How much would Obama's Buffett Tax on the "Rich" raise? (Not nearly enough)

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 31, 2012 4:03 AM GMT
    Using class warfare as a foundation for building a campaign, those like the Obama Administration want to take the focus off the fact that the primary problem isn't one of revenues, but one of spending.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/buffett-tax-and-truth-in-numbers/2012/01/29/gIQAikL5aQ_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop

    Obama’s still-vague Buffett Tax would apparently impose a minimum 30 percent tax rate on incomes exceeding $1 million....In September, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the 10-year deficit at $8.5 trillion. The nonpartisan Tax Foundation estimates that a Buffett Tax might now raise $40 billion annually. Citizens for Tax Justice, a liberal group, estimates $50 billion. With economic growth, the 10-year total might optimistically be $600 billion to $700 billion. It would be a tiny help; that’s all.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 31, 2012 4:26 AM GMT
    How many times are you going to post essentially the same story? It feels like once every 2 or 3 months you post something about how raising taxes on the rich won't - on it's own - plug the deficit.

    As if that somehow cancels out the amount it would help offset.

    And as if that's the only deficit reducing policy on the table. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 31, 2012 4:31 AM GMT
    Christian73 saidHow many times are you going to post essentially the same story? It feels like once every 2 or 3 months you post something about how raising taxes on the rich won't - on it's own - plug the deficit.

    As if that somehow cancels out the amount it would help offset.

    And as if that's the only deficit reducing policy on the table. icon_rolleyes.gif


    You know pretty much the same number of times new stories appear to discuss how problematic it is while those like you insist that the rich aren't paying their fair share... actually now that I think of it, it's probably considerably fewer times than those like you do.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 31, 2012 4:52 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidHow many times are you going to post essentially the same story? It feels like once every 2 or 3 months you post something about how raising taxes on the rich won't - on it's own - plug the deficit.

    As if that somehow cancels out the amount it would help offset.

    And as if that's the only deficit reducing policy on the table. icon_rolleyes.gif


    You know pretty much the same number of times new stories appear to discuss how problematic it is while those like you insist that the rich aren't paying their fair share... actually now that I think of it, it's probably considerably fewer times than those like you do.


    Except they aren't by any measure.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 31, 2012 5:03 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidHow many times are you going to post essentially the same story? It feels like once every 2 or 3 months you post something about how raising taxes on the rich won't - on it's own - plug the deficit.

    As if that somehow cancels out the amount it would help offset.

    And as if that's the only deficit reducing policy on the table. icon_rolleyes.gif


    You know pretty much the same number of times new stories appear to discuss how problematic it is while those like you insist that the rich aren't paying their fair share... actually now that I think of it, it's probably considerably fewer times than those like you do.


    Except they aren't by any measure.


    Except they are by any standard measure of reality.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 31, 2012 5:18 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidHow many times are you going to post essentially the same story? It feels like once every 2 or 3 months you post something about how raising taxes on the rich won't - on it's own - plug the deficit.

    As if that somehow cancels out the amount it would help offset.

    And as if that's the only deficit reducing policy on the table. icon_rolleyes.gif


    You know pretty much the same number of times new stories appear to discuss how problematic it is while those like you insist that the rich aren't paying their fair share... actually now that I think of it, it's probably considerably fewer times than those like you do.


    Except they aren't by any measure.


    Except they are by any standard measure of reality.


    Incorrect. Just have a lookey-loo at the 20th century and note the relationship between higher marginal rates and the economy booming. icon_cool.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 31, 2012 5:19 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidHow many times are you going to post essentially the same story? It feels like once every 2 or 3 months you post something about how raising taxes on the rich won't - on it's own - plug the deficit.

    As if that somehow cancels out the amount it would help offset.

    And as if that's the only deficit reducing policy on the table. icon_rolleyes.gif


    You know pretty much the same number of times new stories appear to discuss how problematic it is while those like you insist that the rich aren't paying their fair share... actually now that I think of it, it's probably considerably fewer times than those like you do.


    Except they aren't by any measure.


    Except they are by any standard measure of reality.


    Incorrect. Just have a lookey-loo at the 20th century and note the relationship between higher marginal rates and the economy booming. icon_cool.gif


    Yes - let's have a look at effective tax rates that are actually paid and the economy booming.
  • KissTheSky

    Posts: 1981

    Jan 31, 2012 5:46 AM GMT
    riddler78 saidUsing class warfare as a foundation for building a campaign, those like the Obama Administration want to take the focus off the fact that the primary problem isn't one of revenues, but one of spending.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/buffett-tax-and-truth-in-numbers/2012/01/29/gIQAikL5aQ_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop

    Obama’s still-vague Buffett Tax would apparently impose a minimum 30 percent tax rate on incomes exceeding $1 million....In September, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the 10-year deficit at $8.5 trillion. The nonpartisan Tax Foundation estimates that a Buffett Tax might now raise $40 billion annually. Citizens for Tax Justice, a liberal group, estimates $50 billion. With economic growth, the 10-year total might optimistically be $600 billion to $700 billion. It would be a tiny help; that’s all.


    The taxes I'm paying make an even smaller dent in the deficit.
    Does that mean I get to stop paying my taxes? icon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 31, 2012 6:53 AM GMT
    KissTheSky said
    riddler78 saidUsing class warfare as a foundation for building a campaign, those like the Obama Administration want to take the focus off the fact that the primary problem isn't one of revenues, but one of spending.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/buffett-tax-and-truth-in-numbers/2012/01/29/gIQAikL5aQ_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop

    Obama’s still-vague Buffett Tax would apparently impose a minimum 30 percent tax rate on incomes exceeding $1 million....In September, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the 10-year deficit at $8.5 trillion. The nonpartisan Tax Foundation estimates that a Buffett Tax might now raise $40 billion annually. Citizens for Tax Justice, a liberal group, estimates $50 billion. With economic growth, the 10-year total might optimistically be $600 billion to $700 billion. It would be a tiny help; that’s all.


    The taxes I'm paying make an even smaller dent in the deficit.
    Does that mean I get to stop paying my taxes? icon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gif


    Conversely a more accurate analogy would be: does it therefore mean that your taxes should be jacked up substantially? I'm curious given your laughable defense of federal worker over pay whether or not you're a federal worker.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 31, 2012 9:34 AM GMT
    How convenient. The Buffett Tax won't affect Buffett.

    http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2012/01/warren-buffett.html

    Billionaire Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett is once again thrilling the political class by volunteering other people to pay higher taxes. Long-time observers recall his opposition to former President George W. Bush's efforts to reduce the tax rate on dividends. Since Berkshire pays no dividends, Mr. Buffett had little at stake but enjoyed the opportunity to pose as if he were a rich guy eager to cough up more dough to Washington.
    In the current debate, President Obama is pushing the "Buffett Rule" to ensure that high-income earners pay higher tax rates. But even if it's enacted, don't expect the Buffett Rule to have much impact on Mr. Buffett. By an amazing coincidence, the sage of Omaha is already positioned to shield most of his rising wealth from such a tax. ...

    [T]he Buffett Rule ... at its heart is a way to raise taxes on dividends and capital gains. Berkshire still doesn't pay a dividend, and as for capital gains taxes, well, Mr. Buffett has already made clear that he'll largely avoid them by transferring his fortune to the Gates Foundation and to charitable trusts controlled by his family.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 31, 2012 1:29 PM GMT
    riddler78 saidHow convenient. The Buffett Tax won't affect Buffett.

    http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2012/01/warren-buffett.html

    Billionaire Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett is once again thrilling the political class by volunteering other people to pay higher taxes. Long-time observers recall his opposition to former President George W. Bush's efforts to reduce the tax rate on dividends. Since Berkshire pays no dividends, Mr. Buffett had little at stake but enjoyed the opportunity to pose as if he were a rich guy eager to cough up more dough to Washington.
    In the current debate, President Obama is pushing the "Buffett Rule" to ensure that high-income earners pay higher tax rates. But even if it's enacted, don't expect the Buffett Rule to have much impact on Mr. Buffett. By an amazing coincidence, the sage of Omaha is already positioned to shield most of his rising wealth from such a tax. ...

    [T]he Buffett Rule ... at its heart is a way to raise taxes on dividends and capital gains. Berkshire still doesn't pay a dividend, and as for capital gains taxes, well, Mr. Buffett has already made clear that he'll largely avoid them by transferring his fortune to the Gates Foundation and to charitable trusts controlled by his family.


    That's a very specious argument, particularly when it comes to the charitable aspect of it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 31, 2012 4:03 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 saidHow convenient. The Buffett Tax won't affect Buffett.

    http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2012/01/warren-buffett.html

    Billionaire Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett is once again thrilling the political class by volunteering other people to pay higher taxes. Long-time observers recall his opposition to former President George W. Bush's efforts to reduce the tax rate on dividends. Since Berkshire pays no dividends, Mr. Buffett had little at stake but enjoyed the opportunity to pose as if he were a rich guy eager to cough up more dough to Washington.
    In the current debate, President Obama is pushing the "Buffett Rule" to ensure that high-income earners pay higher tax rates. But even if it's enacted, don't expect the Buffett Rule to have much impact on Mr. Buffett. By an amazing coincidence, the sage of Omaha is already positioned to shield most of his rising wealth from such a tax. ...

    [T]he Buffett Rule ... at its heart is a way to raise taxes on dividends and capital gains. Berkshire still doesn't pay a dividend, and as for capital gains taxes, well, Mr. Buffett has already made clear that he'll largely avoid them by transferring his fortune to the Gates Foundation and to charitable trusts controlled by his family.


    That's a very specious argument, particularly when it comes to the charitable aspect of it.


    So you're ok with charitable deductions - that include vanity charities - at the expense of taxes? You can't possibly be so naive as to not be aware of how some charitable trusts are used as tax shelters?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 31, 2012 4:16 PM GMT
    "So you're ok with charitable deductions - that include vanity charities - at the expense of taxes? You can't possibly be so naive as to not be aware of how some charitable trusts are used as tax shelters?" sayeth riddler.

    I've quoted this for the rich irony. Awhile back a few RJ conservatives were saying that welfare should be abolished etc and charities etc be the providers.There was a huge topic over it, with all kinds of justifications about the nobleness of having charities run the welfare system etc. and how the super rich were piously donating their riches to charities they set up, poor things. This was touted as better than paying taxes.


    Ha and ha.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 31, 2012 4:48 PM GMT
    meninlove said"So you're ok with charitable deductions - that include vanity charities - at the expense of taxes? You can't possibly be so naive as to not be aware of how some charitable trusts are used as tax shelters?" sayeth riddler.

    I've quoted this for the rich irony. Awhile back a few RJ conservatives were saying that welfare should be abolished etc and charities etc be the providers.There was a huge topic over it, with all kinds of justifications about the nobleness of having charities run the welfare system etc. and how the super rich were piously donating their riches to charities they set up, poor things. This was touted as better than paying taxes.


    Ha and ha.



    Actually I was hoping to have Christian make my argument for me. I actually do believe that charities better manage the welfare of the poor than the government does. It isn't those like myself who believe that governments should get bigger in order to manage the economy and the lives of the poor. But this raises the bigger issue of taxation and absurd notion that the rich are somehow undertaxed and the hypocrisy specifically of this proposal.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 31, 2012 4:59 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 saidHow convenient. The Buffett Tax won't affect Buffett.

    http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2012/01/warren-buffett.html

    Billionaire Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett is once again thrilling the political class by volunteering other people to pay higher taxes. Long-time observers recall his opposition to former President George W. Bush's efforts to reduce the tax rate on dividends. Since Berkshire pays no dividends, Mr. Buffett had little at stake but enjoyed the opportunity to pose as if he were a rich guy eager to cough up more dough to Washington.
    In the current debate, President Obama is pushing the "Buffett Rule" to ensure that high-income earners pay higher tax rates. But even if it's enacted, don't expect the Buffett Rule to have much impact on Mr. Buffett. By an amazing coincidence, the sage of Omaha is already positioned to shield most of his rising wealth from such a tax. ...

    [T]he Buffett Rule ... at its heart is a way to raise taxes on dividends and capital gains. Berkshire still doesn't pay a dividend, and as for capital gains taxes, well, Mr. Buffett has already made clear that he'll largely avoid them by transferring his fortune to the Gates Foundation and to charitable trusts controlled by his family.


    That's a very specious argument, particularly when it comes to the charitable aspect of it.


    So you're ok with charitable deductions - that include vanity charities - at the expense of taxes? You can't possibly be so naive as to not be aware of how some charitable trusts are used as tax shelters?


    Are you saying the Gates Foundation is a "vanity charity"?

    The nonprofit sector is among the most transparent in our economy. Of course, some will always manipulate the best intended policies but neither you, nor this author have any evidence that Buffett is intending to do so.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 31, 2012 5:18 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 saidHow convenient. The Buffett Tax won't affect Buffett.

    http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2012/01/warren-buffett.html

    Billionaire Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett is once again thrilling the political class by volunteering other people to pay higher taxes. Long-time observers recall his opposition to former President George W. Bush's efforts to reduce the tax rate on dividends. Since Berkshire pays no dividends, Mr. Buffett had little at stake but enjoyed the opportunity to pose as if he were a rich guy eager to cough up more dough to Washington.
    In the current debate, President Obama is pushing the "Buffett Rule" to ensure that high-income earners pay higher tax rates. But even if it's enacted, don't expect the Buffett Rule to have much impact on Mr. Buffett. By an amazing coincidence, the sage of Omaha is already positioned to shield most of his rising wealth from such a tax. ...

    [T]he Buffett Rule ... at its heart is a way to raise taxes on dividends and capital gains. Berkshire still doesn't pay a dividend, and as for capital gains taxes, well, Mr. Buffett has already made clear that he'll largely avoid them by transferring his fortune to the Gates Foundation and to charitable trusts controlled by his family.


    That's a very specious argument, particularly when it comes to the charitable aspect of it.


    So you're ok with charitable deductions - that include vanity charities - at the expense of taxes? You can't possibly be so naive as to not be aware of how some charitable trusts are used as tax shelters?


    Are you saying the Gates Foundation is a "vanity charity"?

    The nonprofit sector is among the most transparent in our economy. Of course, some will always manipulate the best intended policies but neither you, nor this author have any evidence that Buffett is intending to do so.


    Bullshit. Having actually been in the not for profit sector and looked at financial statements for not for profits, the idea that they are the most transparent is just hogwash especially in how they classify and decide on itemizations. His family trusts may very well be vanity charities and a method to employ his kids - while it's my hope that the Gates Foundation does well, he did far more in his private for profit enterprise - even in the developing world.

    Are you however acknowledging that charities are able to do better than government?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 31, 2012 5:34 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 saidHow convenient. The Buffett Tax won't affect Buffett.

    http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2012/01/warren-buffett.html

    Billionaire Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett is once again thrilling the political class by volunteering other people to pay higher taxes. Long-time observers recall his opposition to former President George W. Bush's efforts to reduce the tax rate on dividends. Since Berkshire pays no dividends, Mr. Buffett had little at stake but enjoyed the opportunity to pose as if he were a rich guy eager to cough up more dough to Washington.
    In the current debate, President Obama is pushing the "Buffett Rule" to ensure that high-income earners pay higher tax rates. But even if it's enacted, don't expect the Buffett Rule to have much impact on Mr. Buffett. By an amazing coincidence, the sage of Omaha is already positioned to shield most of his rising wealth from such a tax. ...

    [T]he Buffett Rule ... at its heart is a way to raise taxes on dividends and capital gains. Berkshire still doesn't pay a dividend, and as for capital gains taxes, well, Mr. Buffett has already made clear that he'll largely avoid them by transferring his fortune to the Gates Foundation and to charitable trusts controlled by his family.


    That's a very specious argument, particularly when it comes to the charitable aspect of it.


    So you're ok with charitable deductions - that include vanity charities - at the expense of taxes? You can't possibly be so naive as to not be aware of how some charitable trusts are used as tax shelters?


    Are you saying the Gates Foundation is a "vanity charity"?

    The nonprofit sector is among the most transparent in our economy. Of course, some will always manipulate the best intended policies but neither you, nor this author have any evidence that Buffett is intending to do so.


    Bullshit. Having actually been in the not for profit sector and looked at financial statements for not for profits, the idea that they are the most transparent is just hogwash especially in how they classify and decide on itemizations. His family trusts may very well be vanity charities and a method to employ his kids - while it's my hope that the Gates Foundation does well, he did far more in his private for profit enterprise - even in the developing world.

    Are you however acknowledging that charities are able to do better than government?


    When did you work in the nonprofit sector? I find it hard to believe that you'd lower yourself to work with "leeches" as you've referred to those of us who do.

    That you could claim that John Paulson and Goldman Sachs conspiracy is above board but Buffett is somehow scheming to give his children jobs, particularly given that his children are all doing quite well and have public spoken about how they believe their father is doing the right thing by donating most of his wealth to charity.

    http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2133209&page=1#.TyglZPne58E

    Some charities to some things better than government does. Just as some businesses do things better than government does and government does certain things better than businesses or nonprofits.