"Buffett Rule" Tax Law

[-EnVus-]

I'm fine with it and agree with it but i'm sure that many others will be ok with it. Then they will be the greedy SOB's that will just not report their earnings as much to stay under the law.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0...ec1_lnk3|96547

By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama is expected to seek a new base tax rate for the wealthy to ensure that millionaires pay at least at the same percentage as middle income taxpayers.

A White House official said the proposal would be included in the president's proposal for long term deficit reduction that he will announce Monday. The official spoke anonymously because the plan has not been officially announced.

Obama is going to call it the "Buffett Rule" for Warren Buffett, the billionaire investor who has complained that rich people like him pay a smaller share of their income in federal taxes than middle-class taxpayers.

Buffett wrote in a New York Times op-ed piece last month that he and his rich friends "have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress."

The measure would be in addition to $447 billion in new tax revenue that Obama is seeking to pay for his short-term spending and tax cutting plan to jump start the economy.

House Speaker John Boehner said Thursday he would oppose tax increases to reduce the deficit. Boehner has urged Congress' deficit "supercommittee" to lay the groundwork for a broad overhaul of the U.S. tax code.

The panel has almost unlimited authority to recommend changes in federal spending and taxes and is working against a deadline of Nov. 23.

Boehner said the panel has "only one option, spending cuts and entitlement reforms," a reference to government benefit programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Any broad compromise that clears the bipartisan committee is almost certain to require Democratic agreement to savings from programs such as Social Security and Medicare, along with Republican acquiescence to additional revenues, although any such trade-offs are rarely discussed openly until the last possible moment in negotiations.

Obama's new tax proposal was first reported by The New York Times.

[BanginJimmy]

My only question is how much is enough? This will like put high income earners into a tax bracket close to 50%.

What's really funny is that this law wont even affect Buffett and those like him. They don't have any income and don't pay income taxes.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[bu villain]

What's really funny is that this law wont even affect Buffett and those like him. They don't have any income and don't pay income taxes.

Hard to say until we see the bill. In Buffet's op ed, he stated rates should be raised for taxable income of those making more than a million a year (capital gains and dividends are taxable income). That would affect Buffett and most super wealthy substantially.

[-EnVus-]

Just from Althlets alone we could have a good chunk of the deficit taken care of lol

[BanginJimmy]

Just from Althlets alone we could have a good chunk of the deficit taken care of lol

By good chunk you mean what? 1 or 2%.

Lets assume there are 5000 pro athletes and they average out to finish the year with 1mil in taxable income. Confiscate half of that and you end up with 2.5B in taxes. Thats about 1.5% of this years deficit. When you consider the fact that they are all paying taxes on that money already, the actual revenue growth will end up being somewhere in the neighborhood of .001% of the deficit, or about 16M.


I know what you are saying was said in jest, but most people dont understand the scope of the deficit. The govt could take 100% of the income of everyone that makes over 1 mil. and still not cover this years deficit, never mind paying down the actual debt.


My point is simple. This country doesnt have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem. The govt brings in more than enough money to do what it is supposed to do. They run into problems when they are spending money on everything else.

[-EnVus-]

Lol yeah didn't mean it literally I was just saying how after the taxes say micheal Vick or Derek jeter get done on thier $40 million a year. It will add up in time and then I wonder what kinda percentage is taken out on say Bill gates and his Billions ? It's a good idea of getting money for funding and seems more logic then just cutting a bunch of programs. I mean they have cut funding for HIV and cancer funds. Idk if they still have it but last year it was found that the government was paying almost billions a year studying the Black bears.... WTF!

[BanginJimmy]

Hard to say until we see the bill. In Buffet's op ed, he stated rates should be raised for taxable income of those making more than a million a year (capital gains and dividends are taxable income). That would affect Buffett and most super wealthy substantially.

In that case, what we will see is even more money heading out of the US, and sent someplace safe and secure from any US taxes.

[BanginJimmy]

Lol yeah didn't mean it literally I was just saying how after the taxes say micheal Vick or Derek jeter get done on thier $40 million a year. It will add up in time and then I wonder what kinda percentage is taken out on say Bill gates and his Billions ? It's a good idea of getting money for funding and seems more logic then just cutting a bunch of programs. I mean they have cut funding for HIV and cancer funds. Idk if they still have it but last year it was found that the government was paying almost billions a year studying the Black bears.... WTF!

I am fully in favor of getting rid of entire departments. Lets start with the Dept of Education. After they all get their pink slips and their 100B+ budget goes back into the coffers we can get started on the TSA and the rest of homeland security. With those 2 gone, I would imagine we would see nearly a quarter trillion a year in REAL savings.

[bu villain]

I know what you are saying was said in jest, but most people dont understand the scope of the deficit. The govt could take 100% of the income of everyone that makes over 1 mil. and still not cover this years deficit, never mind paying down the actual debt.

You are definitely right that many (most?) people don't understand the scope of our debt. That is why you hear some people talk about disallowing federal funding of NPR (appx 20M/year) but refuse to discuss tax increases which could raise trillions.

My point is simple. This country doesnt have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem. The govt brings in more than enough money to do what it is supposed to do. They run into problems when they are spending money on everything else.

Yes we do have a spending problem, but moreover its a debt problem. Just because increasing revenues can't solve the problem on its own, doesn't mean it can't be part of the solution. If we limited itemized deduction to 15%, the CBO esitmates that could bring in 1.2T in the next 10 years (source: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc...TheDeficit.pdf). That's nearly 10% of the current deficit and we shouldn't simply dismiss those options.

If everyone agreed on what government was supposed to do, then this whole situation would be much easier. But they don't, so there has to be compromise.

[BanginJimmy]

Yes we do have a spending problem, but moreover its a debt problem. Just because increasing revenues can't solve the problem on its own, doesn't mean it can't be part of the solution. If we limited itemized deduction to 15%, the CBO esitmates that could bring in 1.2T in the next 10 years (source: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc...TheDeficit.pdf). That's nearly 10% of the current deficit and we shouldn't simply dismiss those options.

I would concede for some tax increases in the form of limited deductions in return for meaningful spending cuts. The problem is that neither party is willing to make any kind of cuts. Reducing the rate of growth is NOT a cut. A cut is spending less this year than last year.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[Browning151]

Warren Buffett on CNBC:

http://www.businessinsider.com/warre...ma-cnbc-2011-9

A lot of people are talking about what Warren Buffett just said on CNBC because it sounded controversial, like he might have disagreed with Obama's tax and stimulus plans.
Eric Cantor's communication director Brad Dayspring, for example, has been tweeting up a storm on the matter.
(Update: And now the RNC is using Buffett's CNBC appearance to slam Obama)
So let's look at what he said and what it means.
Are you happy that Obama used your name for the "Buffett rule?" Andrew Ross Sorkin asks Buffett.
Buffet said, "Sure, I mean, I wrote about it."
ARS then asked if Buffett agreed with Obama's tax plan.
"I don't know what their program will be," he said, "but MY program would be on the very high incomes that are taxed very low - not just high incomes, not just some guy making $50 million playing baseball, his taxes won't change. Make $50 million appearing on TV, his income won't change. But if they make a lot of money and they pay a very low tax rate, like me, it would be changed by a minimum tax that would only bring them up to what the other people pay."
ARS: Does that mean you disagree with Obama's new jobs proposal which will be paid for by raising taxes on taxes on houses with incomes over $250,000?
Buffett: "No - that's another program that I won't be discussing. My program is to have a tax on ulta rich people who are paying very low tax rates, not just all the rich people, and it would probably apply to 50,000 people.
ARS: That means you disagree with the president? (ARS gets really excited about this.)
Buffett: "No no, you may disagree, but ... I will look at the overall plan that gets submitted to Congress, which they are voting on, and decide net, do I like it, or do I not like it.
"And there's no question there will be parts I disagree with," he said.
ARS: "But are you a supporter of his jobs plan right now?"
Buffett: "I am a supporter of the action he's trying to get Congress to join him in taking to really do something rather than sit there and go in different directions -"
ARS: "But you agree with all the details?"
Buffett: "I haven't looked at all the details."
At first Buffett said he won't comment on it, and then he said he'd look at the final plan that was proposed to Congress and make his decision after that.
So he didn't throw Obama under the bus - he straddled both sides of the road - but it sounds like he might not endorse the tax plan that Obama asks Congress to support.

He sort of dances around the questions being asked, but from his responses it looks to me like he would apply this "Buffett Rule" to those making more than $50 million since he says their taxes won't change under his plan (those making $50 million and under, that pay "very low taxes"). However, he does say that Obamas "$250,000" rhetoric is a whole other plan that he won't discuss, and then says that he'd have to look at the total plan that is presented.

Take from his comments what you will, but it seems like Mr. Buffett isn't in 100% agreement with the administrations interpretations of his words.

[cyb593]

The funny thing about this wealth envy is people don't take in consideration the millions these people donate to different causes. A lot of the "evil rich" tend to donate money to multiple causes every year.

ex: As of 2007, Bill and Melinda Gates were the second-most generous philanthropists in America, having given over $28 billion to charity.

Now lets think about this. You raise taxes on businesses and business owners then what happens? Increases payroll taxes, more taxes on each employee they have hired. They will loose to much money so they start cutting which means less jobs because they want to keep their same amount of profit. Why work if you cant make a profit on the goods you are selling.

Now lets lower taxes on these people. They want to increase their profit. They hire more people to make more money, the rich spends(more taxes paid) more money along with all the people(more tax money) they hired and the economy is on the rise. This economy would get better with tax decreases not increases. The less people pay in taxes means the more money will be spent.

Also a flat tax or more preferably the Fairtax would solve everyones problems. We dont need to raise or lower taxes just implement one of these solutions. No more "loopholes" in the tax code. Everyone pays the same after their necessities are paid for. This would also tax illegal immigrants in this country so everyone is paying. No matter who you are.

[ahabion]

To touch on this, there was a live simulcast that was done with Pres. Obama and the folks of Linkedin.com in the heart of silicon valley. One obvious thing while watching of course was that a majority of the attendees were largely democrat, which is somewhat beside the point. What struck me was that there was a guy (supposedly the co-founder of Google based on rumors... I haven't confirmed) who asked the question, "Can you please raise my taxes?"

What I find ironic about the whole thing, particularly Democrats who are wealthy, is that they blame rich Republicans of this and that and yet they themselves are very rich. If this guy was the co-founder of Google, he doesn't need his taxes raised to put more money into the pockets of the government... if I recall, the government still takes donations! Cut them a check but don't throw other folks into the mess by globally stating to raise ALL of our taxes. The late Steve Jobs was a Democrat and of course very wealthy but on the contrary, he was the poster child of capitalism which has largely become a Republican talking point.

[bu villain]

Now lets think about this. You raise taxes on businesses and business owners then what happens? Increases payroll taxes, more taxes on each employee they have hired.

I haven't heard any politician say we should increase payroll taxes, republican or democrat. As a matter of fact they have been taling about tax credits for hiring.

They will loose to much money so they start cutting which means less jobs because they want to keep their same amount of profit. Why work if you cant make a profit on the goods you are selling.

This doesn't make any sense to me. If your employees are making you lose money you should cut those jobs regardless of what the tax rate is. And if you aren't making a proft in the first place then you aren't paying any taxes anyways.

Now lets lower taxes on these people. They want to increase their profit. They hire more people to make more money, the rich spends(more taxes paid) more money along with all the people(more tax money) they hired and the economy is on the rise. This economy would get better with tax decreases not increases.

The hiring cycle you describe is not driven by lower taxes. As long as hiring people can make you more money, people will do it. Higher taxes means slightly less makes it to your pocket but you are still making money.

The less people pay in taxes means the more money will be spent.

Just look at our national deficit. It's clear the government is more likely to spend it than some "rich" person.

Also a flat tax or more preferably the Fairtax would solve everyones problems. We dont need to raise or lower taxes just implement one of these solutions. No more "loopholes" in the tax code. Everyone pays the same after their necessities are paid for. This would also tax illegal immigrants in this country so everyone is paying. No matter who you are.

I actually like the fairtax plan but I don't see how it would collect more revenue from illegal immigrants. A national sales tax would do that but it would also be very regressive.

[BanginJimmy]

I actually like the fairtax plan but I don't see how it would collect more revenue from illegal immigrants.

Because it would tax them at the full rate, but they would not be eligible for the prebate. Considering there are more than 15M illegals in the country right now it would be a HUGE cash cow.

A national sales tax would do that but it would also be very regressive.

How is everyone paying the same tax when purchasing the same item regressive? I would call that fair to everyone.

[cyb593]

I haven't heard any politician say we should increase payroll taxes, republican or democrat. As a matter of fact they have been taling about tax credits for hiring.



This doesn't make any sense to me. If your employees are making you lose money you should cut those jobs regardless of what the tax rate is. And if you aren't making a proft in the first place then you aren't paying any taxes anyways.



The hiring cycle you describe is not driven by lower taxes. As long as hiring people can make you more money, people will do it. Higher taxes means slightly less makes it to your pocket but you are
still making money.



Just look at our national deficit. It's clear the government is more likely to spend it than some "rich" person.





I actually like the fairtax plan but I don't see how it would collect more revenue from illegal immigrants. A national sales tax would do that but it would also be very regressive.

"The President’s plan will cut in half the taxes paid by businesses on their first $5 million in payroll, providing a tax but targeting the benefit to the 98 percent of firms that have payroll below this threshold. A complete payroll tax holiday for added workers or increased wages: The President’s plan will completely eliminate payroll taxes for firms that increase their payroll by adding new workers or increasing the wages of their current worker (to ensure that this tax cut is focused on small businesses, the tax relief is capped at $50 million in payroll increases)"

payroll taxes should be eliminated completely. They shouldnt need to give a tax credit.

Lower income and corporate taxes usually puts more money in the consumers pocket along with the businesses pocket and that allows more individual spending which has the effect of causing corporations to produce more goods which means they need to hire more people to produce those goods. Taxes go up then the opposite effect.

Fairtax is a national tax. Its 28% percent nationwide, plus they wont get the prebate so they would be paying 28% percent period with no tax relief. While now all illegals pay is state tax.

[BanginJimmy]

23% not 28

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[bu villain]

Because it would tax them at the full rate, but they would not be eligible for the prebate. Considering there are more than 15M illegals in the country right now it would be a HUGE cash cow.

Ah yes I was remebering incorrectly. I was thinking fairtax was a flat rate income tax rather than a national sales tax.

How is everyone paying the same tax when purchasing the same item regressive? I would call that fair to everyone.

By definition it is regressive as opposed to our current income tax system which is progressive. It has nothing to do with being fair or unfair, its just the technical term.

[bu villain]

"The President’s plan will cut in half the taxes paid by businesses on their first $5 million in payroll, providing a tax but targeting the benefit to the 98 percent of firms that have payroll below this threshold. A complete payroll tax holiday for added workers or increased wages: The President’s plan will completely eliminate payroll taxes for firms that increase their payroll by adding new workers or increasing the wages of their current worker (to ensure that this tax cut is focused on small businesses, the tax relief is capped at $50 million in payroll increases)"

payroll taxes should be eliminated completely. They shouldnt need to give a tax credit.

Lower income and corporate taxes usually puts more money in the consumers pocket along with the businesses pocket and that allows more individual spending which has the effect of causing corporations to produce more goods which means they need to hire more people to produce those goods. Taxes go up then the opposite effect.

Now you are arguing something different. Before you said that we shouldn't increase payroll taxes on business but you were arguing against no one since no one is proposing raising payroll taxes. Before you argued that that employers would fire workers to keep more profit but now you are arguing that lower taxes will trickle down to consumers. I can't debate your ideas when you keep changing your arguments.

Fairtax is a national tax. Its 28% percent nationwide, plus they wont get the prebate so they would be paying 28% percent period with no tax relief. While now all illegals pay is state tax.

You are correct. I had remembered the fair tax incorrectly.

[cyb593]

Now you are arguing something different. Before you said that we shouldn't increase payroll taxes on business but you were arguing against no one since no one is proposing raising payroll taxes. Before you argued that that employers would fire workers to keep more profit but now you are arguing that lower taxes will trickle down to consumers. I can't debate your ideas when you keep changing your arguments.

We should demolish payroll taxes. I admit i didnt look into the jobs bill. Where i hear tax increases i assume that would be included in it. My bad for that. As for the section below if payroll taxes did increase the below scenario would happen:

Taxes increases on the people, taxes increase on the business means more money out of pocket from both. Employers pay money towards SS, Unemployment, federal, state etc. just like the individual.i was posting above the information from Obama's "job bill" fucking over large corporations as you see. Besides that Employers have a budget of how much they want to pay an employee and how much taxes they pay for that employee. If the taxes raise up they have a couple options which is raise the price of goods, pay the employee a lower rate to keep the same profit margin or lay them off and save the company money (which is happening right now). Not all jobs "require" all the employees they have. They hire employees to ease the stress of other employees. For example i am currently working at a job where we are down 4 people. We are still doing the work however it is getting done a little slower and with a lot of overtime(very tiring on employees) on our part. A lot of employees aren't a necessity just a luxury.

Taxes do not need to be increases period the end. Obama is only looking to lower taxes on the "poor" and small businesses. He has started a full attack on this economy and the rich.

[bu villain]

We should demolish payroll taxes. I admit i didnt look into the jobs bill. Where i hear tax increases i assume that would be included in it. My bad for that. As for the section below if payroll taxes did increase the below scenario would happen:

No one is suggesting we increase payroll taxes so there is no need to discuss it any further. Companies will hire people when the profit generated by an employee is greater than the cost of that employee. Certain taxes raise the cost of an employee (SS, payroll, medicare, etc.) but these taxes are not the ones democrats are proposing to raise. Raising income taxes don't change the equation much because they are only levied on profits.

Now realistically, raising income taxes on companies would result in some layoffs (for companies where the cost/profit of employees are right on the border of profitability) but that would be offset by a decrease in payroll taxes. Simply speaking, the taxes levied directly on each employee (SS, medicare, etc) play a much more important role in hiring than corporate income taxes. That's why its a reasonable idea to lower those and increase income taxes in return. So we both agree decreasing payroll taxes is a good move for stimulating the economy and that is in the jobs bill.