Obama to propose a “Buffett tax” while pushing jobs plan

posted at 12:00 pm on September 18, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Talk about your mixed messages!  While Barack Obama goes on the campaign trail trying desperately to drum up support for a jobs plan that will cost $450 billion, the President will also deliver at the same time his plan to reduce the spiraling federal deficit and slow the runaway growth of the national debt.  And while claiming that he’s not engaging in class warfare, Obama wants to target a new tax at one segment of society in order to protect and amplify his redistributionist policies.  Care to guess what that segment of society is?

President Barack Obama, in a populist step designed to appeal to voters, will propose a “Buffett Tax” on people making more than $1 million a year as part of his deficit recommendations to Congress on Monday.

Such a proposal, among suggestions to a congressional supercommittee expected to seek up to $3 trillion in deficit savings over 10 years, would appeal to his Democratic base ahead of the 2012 election but likely not raise much in revenues.

White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said in a tweet on Saturday the tax would act as “a kind of AMT” (Alternative Minimum Tax) aimed at ensuring millionaires pay at least as much tax as middle-class families.

The “Buffett Tax” refers to billionaire U.S. investor Warren Buffett, who wrote earlier this year that rich people like him often pay less in tax than those who work for them due to loopholes in the tax code, and can afford to pay more.

The AMT?  Say, isn’t that the “millionaire’s tax” that Congress passed decades ago that now has to be “patched” each year so as not to hammer middle-class families?  What a great model to use for the new “millionaire’s tax”!  And inevitably, it won’t generate “much in revenues,” which I’ll explain in a moment.

Besides, if Warren Buffett wants to pay taxes, he can start with the billion dollars his company already owes the federal government.

Let’s take a year-long look at the tax policy of this administration.  Before the midterm elections, Obama and Democrats refused to produce a budget because in doing so, they would have had to address the expiring Bush-era income tax rates.  In the lame-duck session immediately afterward, Democrats pressed to let the Bush tax rates expire, which would have created the biggest tax increase in history, or at least the top rates that would have hiked taxes on anyone earning $250,000 a year or more.  By December, Obama agreed to keep the rates as they are for the next two years — in order to get the economy going and job creation restarted.

Yet Obama immediately denounced his own plan and insisted that he would fight to raise those same rates in 2013, effectively killing any stimulating effect the deal might have had.  (Maintaining status quo was less about stimulation and more about avoiding damage, of course.)  Now, just as Obama wants to promote a jobs bill that contains a half-priced rehash of the Porkulus failure of 2009, he announces that he wants to seize more capital from the very people who we need to put capital into private-sector investments to create jobs.   This is especially true of this so-called Buffett Tax, which targets the very income derived from capital risk:

The Buffett Tax could help energize Obama’s base by highlighting a feature of the U.S. tax code that allows the super rich to pay lower rates of tax than less wealthy Americans because the bulk of their income is capital gains, dividends and the ‘carried interest’ earnings of hedge fund managers.

What happens when the cost of risk equals the cost of relatively risk-free income?  People stop taking risks and shelter their capital.  When capital stops being risked in new ventures, economic growth slows and stops, jobs either never get created or start disappearing, and we get stagnation or recession.  That capital doesn’t sit on the sidelines forever, either; eventually capital moves to other markets, which means that even when conditions improve, we won’t see that capital return to our markets.  On top of that, the vacillation on tax policy and hostility towards capital holders amplifies the incentives to move capital out of the US.

That’s why the “new AMT” won’t end up generating anywhere near what the Obama administration will claim.  It’s a nakedly political act designed to bolster Obama’s class-warfare demagoguery and credentials, and it’s a policy that will inevitably lead to a deeper economic crisis in the US.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

How about proposing a rich douchebag tax instead.

singlemalt 18 on September 18, 2011 at 12:06 PM

President Barack Obama, in a populist step designed to appeal to voters, will propose a “Buffett Tax” on people making more than $1 million a year….

The writer/performer of “Margaritaville” could not be reached for comment….

apostic on September 18, 2011 at 12:07 PM

FDR wanted to tax %100 of income over $25,000 (~$200,00 or so in today’s dollars).
Congress balked at that. I believe they agreed upon like 79%.
Dragged out the Great Depression to dizzying heights.
Oh this is gonna be a great idea!

Badger40 on September 18, 2011 at 12:09 PM

Yet Maureen Dowd writes a column claiming that Rick Perry is dumb???

gophergirl on September 18, 2011 at 12:10 PM

0bama is a Lame Duck, the House isn’t going to pay any attention to whatever crackpot plan he comes up with, ditto the Senate.

And that includes most of the democrats in those bodies. Legislatively, he is irrelevant. Only through executive orders can he influence anything – watch him start issuing those like the Bernanke prints money.

Rebar on September 18, 2011 at 12:11 PM

I say after watching the dems with solyndra and other companies pick “Winners and Losers” that we conservatives call their bluff here.

Let us pick winners and losers. If the democrats hate “Millionares and Billionares” I can think of a few that deserve to have their taxes raises.

Conservatives should call on atax increase for entertainment. Lets raise taxes on Hollywood, Professional Sports, The Rap industry, Green Industry ,ect….

All of those industries have rich people and low job creation rates. Lets fund the democrat’s programs with the democrats backers.

William Amos on September 18, 2011 at 12:11 PM

Eliminate loopholes—Vote Obama out of office!

Rovin on September 18, 2011 at 12:12 PM

Thank God ObaMao is incompetent. Otherwise we couldn’t last against his policy of destroying America.

Slowburn on September 18, 2011 at 12:13 PM

That’s why the “new AMT” won’t end up generating anywhere near what the Obama administration will claim.

Since when has that been important to Obama. It’s “fairness” that’s important. Actual revenues in real terms have never been a high priority.

Beyond that, any revenue claim at this point is not knowable since there has been no rate attached to Obama’s plan. That’s a detail left to others. So far, it’s simply magical.

SlaveDog on September 18, 2011 at 12:16 PM

Stand strong GOP

Do not cave to this boondoggle

It’s only a campaign ploy, nothing else

cmsinaz on September 18, 2011 at 12:16 PM

I say after watching the dems with solyndra and other companies pick “Winners and Losers” that we conservatives call their bluff here.

******

William Amos on September 18, 2011 at 12:11 PM

Mostly, they’re picking losers.

SlaveDog on September 18, 2011 at 12:18 PM

I think the only fair tax is a liberal tax. If you vote for a democrat you pay higher taxes. Those who want more from their govt should be force to pay more.

clement on September 18, 2011 at 12:18 PM

My first blush with the headline made me believe that PBHO was targeting the Fatty Butterpants who crowd the line at all-you-can-eat restaurants.

Then I saw the extra “T” at the end of the word and realized that PBHO really is trying to destroy the nation before he is kicked from office.

Bishop on September 18, 2011 at 12:19 PM

People in this country just don’t understand that when the rich get richer, so do they. Investors do not pick pockets, they help to lift all boats. Yes, it is true that the rich get richer faster than the rest of us, but we all still gain by it.

MJBrutus on September 18, 2011 at 12:19 PM

Wow! Another “NEW” idea from The One! President One-Trick Pony would do the country a great favor if he’d only announce that he won’t seek a second term.

GarandFan on September 18, 2011 at 12:20 PM

I agree with Instapundit on this. The GOP should give Obama what he’s looking for. Obama wants to raise taxes and his supporters in Hollywood support him, we should impose a $3 tax on all ticket sales, a 10% tax on all movies made here in America, and a$2 tax on all DVD rentals and sales.

We also need to impose a 15% tax on all windfarms, sale of solar panels, electric cars, and a special tax of 24% on Prius just because they are ugly.

Cable news pundits loooove to promote the evil greediness of evil Republicans. Well, I think we need a 20% tax on cable companies. I’m sure they won’t mind. After all, they are the enlightened ones who care about the poor.

Shared sacrifice is shared sacrifice.

ramrants on September 18, 2011 at 12:21 PM

As long as the GOP realizes that from here on out, Obama’s proposals are for survival of his presidency and not the good of the country, we’ll all be better off..thank God they took control of the House last cycle.

Static21 on September 18, 2011 at 12:22 PM

If figures that this goofy old dolt gravitated to Obama and his band of merry Marxists.

rplat on September 18, 2011 at 12:22 PM

Mostly, they’re picking losers.

SlaveDog on September 18, 2011 at 12:18 PM

They taxpayers are the losers not the people they pick to win.

William Amos on September 18, 2011 at 12:23 PM

He doesn’t care if the new tax passes or not, he just wants to be able to campaign that is is for it and evil Rs are against it. Optics and slogans that is all he cares about. Solutions, they are overrated./

txmomof6 on September 18, 2011 at 12:24 PM

John Pinette Hardest Hit.

(Language warning)

LegendHasIt on September 18, 2011 at 12:25 PM

Retroactively tax all millionaires and especially billionaires at the new higher rates, in fact since those people have more money than is “fair”, really give them the hammer.

Buffet has $5 billion in the bank, well he gets hit with a 70% tax retroactively on all that money. That leaves the man $1.5 billion, surely he can survive on that and certainly there will no caterwauling from the man.

Bishop on September 18, 2011 at 12:25 PM

BTW it is easy to understand what Buffet is doing when he talks about “We need to tax millionares more”.

Thats typical olygarchial thinking. You want to prevent competition to yourself so you limit the feild from being a threat. What Buffet is saying is we dont need any more NEW millionares as he already got his millions.

William Amos on September 18, 2011 at 12:26 PM

Taxes are a dead end to wealth.

Once money goes from being capital to the gubment coffers it is no longer capital it is just squandered and then dies in one cycle.

Left to it’s owners it stays in the economy being judiciously used over and over again.

The government will use it to build something that will continue to drain the econom,y be it a road or some bullsh!t program.

esnap on September 18, 2011 at 12:26 PM

Shared sacrifice is shared sacrifice.

You’re making no sense- taxing millionaires will already have a massive impact on Hollywood. You see, Hollywood generates an incredible amount of wealth and has created thousands of millionaires. The same applies to hi tech growth companies, another sector dominated by progressives. In fact, this party of the economy continues to create millionaires at an astounding rate.

People in this country just don’t understand that when the rich get richer, so do they.

That trend ended about a decade ago. The numbers on upper vs middle class income growth disparity are widely available.

bayam on September 18, 2011 at 12:29 PM

Tell Warren Buffett STFU and make a payment at this location: https://www.pay.gov/paygov/forms/formInstance.html?agencyFormId=23779454

Go ahead, Warren, there is nothing stopping you…

patch on September 18, 2011 at 12:29 PM

Wasn’t it last month that Sarah Palin and half of Hot Air celebrated how we “CHANGED THE DEBATE”?

I wonder how long it will be until they figure out that this isn’t the first multi-trillion dollar tax increase Republicans agreed to…

elfman on September 18, 2011 at 12:29 PM

The good news is: Obama only wants to tax the rich. The bad news is: Obama defines the rich as anyone not working for a union or the government who makes more than minimum wage.

Tommy_G on September 18, 2011 at 12:31 PM

Of course when the libs calculate Buffett’s tax rate, they somehow don’t include the $1.4B that he paid in taxes since he owns 25% of Berkshire Hathaway (they paid $5.6B in taxes in 2010). And then there’s all the other stock holding he owns. Afterall, if BH hadn’t paid that tax, WB would have received another $1.4B.

So here’s my tax reform idea:
1. Corporate Tax Rate – 0%
2. Dividends and Cap Gains – count as ordinary income.

Now let’s hear Warren howl. Those two simple proposals would do wonders:
1. It gets the govt out of the business of influencing behavior via the tax code.
2. Corporations will keep more income rather than distributing it, thus growing business.
3. Gets rid of all corporate tax loopholes.

happi on September 18, 2011 at 12:32 PM

…. Fatty Butterpants who crowd the line at all-you-can-eat restaurants…….
Bishop on September 18, 2011 at 12:19 PM

Speaking of Michelle 0bama… I was kind of surprised that her food nazi program is something more than hypocritical ‘busybodyness’.

She is partnered with Muslim Brotherhood
front groups with it

LegendHasIt on September 18, 2011 at 12:32 PM

But Buffett is challenging the billion dollar tax assessment the IRS laid on Berkshire Hathaway?

Write a check, Warren.

Wethal on September 18, 2011 at 12:32 PM

The GOP will betray you

They raised the debt ceiling right? :)

True_King on September 18, 2011 at 12:32 PM

That trend ended about a decade ago. The numbers on upper vs middle class income growth disparity are widely available.

bayam on September 18, 2011 at 12:29 PM

So when the rich get poorer, the middle-class will magically get richer?

BTW, since it’s a Buffett Tax, does that mean I don’t actually have to pay it? After all, What Would Warren Do?

Good Solid B-Plus on September 18, 2011 at 12:32 PM

Will the Buffett Tax also include ten years grace in actually making the payment?

slickwillie2001 on September 18, 2011 at 12:32 PM

How about a Matt Damon rule:

Tax Hollywood.

Key West Reader on September 18, 2011 at 12:34 PM

BTW, since it’s a Buffett Tax, does that mean I don’t actually have to pay it? After all, What Would Warren Do?

Good Solid B-Plus on September 18, 2011 at 12:32 PM

I wonder how Jimmy Buffett will feel about having his name used in vain. Earth to Obama: Call it the Warren Buffett tax or be sued.

Key West Reader on September 18, 2011 at 12:35 PM

Reading the piece I thought that surely, Mr. Morrissey would be linking to Thomas Sowell over at National Review where he writes that “you can’t tax the rich” because they will move your money our of reach, and he cites historical accounts to demonstrate.

Skandia Recluse on September 18, 2011 at 12:35 PM

It’s only a campaign ploy, nothing else

cmsinaz on September 18, 2011 at 12:16 PM

Easily countered as well. “What do you want, America? A tax on the rich so “they get theirs? Or keeping their taxes low enough so they an give you that job that YOU need? At the end of the day, millionaires and billionaires would be hassled…… But did you get that job they would have offered if not for the tax increase?”

Roll out the ads.

ThePrez on September 18, 2011 at 12:35 PM

John Pinette Hardest Hit.

(Language warning)

LegendHasIt on September 18, 2011 at 12:25 PM

You go now.

slickwillie2001 on September 18, 2011 at 12:37 PM

Editor needed stat

your money our of reach

…their money out of reach…

sloppy proof reading and editing destroys yet another good point..
sigh..

Skandia Recluse on September 18, 2011 at 12:40 PM

Most people will read this and go.. a Buffet tax? They are going to tax my all you can eat resturants!!!

upinak on September 18, 2011 at 12:42 PM

What happens when the cost of risk equals the cost of relatively risk-free income? People stop taking risks and shelter their capital. When capital stops being risked in new ventures, economic growth slows and stops, jobs either never get created or start disappearing, and we get stagnation or recession. That capital doesn’t sit on the sidelines forever, either; eventually capital moves to other markets, which means that even when conditions improve, we won’t see that capital return to our markets.

The “risk-free” rate, in the short term is close to zero. Investor capital can seek returns in other markets but US citizens owe the IRS tax on income regardless of where it is generated.

In the current market investors are less concerned with tax on profits than on loss of principle that is pursuing a stagnant consumer market.

dedalus on September 18, 2011 at 12:43 PM

How about a Buffet Tax? Michael Moore can pay his fair share!

JammieWearingFool on September 18, 2011 at 12:46 PM

First the Easy-Bake oven fiasco and now a buffett tax! Why don’t they just weigh you and tax you after the buffett?

bloggless on September 18, 2011 at 12:47 PM

How about a Buffet Tax? Michael Moore can pay his fair share!

JammieWearingFool on September 18, 2011 at 12:46 PM

it would probably be about the tonage. Michael wouldn’t be able to afford a salad.

upinak on September 18, 2011 at 12:49 PM

Besides, if Warren Buffett wants to pay taxes, he can start with the billion dollars his company already owes the federal government.

There isn’t really anything more to say about this gimmick, is there? I sure hope the GOP pounds this hard. In fact, it should be their only comment on it.

Rational Thought on September 18, 2011 at 12:51 PM

Tell me again: why do Mr. Buffet owe about one billion in back taxes? How many Tax Lawyers does he employ? Why does he not pay more in taxes when he can just send a check to IRS?
This “taxing millionaires and billionaires” B.S. is getting old.

gullxn on September 18, 2011 at 12:52 PM

We’re deep in the hole, and BO do is playing the class warfare card again, and in the process proposing a tax that will discourage economic growth. It will not produce the tax revenues he promises, these tax increases never produce the projected revenue, because those who would be subject to the taxes will shelter their money from them, and because they inevitably slow economic growth, which reduces tax revenue.

One of the most obvious and despicable characteristics of BO’s presidency is his repeated vilification for others for placing politics before public interests even as he shamelessly advances personal and political agendas in derogation of the public intersts.

novaculus on September 18, 2011 at 12:52 PM

The good thing for Buffett is, having made the argument for Obama that rich people do not need money, he can scoop up a bunch of USA brand names as the market shrivels further out of fear that the Buffett Coup de Gras Tax will become a reality

Buffett never built anything but bottom lines, so it is appropriate he get his name on the Coup de Gras Tax

I wish the guy would stop helping me. I might outlive him, and I will carry his footprint on my back

entagor on September 18, 2011 at 12:52 PM

How about a Buffet Tax? Michael Moore can pay his fair share!

JammieWearingFool on September 18, 2011 at 12:46 PM

I don’t see how this could help Michelle or her children.

/No Buffet Tax… Let’s Mooo!

Key West Reader on September 18, 2011 at 12:55 PM

Wanna impress me, O?

Get rid of the race-baiting, class-warfare promoting income tax and institute a consumption or flat tax.

We all know that will never happen for the simple reason the income tax is the foundation of the liberal “hate the rich” campaign slogan arsenal.

Take that away, and liberals have no ideas.

BobMbx on September 18, 2011 at 12:55 PM

President Barack Obama, in a populist step designed to appeal to voters, will propose a “Buffett Tax” on people making more than $1 million a year as part of his deficit recommendations to Congress on Monday.

TEETERS APPROVE by a margin of 95/5.

‘I heard OHBawMah was giving us more of his stash!!, that’s why we loves him.’

‘That’s right, we love him, OH-BAW-MAH, OH-BAW-MAH’.

PappyD61 on September 18, 2011 at 12:56 PM

So here’s my tax reform idea:
1. Corporate Tax Rate – 0%
2. Dividends and Cap Gains – count as ordinary income.

Now let’s hear Warren howl. Those two simple proposals would do wonders:
1. It gets the govt out of the business of influencing behavior via the tax code.
2. Corporations will keep more income rather than distributing it, thus growing business.
3. Gets rid of all corporate tax loopholes.

happi on September 18, 2011 at 12:32 PM

Oh stop it. If that happens, Buffet wouldn’t be able to argue about the billions he already owes in taxes. He’d just have to pay them.

BobMbx on September 18, 2011 at 12:57 PM

Fact is, unlike most other folks, Warren Buffett gets most of his income from dividends and capital gains, which are nominally taxed at 15 percent.

Fallon on September 18, 2011 at 12:59 PM

‘I heard OHBawMah was giving us more of his stash!!, that’s why we loves him.’

‘That’s right, we love him, OH-BAW-MAH, OH-BAW-MAH’.

PappyD61 on September 18, 2011 at 12:56 PM

Hmmmm. The Fed taxes unemployment benefits.

Where is the tax on Welfare benefits, food stants, Section 8 housing (HUD), WIC, free cell phone, free monthly cash stipend? Make it retroactive. Then watch them howl.

Key West Reader on September 18, 2011 at 1:00 PM

First they came for the communists MILLIONAIRES,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist MILLIONAIRE.

Then they came for the trade unionists those making $500,000,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist making $500,000.

Then they came for the Jews those making $200,000,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew making $200,000.

Then they came for me (and I was making less than $100,000)
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came%E2%80%A6

And then there was NO STASH LEFT.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19v5Kjmc8FI

PappyD61 on September 18, 2011 at 1:01 PM

May Buffet and Soros go where I’m thinking.

Schadenfreude on September 18, 2011 at 1:01 PM

If OJesus really wants to impress?……

90% on all millionaires…..AND THEIR FREAKING FOUNDATIONS!

Buffet you fool.

PappyD61 on September 18, 2011 at 1:02 PM

Obama has spent irresponsibly, but maliciously, to attain his destructive goals.

Fools like Buffet and Soros have financed him.

They and him have stuffed their pockets, at the expense of the middle class.

The moochers at the bottom are kept on the plantation by Obama’s looters, and don’t know better.

Middle class, get yer pitchforks out and destroy them all, Nov. 6, 2012.

If not, suffer, suffer, suffer, because you deserve it all.

Schadenfreude on September 18, 2011 at 1:04 PM

Obama and his compliant MSM are ensuring that the economy will not recover while he is president. Obama’s constant class-warfare meme will continue to prevent significant private investment, regardless of the fact that crap like this new millionaires tax will not be enacted. With any luck this will lead to Obama losing in the 2012 elections.

GaltBlvnAtty on September 18, 2011 at 1:07 PM

Why do so many fools believe that Obama is “good”. He is a malicious narcissistic passive-aggressive self-absorbeb destroyer.

Also, check this out and propagate to all you know.

Schadenfreude on September 18, 2011 at 1:12 PM

OLD IDEA: Tax and Spend

NEW IDEA: Spend and Tax

See, Democrats are all about new and fresh thinking.

angryed on September 18, 2011 at 1:14 PM

FDR wanted to tax %100 of income over $25,000 (~$200,00 or so in today’s dollars).
Congress balked at that. I believe they agreed upon like 79%.
Dragged out the Great Depression to dizzying heights.
Oh this is gonna be a great idea!

Badger40 on September 18, 2011 at 12:09 PM

I remember reading somewhere that the top rate went to 97% at some point, with the upshot that people stopped reporting any income that would have fallen into that bracket.

Count to 10 on September 18, 2011 at 1:14 PM

Remember when Congress figured out the perfect way to stick it to the rich with a tax? They passed a big sales tax on yachts. Remember what happened? Rich people stopped buying yachts and all the lower and middle income people who work building and selling yachts lost their jobs. When Congress got back in session, they repealed that tax first thing.

So, to Øbama, I say good luck with that, sport.

Kafir on September 18, 2011 at 1:15 PM

Why do so many fools believe that Obama is “good”. He is a malicious narcissistic passive-aggressive self-absorbeb destroyer.

Also, check this out and propagate to all you know.

Schadenfreude on September 18, 2011 at 1:12 PM

It doesn’t really make any functional difference. All of the assumptions he is working on were initially designed with the purpose of destroying the US, and then sold as being vital to saving it. He can still be self absorbed or even narcissistic and still believe he is doing what is best, just like the rest of the useful idiots.

Count to 10 on September 18, 2011 at 1:19 PM

The fools don’t ever realize that the middle class will pay in higher prices for everything.

God, if you exist, destroy these malicious thugs.

Schadenfreude on September 18, 2011 at 1:20 PM

It’s a nakedly political act designed to bolster Obama’s class-warfare demagoguery and credentials, and it’s a policy that will inevitably lead to a deeper economic crisis in the US.

It is looking more and more like the post-partisan president wants us to have open warfare.

All he knows is stirring shit.

You go, you organizer you.

hillbillyjim on September 18, 2011 at 1:22 PM

Besides, if Warren Buffett wants to pay taxes, he can start with the billion dollars his company already owes the federal government.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Warren Buffet.

petefrt on September 18, 2011 at 1:23 PM

Why do the rich finance him? Because they and him are the only ones who’ve become richer under him.

The fools should wake up and get their pitchforks out.

Schadenfreude on September 18, 2011 at 1:23 PM

Of course when the libs calculate Buffett’s tax rate, they somehow don’t include the $1.4B that he paid in taxes since he owns 25% of Berkshire Hathaway (they paid $5.6B in taxes in 2010). And then there’s all the other stock holding he owns. Afterall, if BH hadn’t paid that tax, WB would have received another $1.4B.

So here’s my tax reform idea:
1. Corporate Tax Rate – 0%
2. Dividends and Cap Gains – count as ordinary income.

Now let’s hear Warren howl. Those two simple proposals would do wonders:
1. It gets the govt out of the business of influencing behavior via the tax code.
2. Corporations will keep more income rather than distributing it, thus growing business.
3. Gets rid of all corporate tax loopholes.

happi on September 18, 2011 at 12:32 PM

Absolutely, though you might want to set up something with capital gains to deal with the “I payed taxes on my profitable trades, but didn’t get any back on my losses” problem. Frankly, I’d be for setting up investment accounts that only get taxed when money is taken out of them.

Count to 10 on September 18, 2011 at 1:24 PM

Why do so many fools believe that Obama is “good”. He is a malicious narcissistic passive-aggressive self-absorbeb destroyer.

Also, check this out and propagate to all you know.

Schadenfreude on September 18, 2011 at 1:12 PM

I was having this discussion with my wife yesterday. I said remember in 2008 when I said Obama is out to destroy this country and you said I was crazy, still think I’m crazy? And she said yea, you are. He isn’t doing anything on purpose to cause problems, his ideas are just bad. But he really is trying. And I jokingly said, yea and he’s also a good family man, right? To which she said, yes he is a good family man and he seems like a good person.

I started banging my head against the wall and left the room.

She’s exactly the type of person who if polled would disapprove of his job, but would approve of him personally.

angryed on September 18, 2011 at 1:25 PM

Comment from the headlines thread “Bad romance…” – this is multiplied by the thousands and Obama and his goons don’t get it, or get it and wish to stay on course for own gain and your destruction.

fedupwithgovCollapse

I owned a very successful small business in medical imaging. I employed 35-40 people at various pay ranges. With the regulations (obamacare) and the “raise taxes on the rich” mentality I decided to sell the business. While I could easily own and operate another business I choose not to. The headaches that business owners face are not worth it. I have spoken with many business owners who feel the same way I do. They already deal with enough stress and do not need more government regulations and higher taxes as their “reward”.
I am sick of the Bush bashing and obama blaming his FAILED economy and policies on weather, Bush, congress etc. Obama needs to realize his policies have failed but he won’t because he cannot admit he is wrong. There is nothing obama can do to save America and the next president is going to have to work for several years before the economy takes a turn for the better.
So what can Americans do to help themselves? It is time for them to live well within their means (this means as little as possible), save and stop keeping up with the Jones’s. Get out of debt and stay out of debt! Lastly, before you decide to cast your vote, do your own research (yes it takes time) and use cold hard facts to make your decision.

Schadenfreude on September 18, 2011 at 1:30 PM

She’s exactly the type of person who if polled would disapprove of his job, but would approve of him personally.

angryed on September 18, 2011 at 1:25 PM

She’s dead wrong. Psychology is not her forte.

Love your comments, btw.

Schadenfreude on September 18, 2011 at 1:32 PM

Schadenfreude on September 18, 2011 at 1:32 PM

Thanks.

She’s quite apolitical. Gets most of her news from Yahoo News headlines or other MSM sources. I can’t really blame her, if you just go by what the MSM tells you he is a good family man, nice guy, trying hard to save the world from Evil Republicans.

At least she votes for the good guys consistently which is what counts.

angryed on September 18, 2011 at 1:35 PM

She’s exactly the type of person who if polled would disapprove of his job, but would approve of him personally.

angryed on September 18, 2011 at 1:25 PM

Umm, you married her?

upinak on September 18, 2011 at 1:36 PM

“White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said in a tweet on Saturday the tax would act as “a kind of AMT” aimed at ensuring millionaires pay at least as much tax as middle-class families.”

I believe he means:
“the tax would act as “a kind of ATM”” aimed at doling out cash to our union pals.”

mrt721 on September 18, 2011 at 1:39 PM

How about adding an amendment to the tax code that says any taxpayer who claims his taxes are to low in public loses his appeal rights to any IRS decision? After all, why appeal when you already agree that you are paying too little?

Fred 2 on September 18, 2011 at 1:42 PM

So sorry angryed

I feel ya buddy

cmsinaz on September 18, 2011 at 1:52 PM

How about proposing a rich douchebag tax instead.

singlemalt 18 on September 18, 2011 at 12:06

Ha ha ha! Right on!

MCGIRV on September 18, 2011 at 1:56 PM

0bama is a Lame Duck, the House isn’t going to pay any attention to whatever crackpot plan he comes up with, ditto the Senate.

Rebar on September 18, 2011 at 12:11 PM

He is flailing, politically. Even his base and members of his party see it.

Desperation is not an aphrodisiac. His approval ratings will continue to plummet.

UltimateBob on September 18, 2011 at 1:58 PM

Get rid of these and their roots and you’ll
be on the road to recovery. Reform will not do it,
only reduction.

Department of State
Department of Commerce
Department of Labor
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
Department of Transportation (DOT)
Department of Energy (DOE)
Department of Education
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
Department of Homeland Security

lilium on September 18, 2011 at 2:00 PM

Republicans should fire back with a tax on unions.

Buffet Tax – A tax where you claim on TV that you should be paying more, but in reality, you don’t pay your taxes and owe back taxes.

BruthaMan on September 18, 2011 at 2:06 PM

Actually, a Buffett Tax wouldn’t be a bad idea: a one-time wealth tax on 50% of the net worth of everyone worth over $25 billion. It would basically hit Buffett, Bill Gates and a few other superrich douchebags who always favor higher taxes.

Travis Bickle on September 18, 2011 at 2:16 PM

*****THIS IS OFFICIAL AND STUFF*****

You can all consider yourselves reported to ATTAAAAAACK WAAAAAAAAAAAATCH.

*****THIS PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT IS BROUGHT TO YOU BY YOUR FRIENDLY BROTHERS AND SISTERS AT SEIU AND THE VARIOUS ACORN SPINOFFS*****

hillbillyjim on September 18, 2011 at 2:17 PM

0bama is a Lame Duck, the House isn’t going to pay any attention to whatever crackpot plan he comes up with, ditto the Senate.

This tax idea is probably just a ploy to portray the GOP as the party of the rich.

Buffet and his Ruling Class fools will be paraded out saying “yes, I don’t pay enough, I pay less than Wanda Innacity and she’s my housekeeper.”

The UNION TAX is a great idea…….but PROPOSE IT ON UNION LEADERSHIP MAKING MORE THAN $200,000 a year.

489 days, 21 hours, 39 minutes and 30….29….28…..27….seconds..26….25….

PappyD61 on September 18, 2011 at 2:20 PM

BTW,
Where are the Palin fans that said that CONSTITUTION DAY would be when she announced?

>>> crickets <<<

PappyD61 on September 18, 2011 at 2:22 PM

Oh, it’s “Buffet.” I thought it was “buffet,” as in all-you-can-eat (or spend, in this case).

Shouldn’t a “Buffet tax” be a tax on billionaires? Warren Buffet could drop a million on a toilet and likely not even notice.

Blacklake on September 18, 2011 at 2:22 PM

Rep. Paul Ryan rejects Obama’s class warfare ploys (w/ vid): http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/277543/ryan-rejects-obamas-class-warfare-robert-costa

onlineanalyst on September 18, 2011 at 2:31 PM

The UNION TAX is a great idea…….but PROPOSE IT ON UNION LEADERSHIP MAKING MORE THAN $200,000 a year.

PappyD61 on September 18, 2011 at 2:20 PM

Absolutely! They need to pay their fair share, even more than their fair share.

Where are the Palin fans that said that CONSTITUTION DAY would be when she announced?

>>> crickets <<<

PappyD61 on September 18, 2011 at 2:22 PM

Don’t know about them, but I’m a Palin fan. My impression is that she isn’t going to run. Of course I could be wrong, but in the mean time, I getting to know other candidates through the debates. I’m not a single candidate guy, yet. Perry and Cain are at the top of my list. ABO is acceptable.

BruthaMan on September 18, 2011 at 2:39 PM

Warren Buffet is going to become a verb.
As in I have been “buffeted”.

albill on September 18, 2011 at 3:06 PM

A new double tax has its liberalistic benefits but that is a rouse and most of America has to know it, can we now acknowledge this President has no desire to see this country succeed?

Speakup on September 18, 2011 at 3:53 PM

Perry and Cain are at the top of my list. ABO is acceptable.

BruthaMan on September 18, 2011 at 2:39 PM

9-9-9 :-)

PappyD61 on September 18, 2011 at 4:13 PM

Actually, a Buffett Tax wouldn’t be a bad idea: a one-time wealth tax on 50% of the net worth of everyone worth over $25 billion. It would basically hit Buffett, Bill Gates and a few other superrich douchebags who always favor higher taxes.

Travis Bickle on September 18, 2011 at 2:16 PM

That wouldn’t be a tax, that would be theft.

Count to 10 on September 18, 2011 at 4:23 PM

Besides, if Warren Buffett wants to pay taxes, he can start with the billion dollars his company already owes the federal government.

..or he can vapor lock and leave it *all* to the federal government, the sanctimonious old pr*ck.

The War Planner on September 18, 2011 at 4:40 PM

Will he hike taxes on “the rich” by executive order, or will he have EPA do it through “regulations”?

petefrt on September 18, 2011 at 4:48 PM

Did I miss someone posting the actual details of this new tax? Oops, there aren’t any details.

Why is BO given a permanent waiver to avoid being specific? What tax is he going to increase?

David in ATL on September 18, 2011 at 5:04 PM

That wouldn’t be a tax, that would be theft.

Count to 10 on September 18, 2011 at 4:23 PM

..as are a lot of other taxes that are thinly disguised.

The War Planner on September 18, 2011 at 5:21 PM

So, let’s say they squeeze and extra 100k per year out of some millionaire. He/she gets to finance the very existance of what? 3-4 deadbeats?

We have more deadbeat layabouts than we do millionaires.

reaganaut on September 18, 2011 at 5:24 PM

The reason that dividend income gets special tax treatment is because it is paid by corporations out of their after tax income. There is a simple fix that would help business, simplify the tax code and increase fairness without much impact on revenue: made dividends paid by a corporation tax deductible as a business expense and tax dividend income received as ordinary income.

Warren Buffet and John Kerry would thanks you for the opportunity to pay there fair share.

Laurence on September 18, 2011 at 5:24 PM

Comment pages: 1 2