Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Recliner Pilot

It's all about "Fairness"

Recommended Posts

The strategy of attacking the Evil Rich is all about "Fairness", not economic growth or increasing revenues to the treasury to help with our massive, out of control deficits.

 

 

The Obama Rule

 

He says taxation is about fairness, not growth or revenue.

 

 

Forget Warren Buffett, or whatever other political prop the White House wants to use for its tax agenda. This week the Administration officially endorsed what in essence is the Obama Rule: Taxes must be high simply to spread the wealth, never mind the impact on the economy or government revenue. It's all about "fairness," baby.

 

This was long apparent to those fated to closely watch the 2008 campaign, but some voters might have missed the point amid the gauzy rhetoric about hope and change. Now we know without any doubt. White House aides made it official Tuesday in their on-the-record briefing on the new federal minimum tax that travels under the political alias known as the "Buffett rule."

 

The policy goal is to impose an effective minimum tax of 30% on the income of anyone who makes more than $1 million a year. When President Obama first proposed this new minimum tax he declared that the rule "could raise enough money" so that we "stabilize our debt and deficits for the next decade."

 

Then he added: "This is not politics; this is math." Well, remedial math maybe.

 

The Obama Treasury's own numbers confirm that the tax would raise at most $5 billion a year—or less than 0.5% of the $1.2 trillion fiscal 2012 budget deficit and over the next decade a mere 0.1% of the $45.43 trillion the federal government will spend. When asked about those revenue projections, White House aide Jason Furman backpedaled from Mr. Obama's rationale by explaining that the tax was never intended "to bring the deficit down and the debt under control."

 

Okay. So what is the point?

 

The goal, Mr. Furman explained, is to establish a "a basic issue of tax fairness." Millionaires should pay an effective tax rate no lower than a middle-class secretary or a plumber. But wait: IRS data show that middle-class workers on average pay just under 15% of their income in federal taxes, while the richest 0.1% pay almost twice as high a rate on average, or 26%.

 

The U.S. already has a Buffett rule. The Alternative Minimum Tax that first became law in 1969 was also supposed to make sure that millionaires pay their "fair share." The top AMT rate is now 28%. But the AMT has become a public nuisance, adding new complexity to the tax code and ensnaring more and more middle-class families because it isn't indexed for inflation. The surest prediction in politics is that any tax that starts by hitting the rich ends up hitting the middle class because that is where the real money is.

 

An even greater absurdity is the White House claim that this is a first step to tax reform because it will ensure that the "rich don't take advantage of tax breaks or structure their affairs to pay less taxes." Huh?

 

A basic principle of any tax reform worth the name is to broaden the tax base in order to lower rates for everyone, not to raise them. The point is to make the tax code more efficient by reducing the incentive for avoidance—legal or illegal.

 

The Buffett tax would only make loopholes more valuable. The White House has already carved out one exception to its own Buffett rule: charitable donations. So a billionaire could avoid the 30% effective tax rate by giving away millions of dollars—say, the way Mitt Romney so generously does.

 

Want to guess how long it will take for the suits on K Street to get busy trying to reinsert tax breaks for "investments" in the likes of municipal bonds, mortgages, energy-efficient toasters, windmills or by Chuck Schumer's hedge-fund buddies?

 

The century-long history of the federal income tax teaches us one lesson over and over: The higher the tax rates, the more loopholes Congress inserts as a way around those rates. This is why the government collected roughly as much tax revenue as a share of GDP when the top tax rate was 70% in the 1970s as it did when the rate fell to 28% in 1986.

 

The Buffett rule is really nothing more than a sneaky way for Mr. Obama to justify doubling the capital gains and dividend tax rate to 30% from 15% today. That's the real spread-the-wealth target. The problem is that this is a tax on capital that is needed for firms to grow and hire more workers. Mr. Obama says he wants an investment-led recovery, not one led by consumption, but how will investment be spurred by doubling the tax on it?

 

The only investment and hiring the Buffett rule is likely to spur will be outside the United States—in China, Germany, India, and other competitors with much more investment-friendly tax regimes. The Buffett rule would give the U.S. the fourth highest capital gains rate among OECD nations, according to a new study by Ernst & Young, to go along with what is now the highest corporate tax rate (a little under 40% for the combined federal and average state rate). That's what happens when politicians pursue fairness over growth.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303815404577336010655038338.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really no reason for you to follow me around posting a video with the lyrics "You're my obsession", Mr. Perfect Life.

 

Everyone here already knows you have a sick obsession with me. :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your party's "trickle down economics" has been proven for decades not to work. Yet every Republican politician still spouts it, while the gap between rich and poor grows, and the middle class dies. Perhaps it is time to try something else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your party's "trickle down economics" has been proven for decades not to work. Yet every Republican politician still spouts it, while the gap between rich and poor grows, and the middle class dies. Perhaps it is time to try something else.

Republicans never had anything they called "trickle down economics". That's a label the lefty media pinned on supply side economics. And it led to the longest peacetime economic boom in history and the creation of 13 million jobs.

 

You obviously hate this country, so maybe you should look for a better one to move to. I wish you good luck. :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your party's "trickle down economics" has been proven for decades not to work. Yet every Republican politician still spouts it, while the gap between rich and poor grows, and the middle class dies. Perhaps it is time to try something else.

And your party's "trickle up poverty" has been proven to work very well. Perhaps the poor minorities that have voted Democrat for generations only to see their situation get worse should try something different? :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And your party's "trickle up poverty" has been proven to work very well. Perhaps the poor minorities that have voted Democrat for generations only to see their situation get worse should try something different? :dunno:

:first:

 

This is the one thing Obama has done better than anyone before him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your party's "trickle down economics" has been proven for decades not to work. Yet every Republican politician still spouts it, while the gap between rich and poor grows, and the middle class dies. Perhaps it is time to try something else.

this is incorrect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He takes being incorrect and turns it into an art form.

 

TBBOM is already on record as saying that fairness is more important than results. He would rather everyone in the country have $1 than half the people have $3 and the other half $2. There is no arguing with that logic. :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You obviously hate this country, so maybe you should look for a better one to move to. I wish you good luck. :thumbsup:

 

The majority of people 4 years ago chose BHO. When they do again in the fall, they're siding with his tax policies. I think it might be you that hates the country, as you're the one complaining so much about it.

 

Go move to Sweden if you don't like our tax policy. See how you like theirs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go move to Sweden if you don't like our tax policy. See how you like theirs.

 

Why haven't you told MDC, Newbie or TBBOM to get the fock out of this country and see how they like other countries tax structures? Oh that's right you are a hypocrite and are no better than RP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why haven't you told MDC, Newbie or TBBOM to get the fock out of this country and see how they like other countries tax structures? Oh that's right you are a hypocrite and are no better than RP.

 

For the record, if I could find a job abroad, I'd leave in a heartbeat. About all I'd miss is the NFL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record, if I could find a job abroad, I'd leave in a heartbeat. About all I'd miss is the NFL.

Once again all talk. You said you don't make sh!t as a teacher so it would be very easy for you to find another job in another country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your party's "trickle down economics" has been proven for decades not to work. Yet every Republican politician still spouts it, while the gap between rich and poor grows, and the middle class dies. Perhaps it is time to try something else.

 

 

You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity, by legislating the wealth out of prosperity.

What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them; and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work, because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The majority of people 4 years ago chose BHO. When they do again in the fall, they're siding with his tax policies. I think it might be you that hates the country, as you're the one complaining so much about it.

 

Go move to Sweden if you don't like our tax policy. See how you like theirs.

 

 

Actually you are the one who hates the current tax policy. You should be the one moving to Sweden.

 

 

The rich don't have enough money to solve our problems; everyone is going to have to sacrifice to get us out of the hole we have dug and until someone tells you this they are not being honest.

 

 

 

When you say things like this they shoot you.

 

And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.

- John F. Kennedy

 

"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem."

- Ronald Reagan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently the actual "Buffet Tax" before the Senate is intended to REDUCE tax revenues. So it is indeed all about "fairness."

 

 

 

The case for the Buffett tax keeps eroding. When President Obama announced the idea, he said it would help "stabilize our debt and deficits over the next decade." Then came the inconvenient revelation that the new 30% millionaire's tax would raise only $46.7 billion over 10 years, and would leave about 99.5% of the deficit intact in 2013. It was a far cry from "stabilizing the debt."

 

Now we learn that the Buffett tax the Senate is expected to vote on early next week will make the deficit worse. That's because both Mr. Obama and Senate Democrats have made it clear that their new "fairness" tax is to offset the revenue loss from another provision related to the Alternative Minimum Tax.

 

That measure would exempt more than 20 million middle class Americans with incomes as low as $80,000 a year from getting nailed by the AMT. This year's Obama budget clearly describes their intent: "The Buffett Rule should replace the Alternative Minimum Tax, which now burdens middle-class Americans rather than stopping the richest Americans from paying too little as was originally intended."

 

The Joint Tax Committee—the official scoring referee on tax bills—calculates that the combination of AMT repeal for the middle class and the Buffett tax would add $793.3 billion to the debt over the next decade. As Mr. Obama has said, "This isn't politics, this is math."

 

The Buffett tax is losing any serious rationale by the day. Mr. Obama's position now is that we need a new fairness tax, because the old AMT fairness tax that was targeted at millionaires and billionaires isn't raising much money from the Warren Buffetts of the world. Instead it's siphoning income out of more and more nonmillionaires. So they argue it's time for a new Buffett rule, that is almost identical to the old Buffett rule, and no doubt in time will have the same unintended consequences.

 

The Buffett rule itself may die, but the name will live on as a metaphor for pointless public policy.

 

A version of this article appeared April 14, 2012, on page A14 in some U.S. editions of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The Buffett Tax Loss.

 

 

My link

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently the actual "Buffet Tax" before the Senate is intended to REDUCE tax revenues. So it is indeed all about "fairness."

 

 

 

 

 

My link

 

 

Not surprising. With this crop of Democrats/Liberals it's pretty much expected.

 

Everything is about fairness, nothing they do can possibly be about the bottom line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently the actual "Buffet Tax" before the Senate is intended to REDUCE tax revenues. So it is indeed all about "fairness."

 

 

Tax the rich, feed the poor

Till there are no rich no more?

- Alvin Lee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Each time Obama goes out there and pushes the "Buffet Rule" he looks more and more idiotic. Even the lamestream media has caught onto it, and it's so dumb even they aren't trying to cover for him on this. Keep it up Mr. President. :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom. - Alexis de Tocqueville

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:thumbsup:

Once again all talk. You said you don't make sh!t as a teacher so it would be very easy for you to find another job in another country.

 

Really? I've applied abroad as a teacher. But believe it or not, other countries have people who need jobs too. Not to mention the fact that I don't speak a foreign language.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:thumbsup:

 

Really? I've applied abroad as a teacher. But believe it or not, other countries have people who need jobs too. Not to mention the fact that I don't speak a foreign language.

They won't hire you cuz you can't speak the same language as the kids? That doesn't seem fair. You should call Obama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Each time Obama goes out there and pushes the "Buffet Rule" he looks more and more idiotic. Even the lamestream media has caught onto it, and it's so dumb even they aren't trying to cover for him on this. Keep it up Mr. President. :thumbsup:

 

I think not.

 

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/16/cnn-poll-7-out-of-10-support-buffett-rule/?hpt=hp_t1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen polls from 60-70% support it. Given the fact 50% pays nothing, it's not hard to get another 10-20% of those who aren't millionaires to favor it based on Obama's lies.

 

I guess I should have qualified my post and said he looks idiotic to people educated enough to know it won't do what he claims. Raising $4 billion per year when Obama is running a $1.2 TRILLION deficit this year is meaningless.

 

Just because morons are buying what he is selling, that doesn't mean he doesn't look idiotic to those who know the facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen polls from 60-70% support it. Given the fact 50% pays nothing, it's not hard to get another 10-20% of those who aren't millionaires to favor it based on Obama's lies.

 

I guess I should have qualified my post and said he looks idiotic to people educated enough to know it won't do what he claims. Raising $4 billion per year when Obama is running a $1.2 TRILLION deficit this year is meaningless.

 

Just because morons are buying what he is selling, that doesn't mean he doesn't look idiotic to those who know the facts.

:lol:

 

Err, ummm, what I, uh, meant to say was.....

 

ROFL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:music_guitarred:

 

The Obama administration is emphasizing “fairness” over deficit reduction in its renewed pitch for the “Buffett rule” ahead of next week’s scheduled Senate vote.

 

Introducing a minimum 30 percent income tax on millionaires “was never our plan to bring the deficit down and get the debt under control,” Jason Furman, the principal deputy director of the White House National Economic Council, told reporters on a conference call Monday afternoon.

 

During a Monday conference call with reporters, Obama campaign manager Jim Messina called on Romney to release additional tax filings, saying, “The Buffett rule will help make our system reflect our values as all Americans play by the same rules, do their fair share and get a shot at success.”

 

Republicans have dismissed the proposal as a crass campaign stunt, because it won’t raise much revenue to pay down government debt after three straight years of deficits exceeding $1 trillion.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) slammed the bill late last month, after the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation estimated the rule would generate $46.7 billion in revenues over the next decade.

“It was designed for no other reason than politics — there is no economic rationale for it,” Hatch said in a statement. “I hope the president will stop the class warfare and start leading by putting out real proposals to bring down our debt.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

States are cutting jobs and services like crazy the past few years. Why shouldn't millionaires pay a higher rate? Everyone else has to tighten the belt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

States are cutting jobs and services like crazy the past few years. Why shouldn't millionaires pay a higher rate? Everyone else has to tighten the belt.

So, you think the Buffet Rule will keep states from cutting jobs and services? :doh:

 

Go stand by Newbie, he has a window for you to help him lick. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, you think the Buffet Rule will keep states from cutting jobs and services? :doh:

 

Go stand by Newbie, he has a window for you to help him lick. :lol:

Hopefully, they hold an election soon to see how the majority feels. :music_guitarred:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully, they hold an election soon to see how the majority feels. :music_guitarred:

There is one coming up in November. I guess Justin Bieber hasn't updated his webpage with that info, so I can see how you are unaware of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, you think the Buffet Rule will keep states from cutting jobs and services? :doh:

 

Of course not. What I don't get is why it's okay to lay off teachers (for example) but not okay to ask millionaires to pay a higher rate on income tax or capital gains?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course not. What I don't get is why it's okay to lay off teachers (for example) but not okay to ask millionaires to pay a higher rate on income tax or capital gains?

So, you think the Buffet rule will stop teachers from being laid off?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, you think the Buffet rule will stop teachers from being laid off?

Or pharmacuetical reps?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, you think the Buffet rule will stop teachers from being laid off?

 

I just answered this question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×