Just a reminder: “Buffett Rule” that Obama won’t stop talking about is aimed mainly at around 400 taxpayers

posted at 6:49 pm on April 10, 2012 by Allahpundit

Via Sean Hackbarth. Remember, this gimmick is aimed at rich people who make most of their dough from capital gains, which of course are taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income in order to encourage investment. The idea is to make sure they’re paying as much federal tax as the average middle-class taxpayer is. You already know what an embarrassing sham that is in terms of deficit reduction — look no further than this graph — but how many rich people are we talking about here, exactly? Must be an awful lot to warrant a presidential speech on fiscal policy aimed squarely at this group. Watch the Bloomberg video below for the answer. Turns out that the vast, vast majority of the rich already pay tax rates in excess of the average middle-class rate of 15 percent. Depending upon how you calculate the effective federal rate, there are either 22,000 households (the White House’s number) across the span of the United States that make a million or more per year and pay 15 percent or less or just 4,000 households according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. But among that sample, most of the potential revenue would come from the mega-rich at the very top, not the millionaire small-business owner. The White House’s numbers on them:

Of the 400 highest income Americans, one out of every three in this group of the most financially fortunate Americans paid less than 15 percent of their income in income taxes in 2008.

In other words, we’re talking here about a rule championed by the president of the United States and set for a vote in the U.S. Senate that’s targeting something like 130-135 households across the entire country. Which, incidentally, explains why the Buffett Rule would set a federal rate of 30 percent for millionaires, not the 15 percent needed to make sure they’re on par with John Q. Public, which is supposedly Obama’s big concern. If they set the minimum rate at 15 percent instead of 30, the already razor-thin amount of extra revenue they’re going to get out of this would all but vanish.

So yes, this is a total charade as a matter of serious fiscal policy, something that should be packaged as part of a “grand bargain” on entitlement reform to make the left happy rather than offered in isolation as a moronic “fairness” gambit. If Obama was 1/100th the “pragmatist problem-solver” that he claimed to be in 2008, he’d drop it now out of sheer embarrassment. But it does do three things politically for him, which explains why he took time for a speech about it. One: It’s an excuse to force a tough vote on the GOP. When they filibuster this in the Senate, Obama gets to roll out the “party of rich” messaging. Two: Reframing the tax debate in terms of “fairness” instead of revenue will help the Democrats later this year in their campaign to let the Bush tax cuts on the rich lapse. Unlike the Buffett Rule, that really would raise a bunch of revenue, but some voters may prefer the “fairness” logic in saddling the country’s job creators with an extra fiscal burden. Three: It’s a way to call attention to Romney’s wealth. Mitt paid an effective rate last year of 14 percent, which makes him an irresistible “Buffett Rule” talking point for Democrats for the next six months. (Never mind that his rate was reduced in part because of his great generosity to charity.) I always hoped we’d be lucky enough to nominate the guy whose health-care plan inspired Obama’s, but I never dreamed we’d be so lucky that the same guy would fit perfectly into their class-warfare narrative. Terrific.


Related Posts:

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

Who is stopping the rich from giving more taxes to their beloved utopian government?

Lying hypocritical b.s. artists, from Gates to Buffet, et al.

profitsbeard on April 10, 2012 at 6:53 PM

Stock market plummeted today on new round of crap economic news.

But this should fix everything.

Chuck Schick on April 10, 2012 at 6:53 PM

Most Divisive “President” Evah

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. Thomas Jefferson

Chip on April 10, 2012 at 6:53 PM

Bill of attainder? Jussayin’…

CycloneCDB on April 10, 2012 at 6:54 PM

So stop fighting against the rule then.

Uppereastside on April 10, 2012 at 6:55 PM

Buffet you are an @asshole. Why don’t your retroactiviity pay 30% taxes and add interest and penalities.

Oil Can on April 10, 2012 at 6:56 PM

So stop fighting against the rule then.

Uppereastside on April 10, 2012 at 6:55 PM

Just how stupid are you? That’s not a rhetorical question, either. Have you had it measured?

Chuck Schick on April 10, 2012 at 6:56 PM

The funniest thing about this is that while Buffet has said “raise my taxes” and was championed by the statist Left, he actively fights tooth and nail to not pay taxes, behind the scenes (of course).

If the Lefty rich actually wanted to pay more to the federal government, they could do so right now, today, in unlimited amounts.

But they don’t, and they won’t. Why?

visions on April 10, 2012 at 6:58 PM

Perfect.

Out: Mrs Astor’s Four Hundred
In: Obama’s 400

Buy Danish on April 10, 2012 at 6:59 PM

So stop fighting against the rule then.

Uppereastside on April 10, 2012 at 6:55 PM

Upper East side? You sound more like a Village idiot to me.

BierManVA on April 10, 2012 at 7:00 PM

Someone enterprising blogger should figure out just how much money he has spent flying around talking about this vs. how much revenue it would really generate.

Me thinks the WH just might call those figures “new math” too.

gaius on April 10, 2012 at 7:00 PM

The Kennedys have their money hidden in Cayman Island trusts.

Schadenfreude on April 10, 2012 at 7:00 PM

Isn’t Buffett refusing to pay taxes the IRS claims he owes?

How does this square with his claim that he wants pay more?

LASue on April 10, 2012 at 7:00 PM

We have a classwarfare President who has to rely on ginned up faux controversies and gimmicks because he can’t run on his record of $16 trillion in debt, double-digit real unemployment and $4 gallon gas.

rbj on April 10, 2012 at 7:01 PM

Warren Buffet and Obama-gov’t irony of them all

Schadenfreude on April 10, 2012 at 7:02 PM

If we’re really talking between 130 and 400, why not just vote for it? You know damned well at least 2/3 or those are contributors to Democrats anyway. The GOP ought to just vote for it and tell Obama, “There ya go, sport. You got your tax increase. Now, how are you going to fix the economy?” And let him twist.

BKeyser on April 10, 2012 at 7:02 PM

PANDERING — Liberal4life

Schadenfreude on April 10, 2012 at 7:03 PM

I think the Republican’s should vote for the Buffet rule just to shut King Obama up.

It can always be repealed, right?

JPeterman on April 10, 2012 at 7:05 PM

I always hoped we’d be lucky enough to nominate the guy whose health-care plan inspired Obama’s, but I never dreamed we’d be so lucky that the same guy would fit perfectly into their class-warfare narrative. Terrific.

Chin up, Eeyore. ObamneyCare as a negative talking point went nowhere. I doubt the Buffet Rule has any legs either.

Buy Danish on April 10, 2012 at 7:05 PM

Or ….

The Republicans could go along with it and hand President Obambi a samll political victory …

… wait for it …

… that turns out to be big fundraising killer when a significant percentage of the people having to pay extra taxes under a carefully drafted rule are the same people who religiously give money to Obambi and the DNC.

P.S. This would be relatively easy to do and would leave Obambi to choose to veto it or see his backers become more disaffected with him.

PolAgnostic on April 10, 2012 at 7:06 PM

Obama’s worldview:

With Marxism-Leninism guiding our actions, the Communist Party strives to build the broadest unity against global capitalist imperialism now headed by U.S. imperialism, for immediate gains and reforms that benefit working people, and for a progressive democratization of the government, the economy, and society of our country on the road to and after winning socialism.

- From the Program of the Communist Party USA
The Road to Socialism USA

ITguy on April 10, 2012 at 7:06 PM

“There ya go, sport. You got your tax increase. Now, how are you going to fix the economy?” And let him twist.

BKeyser on April 10, 2012 at 7:02 PM

You beat me to it. Who else can the King go after?

JPeterman on April 10, 2012 at 7:08 PM


Uppereastside on April 10, 2012 at 6:55 PM

Will you want them to stop plundering people’s property when the get down to your level?

BTW, Why are you fighting against the rule – why aren’t you contributing All of your earnings to the wonderful Socialist National utopia your good king Barack Hussein Downgrade the magnificent is creating?

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. Thomas Jefferson

Chip on April 10, 2012 at 7:10 PM

Big loser from the Buffett Rule??? States and Municipalities whose tax-free bonds will no longer be attractive to super high-worth investors

phreshone on April 10, 2012 at 7:11 PM

I think that they should make the tax just on Buffet, say 50% of every thing over 1 million and then ask him how he likes it.

uncommon sense on April 10, 2012 at 7:12 PM

If we’re really talking between 130 and 400, why not just vote for it? You know damned well at least 2/3 or those are contributors to Democrats anyway. The GOP ought to just vote for it and tell Obama, “There ya go, sport. You got your tax increase. Now, how are you going to fix the economy?” And let him twist.
BKeyser on April 10, 2012 at 7:02 PM

Better yet, just vote “present”. Let the Dems vote it down.

txhsmom on April 10, 2012 at 7:12 PM

Funny, the AMT was originally only for the rich too….

WryTrvllr on April 10, 2012 at 7:12 PM

Obama’s worldview:

With Marxism-Leninism guiding our actions, the Communist Party strives to build the broadest unity against global capitalist imperialism now headed by U.S. imperialism, for immediate gains and reforms that benefit working people, and for a progressive democratization of the government, the economy, and society of our country on the road to and after winning socialism.

– From the Program of the Communist Party USA
The Road to Socialism USA

ITguy on April 10, 2012 at 7:06 PM

That’s why I bolded that part of my ‘signature’ line:

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. Thomas Jefferson

Chip on April 10, 2012 at 7:13 PM

Have you had it measured?

Chuck Schick on April 10, 2012 at 6:56 PM

We’re still talking about his stupidity here, right Chuck?

CycloneCDB on April 10, 2012 at 7:13 PM

Obama 2012:
Because everyone is entitled to what you worked so hard for!

Key West Reader on April 10, 2012 at 7:14 PM

Funny, the AMT was originally only for the rich too….

WryTrvllr on April 10, 2012 at 7:12 PM

Same with the Income tax – anyone seeing a pattern here?

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. Thomas Jefferson

Chip on April 10, 2012 at 7:15 PM

You beat me to it. Who else can the King go after?

JPeterman on April 10, 2012 at 7:08 PM

Commies never run out of villains. Don’t even flirt with it.

CycloneCDB on April 10, 2012 at 7:15 PM

I wish Romney had the stones to come out and announce he’s for the Fair Tax or Flat Tax so that Eric Holder’s people and all the white trash on the dole would pay THEIR FAIR SHARE.

/Alas. It is not to be. For teh Romoney is all in for the “progressive” tax code. B*tch.

Key West Reader on April 10, 2012 at 7:15 PM

“So yes, this is a total charade as a matter of serious fiscal policy…”

Too bad this isn’t an election year…

Seven Percent Solution on April 10, 2012 at 7:15 PM

How about a Soros tax?

Suckahs
Owe
Reparations
Over
Slavery

……….

Come on, OweBama… Propose it. You know you want to.

Key West Reader on April 10, 2012 at 7:19 PM

If the Lefty rich actually wanted to pay more to the federal government, they could do so right now, today, in unlimited amounts.

But they don’t, and they won’t. Why?

visions on April 10, 2012 at 6:58 PM

Checkbook’s just too durn far away, and they don’t pay the maid enough for her to get it for them. Plus, the maid’s illegal and doesn’t speak english.

squint on April 10, 2012 at 7:19 PM

If it’s less than 500, how hard would that be for the GOP to find out who they are? They have to have an approximate idea. I’d bet most are estates.

If the GOP votes yes, it can’t be a single-item repeal down the road. Mitt can’t run around saying “I’ll repeal the Buffett Rule”. That’s exactly what Barry wants.

It has to be included with a tax overhaul that drops everyone’s rates. This way, if 0 claims Mitt’s doing it just to give a break to the 1%, Mitt can answer that it applies to all.

It has to be an overhaul. If they drop rates for everyone, then spread the base so people who pay nothing are now chipping in, that’s plays right into the meme.

budfox on April 10, 2012 at 7:20 PM

If the Lefty rich actually wanted to pay more to the federal government, they could do so right now, today, in unlimited amounts.

But they don’t, and they won’t. Why?

visions on April 10, 2012 at 6:58 PM

Because they are paying Obama directly?

Just thinking.

Key West Reader on April 10, 2012 at 7:21 PM

Jesucristo, this is AMT 2.0.

Nothing new under the sun. Fix the AMT, make sure these 135 or so folks pay at least 15%, and move on.

JeffWeimer on April 10, 2012 at 7:21 PM

Because they are paying Obama directly?

Just thinking.

It’s called “attending fundraisers. They’re doing their fair share by paying in advance to be eaten last.

By the Mooch.

Zoiks.

Key West Reader on April 10, 2012 at 7:22 PM

Can we please see the tax return for Buffett’s secretary???

blink on April 10, 2012 at 7:20 PM

It’ll be produced after Obama’s college transcripts.

Key West Reader on April 10, 2012 at 7:24 PM

There Hasn’t Been So Much Fire At The White House Since Dolley Madison Saved Some Of Our Most Cherished, National Treasures

Obama’s Buffett Rule: Would bring in $7.7 million per DAY, ceterus paribus.

Obama deficit spends: $4.3 billion per DAY

Resist We Much on April 10, 2012 at 7:25 PM

OT Note: I’m sorry to be a bother on this, but could you please retire that creepy close-up of Downgrade.

Pretty Please?

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. Thomas Jefferson

Chip on April 10, 2012 at 7:28 PM

It’s a way to call attention to Romney’s wealth. Mitt paid an effective rate last year of 14 percent, which makes him an irresistible “Buffett Rule” talking point for Democrats for the next six months.

Even at 14%, Romney Pays a Higher Rate than 97% of His Fellow Americans

Resist We Much on April 10, 2012 at 7:29 PM

My Spidey sense tells me that about 350 rich Americans will be moving to Canada and other countries, taking their money with them.

I also got a million dollars that says the the Buffet Rule will end up actually bringing in less overall tax revenue.

World’s smartest man on how capital gains taxes should work.
http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/03/31/obamas-capital-gains-blunder

Economic illiterate, far left ideologue, or both?

jukin3 on April 10, 2012 at 7:30 PM

So stop fighting against the rule then.

Uppereastside on April 10, 2012 at 6:55 PM

Just how stupid are you? That’s not a rhetorical question, either. Have you had it measured?

Chuck Schick on April 10, 2012 at 6:56 PM

Mr. Shick, that would require a lengthy collaborative effort between JPL, NASA, and the AEC to determine that.

arnold ziffel on April 10, 2012 at 7:30 PM

President Downgrade is desperately searching for a narrative that can rally is base. Class warfare is all he has. Period.

Rovin on April 10, 2012 at 7:30 PM

There ya go, sport. You got your tax increase. Now, how are you going to fix the economy?” And let him twist.

BKeyser on April 10, 2012 at 7:02 PM

Exactly.

Start giving it a snarky name. If it’s 47 billion over 10 years, that’s 5 billion a year or 12 hours worth of spending.
Obama’s 12 hour millionaire tax.

The Republicans could pull an Obama and just vote present on the bill.

Somebody do a calculation and see if one year of this tax would even cover all the failed loans to the green companies whose owners contributed to this campaign, or Obama and Michelle’s vacations and campaign travel.

This is not something to fight about.We need to pick our battles. Let’s make a big point of how stupid this tax is by letting him pass it-with all Democrat votes, Republicans abstaining and demonstrate that it has essentially no impact on the deficit at all!

talkingpoints on April 10, 2012 at 7:32 PM

Economic illiterate, far left ideologue, or both?

jukin3 on April 10, 2012 at 7:30 PM

The terms overlap, actually.

squint on April 10, 2012 at 7:33 PM

If it’s 47 billion over 10 years

According to the AP, which is not exactly anti-Obama as its CEO or President demonstrated last week, the numbers are worse than that. Their study is $31 billion over 11 years.

Resist We Much on April 10, 2012 at 7:35 PM

Sugar cubes should restrain the obvious greed.

carbon_footprint on April 10, 2012 at 7:36 PM

You know, at the rate Obama’s government is spending money, would one year’s worth of revenue even pay for the time it would take to draw up the legislation, print it, and put it through the procedure of a vote? Would it actually take more time than the revenue it would generate would pay for?

Could Ryan or Romney come out and say, “You know, the millionaire’s tax won’t even cover government spending for the time it takes to put the bill up for a vote?”

talkingpoints on April 10, 2012 at 7:37 PM

<<

If we’re really talking between 130 and 400, why not just vote for it?>>

Really, why not, just to shut O up. Sorry, but this is something the GOP has to rethink. Yeah, no new taxes on the guy/gal earning $250,000 and trying to keep their family’s (barely) upper-middle-class lifestyle. But with the superwealthy, give in already.

bobs1196 on April 10, 2012 at 7:38 PM

Answer: Stupidest dumbass ideas and biggest waste of time.

Question: What best describes the Obama Prezuhduncy?

stukinIL4now on April 10, 2012 at 7:38 PM

“It’s not about revenue. It’s about JUSTICE!”

President of pointless symbolic gestures that pander to class resentment.

Scrappy on April 10, 2012 at 7:39 PM

President Downgrade is desperately searching for a narrative that can rally his base. Class warfare is all he has. Period.

Rovin on April 10, 2012 at 7:30 PM

What can he say are his accomplishments?

Acquiescing to the military taking out Bin Laden?
They could have done that with him sitting in a corner..

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. Thomas Jefferson

Chip on April 10, 2012 at 7:39 PM

The Dems could have the Buffett Rule pass the Senate with 51 votes if they passed it as part of a budget. But Reid doesn’t want to do a budget, or can’t because he doesn’t have the votes, so they’re just going to blame the GOP to distract from their own failure.

Mark1971 on April 10, 2012 at 7:40 PM

CHARLIE GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

SENATOR BARACK OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at

raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

MR. GIBSON: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, that might happen or it might not. It depends on what’s happening on Wall Street and how business is going.

Canada cut its CGR to 10% this year. Why would anyone invest here when they could go across the border?

Resist We Much on April 10, 2012 at 7:46 PM

OT Note: I’m sorry to be a bother on this, but could you please retire that creepy close-up of Downgrade.

Pretty Please?

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. Thomas Jefferson

Chip on April 10, 2012 at 7:28 PM

4 more years of this mug should be incentive enough not to sit this one out in November.

redridinghood on April 10, 2012 at 7:48 PM

Obama loves Buffett so much that he wants Warren to
redistribute some more of those evil profits:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/yet-another-warren-buffett-owned-company-sued-for-tax-evasion/

redguy on April 10, 2012 at 7:51 PM

Uppereastside is simply the useful village idiot. What a dumb arse.

CW on April 10, 2012 at 7:54 PM

I’m getting real sick of Obama’s BS and distractions. It’s almost as if he thinks he doesn’t have anything important to worry about.

forest on April 10, 2012 at 7:58 PM

I have to wonder if the slob Buffett has made some kind of a deal with little Bammie. Buffett supports and lends his name to this proposal, and in return the IRS rules favorably on the billion dollars or so of back taxes that Buffett is furiously fighting.

Might be worth a question or two from your congressman.

slickwillie2001 on April 10, 2012 at 7:58 PM

Canada cut its CGR to 10% this year. Why would anyone invest here when they could go across the border?

Resist We Much on April 10, 2012 at 7:46 PM

Heh. On a similar note, this is why the Left detests federalism. It throws a wrench in their centralized, top-down, command & control type of approach to humanity.

visions on April 10, 2012 at 8:05 PM

OT Note: I’m sorry to be a bother on this, but could you please retire that creepy close-up of Downgrade.

Pretty Please?

Chip on April 10, 2012 at 7:28 PM

.
What are you typing about??!! That’s his Alfred E. Neuman impression!

ExpressoBold on April 10, 2012 at 8:10 PM

So stop fighting against the rule then.

Uppereastside on April 10, 2012 at 6:55 PM

….Dumb & Dumber!…You’re the whole movie by yourself aren’t you…as well as the sequel!

KOOLAID2 on April 10, 2012 at 8:12 PM

OT Note: I’m sorry to be a bother on this, but could you please retire that creepy close-up of Downgrade.

Pretty Please?

Chip on April 10, 2012 at 7:28 PM

…I don’t think that picture is leaving until we start seeing boogers coming out of those nostrils!

KOOLAID2 on April 10, 2012 at 8:15 PM

Why are so many hot air posters carrying water for the ultrarich billionaire minority like Buffett who only look down and scorn them?

Feudal mentality.

Daikokuco on April 10, 2012 at 8:18 PM

Uppereastside is simply the useful village idiot. What a dumb arse.

CW on April 10, 2012 at 7:54 PM

Please stop insulting useful village idiots.

ghostwalker1 on April 10, 2012 at 8:23 PM

In the dull game of low-information politics, why name a tax bill after a billionaire who’s having his own tax problems?

EMD on April 10, 2012 at 8:24 PM

I always hoped we’d be lucky enough to nominate the guy whose health-care plan inspired Obama’s, but I never dreamed we’d be so lucky that the same guy would fit perfectly into their class-warfare narrative. Terrific.

Just luck I guess.

magicbeans on April 10, 2012 at 8:25 PM

Why are so many hot air posters carrying water for the ultrarich billionaire minority like Buffett who only look down and scorn them?

Feudal mentality.

Daikokuco on April 10, 2012 at 8:18 PM

Probably because we realise that there are not enough rich people to pay for your utopia and, as has happened in my native Britain and in Europe, the government will be forced to move on to the middle class, which is where the real money is.

If you are interested, I have done pieces comparing tax systems around the world to that in the US:

Big Government Robs The Middle Class Because That’s Where The Money Is!

The Non-Existent Stairway To Socialist Heaven In Sweden

Hey, Progs! Wanna Be Like Europe? How ‘Bout You Start By Eliminating Estate Taxes?

We also do not want your big government and entitlement programmes. We prefer liberty and solvency to dependency and bankruptcy.

Finally, we don’t envy what others have.

Resist We Much on April 10, 2012 at 8:29 PM

Why are so many hot air posters carrying water for the ultrarich billionaire minority like Buffett who only look down and scorn them?
Feudal mentality.

Daikokuco on April 10, 2012 at 8:18 PM

Funny isn’t? Their masters have trained them well.

Uppereastside on April 10, 2012 at 8:37 PM

That’s why I bolded that part of my ‘signature’ line:

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. Thomas Jefferson

Chip on April 10, 2012 at 7:13 PM

I always presumed that to be the reason why you bolded that word… progressives.

ITguy on April 10, 2012 at 8:40 PM

Remember this flicker of honesty from Chrissie in February? Matthews Concedes: “Liberals Don’t Want To Pay More Taxes” – “It’s All a Game”

Take note of it because it doesn’t happen often.

slickwillie2001 on April 10, 2012 at 8:58 PM

Pure Marxism. What Constitution?

ultracon on April 10, 2012 at 8:58 PM

Why are so many hot air posters carrying water for the ultrarich billionaire minority like Buffett who only look down and scorn them?
Feudal mentality.

Daikokuco on April 10, 2012 at 8:18 PM

Funny isn’t? Their masters have trained them well.

Uppereastside on April 10, 2012 at 8:37 PM

How do you two geniuses know one of us isn’t among the 350 this is aimed at? Masters. You wish we had masters and that they were the likes of you losers.

txmomof6 on April 10, 2012 at 9:09 PM

Funny isn’t? Their masters have trained them well.

Uppereastside on April 10, 2012 at 8:37 PM

Nah, some of us are just smart and experienced enough to know that there are no countries with big welfare states where 50% of income earners are excused from paying income taxes.

Since there are not enough of those “evil rich” people, you will have to dramatically raise taxes on everyone else. Here is what is looks like at home:

A senior level nurse in a London hospital earns approximately $49,000. She will pay around $10,500 in income taxes, $6,039 in National Insurance taxes, a 20% VAT, council taxes, and other assorted taxes…in an area where it is more expensive to live than in Manhattan or San Francisco.

The wealthy in the United States shoulder a far, far greater “fair share” of the burden than their counterparts elsewhere.

Why are countries that are doing better economically not raising, but cutting their CGRs?

Resist We Much on April 10, 2012 at 9:12 PM

Remember: both a liar and an idiot.

Jaibones on April 10, 2012 at 9:14 PM

How many people were affected by the Alternative Minimum Tax when it was first introduced, I think in 1969?

wbcoleman on April 10, 2012 at 9:34 PM

If we’re really talking between 130 and 400, why not just vote for it? You know damned well at least 2/3 or those are contributors to Democrats anyway. The GOP ought to just vote for it and tell Obama, “There ya go, sport. You got your tax increase. Now, how are you going to fix the economy?” And let him twist.

BKeyser on April 10, 2012 at 7:02 PM

One caveat: require the Treasury to compute the income tax of these taxpayers based on current law. Prepare a report for public consumption to show how much extra revenue is generated. Also, that extra must go to debt–not deficit–reduction.

BuckeyeSam on April 10, 2012 at 9:39 PM

The 0.00000108%.

hungrymongo on April 10, 2012 at 9:39 PM

How many people were affected by the Alternative Minimum Tax when it was first introduced, I think in 1969?

wbcoleman on April 10, 2012 at 9:34 PM

155. This year, it will impact 30 million.

Resist We Much on April 10, 2012 at 9:46 PM

If we’re really talking between 130 and 400, why not just vote for it? You know damned well at least 2/3 or those are contributors to Democrats anyway. The GOP ought to just vote for it and tell Obama, “There ya go, sport. You got your tax increase. Now, how are you going to fix the economy?” And let him twist.

BKeyser on April 10, 2012 at 7:02 PM
One caveat: require the Treasury to compute the income tax of these taxpayers based on current law. Prepare a report for public consumption to show how much extra revenue is generated. Also, that extra must go to debt–not deficit–reduction.

BuckeyeSam on April 10, 2012 at 9:39 PM

And they have to give a graphic showing the percent of debt reduction that it’s providing-either a pie graph or a bar graph, illustrating how pathetic an effort this proposal is.

talkingpoints on April 10, 2012 at 9:50 PM

Why are so many hot air posters carrying water for the ultrarich billionaire minority like Buffett who only look down and scorn them?
 
Daikokuco on April 10, 2012 at 8:18 PM

 
Carrying water? Nah. Some of us just appreciate fairness, and fairness is everyone, rich and poor, having a tax liability. Otherwise there’s no equal protection under the law.
 
Most of us also don’t care about “scorn”, either, so long as that equal protection bit is intact. I don’t want someone taxed at a higher rate simply because I don’t like his personality. Do you?
 
That’s terrifying if so.
 
Not to mention that I’ll be living solely on dividends one day soon and don’t want class-envy-driven creeping taxation potentially eating into my retirement savings (see AMT/inflation if you need).
 
You’re aware of the difference between dividends and wages, right? Here’s a quick overview if not: Buffet’s investment are at risk, meaning he could lose everything he has invested. He has a lower tax rate partially to encourage that risk. A wage (his secretary) is a 1:1 trade for time and, without risk, is taxed at a higher rate.
 
Me? I’d have zero taxes on dividends to really get investors and the economy moving.

rogerb on April 10, 2012 at 9:52 PM

Well, let’s put Kanye West at the top of the list. See how he likes it.

Hummer53 on April 10, 2012 at 9:53 PM

Obama team signals nasty White House race

By Stephen Collinson (AFP) – 8 hours ago

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama’s campaign formally welcomed Republican Mitt Romney to the White House duel Tuesday, with a caustic warning: the more Americans see of him, the less they like him.

Romney effectively clinched the Republican presidential nomination when his last remaining rival Rick Santorum bowed out, setting up a nasty, battle with Obama, who will ask voters for a second four-year term in November.

The president and the former Massachusetts governor have actually been squaring off for several weeks, but Obama’s team could not pass up another chance to try to negatively define Romney in the eyes of voters.

“The more the American people see of Mitt Romney, the less they like him and the less they trust him,” Obama campaign manager Jim Messina said in a statement issued shortly after Santorum suspended his campaign.

Messina accused Romney of alienating key voting blocs including women, the middle class, and Hispanics and framed the election as a fight for a fair economy, a theme Obama spent the day hitting in swing state Florida.

The president touted his millionaires tax in Florida, a battleground state which could play a decisive role in the November 6 election.

And the Gates of Hell begin to swing open…..

by the Convention Romney might as well have pulled the trigger on Trayvon himself.

That’s what the media will have done to him by then (if it takes that long).

PappyD61 on April 10, 2012 at 9:59 PM

Resist We Much on April 10, 2012 at 9:12 PM

You too Resist? I didn’t expect a fellow UESer to regurgitate that right wing lie about 50% of people don’t pay taxes. They are rubbing off on you girl.

Uppereastside on April 10, 2012 at 10:00 PM

I heard the lefty from Demos tonight ask, Why should Mitt Romeny pay 15% on his income from investment when Bill O’Reilly pays 35% on his income?

My answer: because Romney was taxed already on his money before he invested it!

He also said, most Americans do not own stock so wouldn’t be subject to the 15% rate any way.

My answer: Wrong. Over 50 percent of us own stocks or mutual funds.

PattyJ on April 10, 2012 at 10:01 PM

So stop fighting against the rule then.

Uppereastside on April 10, 2012 at 6:55 PM

EVERY encroachment by the government upon ANYONE’s liberty is to be fought tooth and nail.

Once conceded, it is NEVER given back; it ALWAYS expands to strip more liberty from more people. ALWAYS.

This rule may affect 130 households year one. In 20 years it’ll be 40% of households (the other 60% now firmly in the ‘net tax taker’ category).

No, no, no.

Midas on April 10, 2012 at 10:09 PM

The Buffett Rule as your desktop background. Okay, maybe you won’t use it as your background, but here’s the image anyway.

BKeyser on April 10, 2012 at 10:10 PM

Everyone should be forced to watch Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) defend the Buffett Rule “fairness” on Cavuto this afternoon.

And, in all fairness, laugh until you cry for our fair Republic.

Her picture graces the definition of “gobschmacking stupidity” in the M-W.

tree hugging sister on April 10, 2012 at 10:12 PM

Canada cut its CGR to 10% this year. Why would anyone invest here when they could go across the border?

Resist We Much on April 10, 2012 at 7:46 PM

Because one of the first things Socialists do is put up a wall. Border Control, ironically, is very important to Socialists, because they don’t want capital fleeing their Utopian schemes. You could smell this plan in the air when Obama went to Switzerland expecting to be able to grab a whole bunch of “rich’ and put on show trials. Notice that the whole thing has died? There wasn’t any “hidden” money.

Part of the reason for the new Financial regulatory agency is to prevent massive flows of capital overseas if Obama’s plans go through. What they can’t prevent (yet) is the person simply leaving. Rush illustrated this point when he moved his operation to Florida and avoided New York State Income taxes.

Soon it will be “unpatriotic” to leave. Or you will be prevented. The history of these horrors are well documented and we are well into the script.

Good Luck, Comrade

Bulletchaser on April 10, 2012 at 10:12 PM

Uppereastside on April 10, 2012 at 10:00 PM

I note that you mischaracterize the statement – ‘resist’ didn’t say ‘pay no taxes’, said ‘pay no income taxes’.

Now, to be precise, one should say ‘pay no federal income taxes’, and then the 50% figure is pretty accurate.

But it’s a bit amusing to see you accuse other people of lying, but you’re lying about what they said to begin with.

Midas on April 10, 2012 at 10:16 PM

regurgitate that right wing lie about 50% of people don’t pay taxes.
 
Uppereastside on April 10, 2012 at 10:00 PM

 
Wow. It’s not even really debatable unless you just want to argue semantics. From USA Today (bastion of conservative thought):
 

46% of tax filers will owe no federal income tax this year

 
Yes, people will pay payroll (SS, etc.) taxes, but that doesn’t mean they have a tax liability after April’s deductions and exemptions.
 
(Liability > $0.01)

rogerb on April 10, 2012 at 10:19 PM

The Buffett Rule as your desktop background. Okay, maybe you won’t use it as your background, but here’s the image anyway.

BKeyser on April 10, 2012 at 10:10 PM

That’s pretty good.

Of course, the problem is – as history shows us – that $4.7B/year estimate will fall off rapidly to significantly less than that once people adjust their behaviors to it. As usual, that figure relies on completely static revenue models that presume – 100% incorrectly – that people and the system will not react and adapt to increased taxation.

Midas on April 10, 2012 at 10:20 PM

Uppereastside on April 10, 2012 at 10:00 PM

INCOME taxes. It’s a fact. Such does not happen in the UK or in Europe.

Resist We Much on April 10, 2012 at 10:34 PM

Comment pages: 1 2