Obama's "Buffett Rule" Rules OK!

Support, and such a rule makes sense. It's not going to suddenly stop investment or cause job loss. To paraphrase Buffett, millionaires aren't going to suddenly stop doing business because of this rule.

We'll see what comes of this proposal.

If it's just a matter of ensuring everyone's paying the same percentage of income, there should be no problem.
Once the exclusive domain of the right, even Tonton has signed on to the flat taxation bandwagon.

It will be interesting to see how much money this initiative will raise. I doubt the Democrats have the discipline to hold the line on their "soak the rich" rhetoric. When the budget doesn't balance because the amount of money we're talking about here is insignificant, we'll be back to the class warfare game.

The right has been playing this game for 30 years.

Obama is a hypocrite because he says he cares about the middle class and yet he has this adviser Immelt on his economic panel who is in charge of GE and exports jobs abroad and GE did not pay any taxes at all. Which is insane! That is Obama a double talker and kissing Buffet's behind all the time.

So according to your link, the ultra-rich are paying between 15 and 18 percent. I'm not seeing the figure that the middle class pays that you want to raise them up to.

Haven't gotten an answer. This article says the idea is about the rich currently paying 15% on investment earnings, as opposed to the maximum 35% income tax bracket.

Putting aside the idea that you could take 75% of the income we're talking about and it wouldn't make a real difference to the U.S. deficit, surely taxing investments at 35% will discourage investment at a time when many jobs in America are hanging precariously by a thread.

How does substantially higher taxes on investment income create jobs?
Didn't Obama JUST say his focus was on creating jobs in America?

We have been over this endlessly. There is no mathematical way to fund the activities of U.S. government by taxing the so-called Ultra-RIch, even if you confiscated 100% of their assets.

How about you answer my question? What tax rate is acceptable to you for taxing those with incomes over a million dollars?

This proposal is utterly ridiculous. Another word for it might be "fucktarded."

1. Buffett is a hypocrite. His estate planning is vast and for one purpose: To prevent the government from getting his money when he dies.

2. This is not a tax increase on just millionaires and billionaires and hedge fund managers. That's focus group-driven nonsense. This is a tax increase on people making more than $250,000 a year. That's upper middle class and above. That includes thousands if not tens of thousands of small businesses. It creates yet more uncertainty. These businesses are already looking at January 1st, 2013 and thinking about if they can hire workers with the countdown to automatically higher taxes ticking away. Now they have even more uncertainty because Obama is out there rattling his class warfare saber.

3. How does raising taxes help job creation? It obviously doesn't. Ever.

4. Obama has repeatedly stated in 2008 and 2009 that "raising taxes during a recession is bad economics." He even stated he was willing to extend the Bush tax cuts during a recession. Now, he's doing exactly what he claimed to be against. The economy may not technically be in recession according to the GDP numbers, but it's certainly in a virtual recession to say the least

5. This new revenue and deficit plan is full of gimmicks from war savings. It raises taxes $3 for every "cut" in spending. Again, it's focus group-driven, poll-tested class warfare drivel...and nothing more.

6. I'm really starting to think that Obama is stupid, or at least has unbelievably bad judgement. Let's put this in its most basic terms: We're about a year away from an election and he's proposing a huge tax increase. What? I mean, I know he think he's got the right verbiage and political skills to get people to blame the rich for their problems, but really...proposing a huge tax increase at this point in the election cycle...after his 2010 shellacking? After losing the Weiner seat in a 3:1 Dem district? That's craziness. Bush 41 reluctantly agreed to some minor tax increases after promising "no new taxes," and it was one reason he got beaten in his reelection bid (at the time he had a high approval rating). This President is now a 30 per-center, and he's actually proposing a very large increase. Wow.

7. I don't know if it's that Obama really thinks his policies will work, or if he's got another agenda. Putting the conspiracy theories aside, even the former is mind boggling. It seems to me he actually believes that he did everything right but just got "unlucky." The results are clear, but apparently he's committed to following through on the definition of stupidity. We're going to have more stimulus! More taxes! Infrastructure!

This guy becomes more of a disaster by the day. I'm actually taken aback at how bad at governing he's turned out to be. Conservatives can't stand him. He's lost moderates in droves. Even the liberals are said to be planning a primary challenge. He's on fire and it's raining gasoline.

SDW hates it. That means it's gotta be good.

Obama lost his base over the last two years. His only chance in this election is to get it back. To not see that fact is blindness.

He won't get his base back by continuing Bush's failed policies.

Either that or it is really that bad...

That's why he's doing this. Bush cut taxes for the rich (more than he cut taxes for the middle class, no matter what Trumpt and SDW like to claim). Obama is cutting taxes for the middle class and raising taxes for the very rich. If you think this is the same policy you're nuts. Next up, we'll see Obama slashing the military budget. Just watch.

We're talking about a package total of three trillion dollars. Ignore the math of that all you want.

It's already happening. So much for this lame claim.

What is the solution to this woeful economy we are in now? This Obama rule will go no where with the GOP Party everyone knows this.

But if not for the GOP it would be a smart move. Obama's entire failure has been trying to "work with" the GOP. At least if he lets the GOP block every "change" he tries to make instead of making little or no changes at all because of over-compromise, the public (or at least his base) wouldn't be blaming him so much for not fixing this mess, they would be blaming the "party of 'no'".

If the last few years have taught me anything, it is if they really wanted to pass something, they would not let the republicans stop them. They would find a way to make it pass. They have no will to pass most of what does not pass.

Democrats do not march in lockstep like Republicans. They actually value different opinions and have a pretty large tent. What you and tonton both seem to be requesting is for Democrats to start acting like Republicans--the problem with that is that goes against the important principles of the Democratic party: government works and we have to work together to solve our problems.

The rich will simply pass their increased costs along to their employees and customers.

It will negatively impact the middle class and poor far more than it will the rich.

Bullshit, and you know it. You know those who employ people (and not every rich person employs people directly) will always do what's in their financial best interest. Increased overhead doesn't change this one iota. Read my signature.

If they can afford to cut staff now, they would do it now. If they need to hire someone for a particular task, they will do it now.

If they can maximize profits by raising prices now, they will do it. If they have to cut prices to get more business, they will do that.

Overhead makes no difference. The only difference it can *theoretically* make is whether they choose to expand/take risky investments, or hold on to profits/make conservative investments. They've already decided, long ago, that they're not going to expand, despite the fact that they have not had their taxes raised since Reagan. So raising their taxes now will not change a thing. But it *will* raise revenue. Revenue that can be used for job creation programs. Revenue that can be used to cut the deficit (which helps everyone, rich and poor).

Actually, I disagree with you having just been through this over the past few years. When things get worse, they cut people even if they cannot afford to from a business perspective. We lost a lot of really great talent due to a cyclical marketplace that hit a much lower cycle and due to cost overheads due to fuel economy standards that had to be implemented. Our vehicles were ready, and had been for over a year, but our customers were not and we suffered due to this government regulation and the uncertainty around having to push out a new engine that customers were not sure was ready until someone else tested it.

Less money coming in, higher costs going out and the employees and customers were saddled with the costs, sometimes in higher prices for the vehicles, sometimes in longer hours for no more pay, sometimes in losing their job because it was not financially sound to keep the person on. Welcome to the real world, this is what happens. Try not to make it worse with stupid legislation.

Raising the tax burden is not the same as raising revenue.


Those evil rich people paid much more to the IRS after Reagan cut their tax rate from 70 percent to 28 percent in the 1980s.


Soaking the rich hasn't worked in the past and it will not work now.

It doesn't take a genius to see that it wasn't increased overhead that affected your business. It was loss of sales. Under the proposed Obama plan, your customers would receive tax breaks due to the payroll tax cuts, so your sales would increase. You could hire those "greatly talented" people back, not because of decreased expenses, but because of increased demand for your product!

Unless you only sell retail to rich people, and your product is VERY expensive, the Obama plan will not harm your business.

And therein lies your problem. The product we sell IS very expensive and is sold to "rich" corporations and people. I am prepared to be harmed.

First, Obama's "Buffett Rule" appears to count all income for its calculation of base rate, not just salary, so your graphs are meaningless in this case.

Second, increasing the tax rate on the super-rich will not decrease the number of super-rich. Your table also has no meaning whatsoever when it doesn't show the redistribution of wealth over that period from the middle class to the rich.

How much Bush cut taxes for the rich and the middle class depends on how one looks at it. The bottom rate went from 15% to 10%...so that's a 35% reduction. The top rate went from 39% to 33% (actually..I think that might be generous...I don't recall if it's 35, 34, or 33). That's about a 16% reduction. The rich also end up paying more of the total tax bill under the Bush rates. Add in the depreciation changes and other credits, and the tax relief for middle income people was very significant. I (a very middle income person) saved literally thousands.

The same applies to "cutting taxes for the middle class." That's dubious. The only real tax cut is the $800 Making Work Pay credit. Then we do have the very small payroll tax reduction. But the MWPC phases out over $150,000 (I think that's the number). And he's talking about raising taxes on people that make over $250,000 a year. That's not "rich." It's upper middle class. It's well off. It's quite conceivable that two upper middle class professionals could make that much. They are not millionaires nor billionaires. But hey...they're not paying "their fair share" according to Obama. It's not enough that they pay the vast majority of the taxes in the nation. Obama wants more.

Ditto on small business. This is a job killer for them. Many don't pay corporate taxes, they pay their taxes on personal returns. A tax increase like this is an extremely bad idea, especially during these economic times. The problem here, I think, is that Obama is torn between stimulating the economy and tackling the deficit problem (if he cares about either is debatable, but I'll assume for now he does). Tax increases do not lead to private sector job growth, and everyone knows it. Tell any supporter of the proposal that, and they'll turn around and talk about the deficit. Talk about the economy, and they'll go back to the deficit. It's Biploar Economics.

Well, maybe it's time for you to diversify. If you're selling yachts or private jets, you're pretty much screwed in the foreseeable future no matter what happens. The Tea Party won't save you from that fate. You shouldn't punish all of society for your failure to correctly gauge the growth prospect of luxury business.

Meanwhile, there are very very few companies with a product such as what you describe, and most people will see the results I've mentioned. Not everyone will see a benefit, no. But most people will. And what's good for most people is what's good for America.

Love it. "Just find a new business, you greedy bastard." That pretty much sums up this administration.

Did you read the text along with the graphs?


Can you at least acknowledge that the Reagan tax-cuts for the rich increased tax revenue?

Absolutely not.

There is absolutely no evidence that it was a cause and effect.

I can, in this case, admit that tax revenue increased, and that taxes were cut for the rich. There's no way I will agree that there's any direct correlation between the two.

What do you believe caused the broadening of the tax base and increase in tax revenue in spite of tax cuts?

Yes... it was brilliant.


Capital gains is included in the "Buffett Rule" as far as I understand. There is no tax shelter for earnings. This loophole has been closed with implementation of this rule. That's what I meant in my comment that all their income is included, so the graphs are meaningless in this case.


This is just stupid. Is this quote saying that the rich will move from a 10% ROI, on which they have to pay 40% tax, to a 3% ROI, for which they don't have to pay tax? Out of "principle"?

Mostly the growth of new markets in the economy, e.g. the personal computer and personal electronics. Which would have grown regardless of the tax cuts.

The growth of these new markets had nothing to do with the fact that the rich had more money to invest in them? Really?