than those with less discretionary income.

Do you dispute that premise?

Kindergartners and liberals whine about what's fair.

The simple fact is, you want what you haven't earned.

 

[The T]

You didn't answer the question:

How much revenue will be raised?

And thanks for proving me right: But it sure has the base drooling over money they didn't earn.

We'll see how much is raised when it makes more sense to reinvest in a business rather than buy a new mansion. Not that it's that important. It's still a question of simple fairness. What I do know is the greatest cause of our current deficits is due to Bush's tax cut on the wealthy, and financed through debt.

The fact remains that tax fairness is that those with greater discretionary income pay at a higher rate, not a lower rate than those with less discretionary income.

Do you dispute that premise?

Kindergartners and liberals whine about what's fair.

The simple fact is, you want what you haven't earned.

Fact.

 

[Dick Tuck]

You didn't answer the question:

How much revenue will be raised?

And thanks for proving me right: But it sure has the base drooling over money they didn't earn.

We'll see how much is raised when it makes more sense to reinvest in a business rather than buy a new mansion. Not that it's that important. It's still a question of simple fairness. What I do know is the greatest cause of our current deficits is due to Bush's tax cut on the wealthy, and financed through debt.

The fact remains that tax fairness is that those with greater discretionary income pay at a higher rate, not a lower rate than those with less discretionary income.

Do you dispute that premise?

Kindergartners and liberals whine about what's fair.

The simple fact is, you want what you haven't earned.

Sure. You want what you earned. But you have an obligation to your country to help finance it. Who's paying for your retirement? Who paid for your career?

I'm not whining. I'm just agreeing with what a majority of what real Americans believe. That is, that a person with more disposable income shouldn't be paying a lower tax rate than someone with less disposable income.

 

[Katzndogz]

We'll see how much is raised when it makes more sense to reinvest in a business rather than buy a new mansion. Not that it's that important. It's still a question of simple fairness. What I do know is the greatest cause of our current deficits is due to Bush's tax cut on the wealthy, and financed through debt.

The fact remains that tax fairness is that those with greater discretionary income pay at a higher rate, not a lower rate than those with less discretionary income.

Do you dispute that premise?

Kindergartners and liberals whine about what's fair.

The simple fact is, you want what you haven't earned.

Sure. You want what you earned. But you have an obligation to your country to help finance it. Who's paying for your retirement? Who paid for your career?

I'm not whining. I'm just agreeing with what a majority of what real Americans believe. That is, that a person with more disposable income shouldn't be paying a lower tax rate than someone with less disposable income.

They don't. Under the progressive income tax that we have, the more money someone earns the more taxes they pay. It's capital gains that is taxed at a much lower rate and done so deliberately to encourage investment. Raise capital gains taxes, discourage investment.

 

[Oldstyle]

According to a new Gallup poll released Friday, a majority of Americans support the proposed Buffett Rule, which would require individuals earning $1 million or more per year to pay at least 30 percent of their income in taxes.

Six in 10 Americans favor Congress' passing the so-called "Buffett Rule," which would mandate a minimum 30% tax rate for Americans with a household income of $1 million or more per year. Majorities of both Democrats and independents favor the policy, while a majority of Republicans oppose it.

Americans Favor

Here's another area where the GOP is out of touch with the average American.

Gee, what a surprise that those poll numbers break down along almost the same as the percentage of Americans who don't pay Federal income tax at all. So what you've illustrated so well, Goose...is that people are more than willing to have SOMEONE ELSE pay more in taxes. The reason that the 40% who are opposed to the "Buffett Rule...ARE opposed to it is that for the most part THEY are the ones who will pick up the tab.

This reminds me of a joke I heard recently:

Have you heard about the new "Obama Happy Meal" at McDonald's? You order anything you want off the menu and the guy behind you pays.

Great for you but not so great for the guy who gets stuck with the bill.

 

[The T]

We'll see how much is raised when it makes more sense to reinvest in a business rather than buy a new mansion. Not that it's that important. It's still a question of simple fairness. What I do know is the greatest cause of our current deficits is due to Bush's tax cut on the wealthy, and financed through debt.

The fact remains that tax fairness is that those with greater discretionary income pay at a higher rate, not a lower rate than those with less discretionary income.

Do you dispute that premise?

Kindergartners and liberals whine about what's fair.

The simple fact is, you want what you haven't earned.

Sure. You want what you earned. But you have an obligation to your country to help finance it. Who's paying for your retirement? Who paid for your career?

I'm not whining. I'm just agreeing with what a majority of what real Americans believe. That is, that a person with more disposable income shouldn't be paying a lower tax rate than someone with less disposable income.

Careful here...

 

[daveman]

We'll see how much is raised when it makes more sense to reinvest in a business rather than buy a new mansion. Not that it's that important. It's still a question of simple fairness. What I do know is the greatest cause of our current deficits is due to Bush's tax cut on the wealthy, and financed through debt.

The fact remains that tax fairness is that those with greater discretionary income pay at a higher rate, not a lower rate than those with less discretionary income.

Do you dispute that premise?

Kindergartners and liberals whine about what's fair.

The simple fact is, you want what you haven't earned.

Sure. You want what you earned. But you have an obligation to your country to help finance it.

What about those who pay no Federal income taxes? What about their obligation?

Who's paying for your retirement? Who paid for your career?

The American taxpayers. And I gave them good return on their investment. Thanks in part to my work, there are a lot of dead terrorists.

And contrary to what you've been told, that's a GOOD thing.

I'm not whining. I'm just agreeing with what a majority of what real Americans believe. That is, that a person with more disposable income shouldn't be paying a lower tax rate than someone with less disposable income.

"Real Americans"? Oh, so those who don't agree with your covetousness and avarice are not real Americans?

Cut spending. Now. That will raise far more money that soaking 277,000 households.

 

[daveman]

Kindergartners and liberals whine about what's fair.

The simple fact is, you want what you haven't earned.

Sure. You want what you earned. But you have an obligation to your country to help finance it. Who's paying for your retirement? Who paid for your career?

I'm not whining. I'm just agreeing with what a majority of what real Americans believe. That is, that a person with more disposable income shouldn't be paying a lower tax rate than someone with less disposable income.

They don't. Under the progressive income tax that we have, the more money someone earns the more taxes they pay. It's capital gains that is taxed at a much lower rate and done so deliberately to encourage investment. Raise capital gains taxes, discourage investment.

Liberals figuratively beat their dog then wonder why it runs away.

 

[The T]

Kindergartners and liberals whine about what's fair.

The simple fact is, you want what you haven't earned.

Sure. You want what you earned. But you have an obligation to your country to help finance it. Who's paying for your retirement? Who paid for your career?

The American taxpayers. And I gave them good return on their investment. Thanks in part to my work, there are a lot of dead terrorists.

And contrary to what you've been told, that's a GOOD thing.

I'm not whining. I'm just agreeing with what a majority of what real Americans believe. That is, that a person with more disposable income shouldn't be paying a lower tax rate than someone with less disposable income.

"Real Americans"? Oh, so those who don't agree with your covetousness and avarice are not real Americans?

Cut spending. Now. That will raise far more money that soaking 277,000 households.

And all could be PAID in full by Buffett himself, and yet remain a Billionaire.

~Go figure.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Kindergartners and liberals whine about what's fair.

The simple fact is, you want what you haven't earned.

Sure. You want what you earned. But you have an obligation to your country to help finance it. Who's paying for your retirement? Who paid for your career?

I'm not whining. I'm just agreeing with what a majority of what real Americans believe. That is, that a person with more disposable income shouldn't be paying a lower tax rate than someone with less disposable income.

They don't. Under the progressive income tax that we have, the more money someone earns the more taxes they pay. It's capital gains that is taxed at a much lower rate and done so deliberately to encourage investment. Raise capital gains taxes, discourage investment.

And they should revert back to higher long-term capitol gains rates, i.e. 50% of ordinary income. Interest and dividends should be taxed again at the normal rate. Don't even get into converting stock options into long-term gains, and use that as a dodge to paying fair taxes for bonuses.

 

[daveman]

Sure. You want what you earned. But you have an obligation to your country to help finance it. Who's paying for your retirement? Who paid for your career?

I'm not whining. I'm just agreeing with what a majority of what real Americans believe. That is, that a person with more disposable income shouldn't be paying a lower tax rate than someone with less disposable income.

They don't. Under the progressive income tax that we have, the more money someone earns the more taxes they pay. It's capital gains that is taxed at a much lower rate and done so deliberately to encourage investment. Raise capital gains taxes, discourage investment.

And they should revert back to higher long-term capitol gains rates, i.e. 50% of ordinary income. Interest and dividends should be taxed again at the normal rate. Don't even get into converting stock options into long-term gains, and use that as a dodge to paying fair taxes for bonuses.

You're not at all shy about your desire to utterly destroy the economy, are you?

 

[The T]

They don't. Under the progressive income tax that we have, the more money someone earns the more taxes they pay. It's capital gains that is taxed at a much lower rate and done so deliberately to encourage investment. Raise capital gains taxes, discourage investment.

And they should revert back to higher long-term capitol gains rates, i.e. 50% of ordinary income. Interest and dividends should be taxed again at the normal rate. Don't even get into converting stock options into long-term gains, and use that as a dodge to paying fair taxes for bonuses.

You're not at all shy about your desire to utterly destroy the economy, are you?

As long as he profits off the backs of others? Why should he care? It's government's responsibility in his mind to protect his leech mentality.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Sure. You want what you earned. But you have an obligation to your country to help finance it. Who's paying for your retirement? Who paid for your career?

The American taxpayers. And I gave them good return on their investment. Thanks in part to my work, there are a lot of dead terrorists.

And contrary to what you've been told, that's a GOOD thing.

I'm not whining. I'm just agreeing with what a majority of what real Americans believe. That is, that a person with more disposable income shouldn't be paying a lower tax rate than someone with less disposable income.

"Real Americans"? Oh, so those who don't agree with your covetousness and avarice are not real Americans?

Cut spending. Now. That will raise far more money that soaking 277,000 households.

And all could be PAID in full by Buffett himself, and yet remain a Billionaire.

~Go figure.

Most of his billions are committed to doing work for humanity. He made a profound statement on a Charlie Rose interview. Paraphrasing, "I want my kids to be able to do what they want, but don't want them to have enough to do nothing." How many Caddies did Warren buy for his wife?

 

[sealybobo]

According to a new Gallup poll released Friday, a majority of Americans support the proposed Buffett Rule, which would require individuals earning $1 million or more per year to pay at least 30 percent of their income in taxes.

Six in 10 Americans favor Congress' passing the so-called "Buffett Rule," which would mandate a minimum 30% tax rate for Americans with a household income of $1 million or more per year. Majorities of both Democrats and independents favor the policy, while a majority of Republicans oppose it.

Americans Favor

Here's another area where the GOP is out of touch with the average American.

Why are we even debating this then? Talk about a mandate. And how do Republicans think their position on this is going to win them votes?

Maybe they're going to steal this election like they did 2000 and 2004. I don't think it will be close enough for that to be possible.

Honestly, it doesn't even seem like Republicans expect to win. Its one of those Dole or McCain years.

And since we found tape of Reagan saying the exact same thing, please start referring to this as the Reagan Rule.