A balanced discussion about the Buffet rule from NPR

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

    Apr 17, 2012 12:42 PM GMT
    Although this has failed, and I don't think it will be much of an election factor (just my opinion), I want to provide some info for those will to read a bit and think beyond the typical slogans what the impact could be on the economy.

    Some are driven by an arbitrary definition of what fairness means and an ideology and could care less about impacts. A good example was a Brit Hume interview of Obama some months ago when discussing the impact of tax hikes. Hume asked him if raising the rates on the wealthy led to less revenue coming into the Government, would Obama reconsider his position. Obama said no, it's all about fairness. His position all along is that taxes should be used for redistribution of wealth versus their impact on economic health.

    My point in this is two-fold. First, I will excerpt a few points from the NPR discussion that point to negative impacts on investment in the public sector as well as negative impacts on the stock market. Everyone who is saving for retirement involving stocks should be very concerned.

    Second, there are people who take the opposite position, that the rule would be beneficial for the economy. I don't buy that for one minute, but you can find those points in the discussion. Whatever position you might take, at least go beyond the dumbass slogans and BS discussion in other threads and at least think a bit deeper.

    http://m.npr.org/news/Politics/150406660?page=0

    Published: April 11, 2012 by Jim Zarroli

    A tax-the-rich proposal named after Warren Buffett has little chance of passing this year, but that hasn't stopped the debate over what impact it would have.

    Some economists are skeptical that a 30 percent minimum tax on people with million-dollar incomes — known as the "Buffett rule" — would do much to reduce the deficit or boost the economy. But the Obama administration says the proposal is necessary to make the tax code more equitable.

    The Buffett rule would apply to wealthy people, but not all wealthy people. Instead, it would affect the tiny number of taxpayers — some of the nation's wealthiest — who make most of their money from investments.

    Rob Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center, says the proposed rule would not affect many of the people we think of as "very rich."

    "For high income people who get a lot of their income from wage and salaries — the George Clooneys of the world, LeBron James, the CEOs — those people would not see an effect from the Buffett tax, because they're already paying tax rates above 30 percent," Williams says.

    But, he says, wealthy people who get their money from assets like stocks and bonds would feel the pain.
    ....................................................
    "If you tax millionaires that are investing in, for example, municipal bonds, and they're enjoying the tax benefit of that interest, you could see a whole rash of investors moving away from buying bonds of our state and local governments," Ablin says.

    Under the Buffett rule, people who sell assets would suddenly be forced to pay much higher taxes on the profits they make. Will McBride, an economist with the Tax Foundation, says many people would rush to unload the assets they hold before the law takes effect.

    "If this tax were to go into effect Jan. 1 of next year," McBride says, "the stock market in December would not look pretty."

    Over the longer term, McBride says, the law would do even more damage to the economy. Because people would have to pay more taxes on the profits they make, they would have less incentive to invest, he says.

    As a result, McBride argues, small startups would suffer. "You don't want to heavily tax investment, because you're taxing the thing that creates long-term economic growth," he says.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 17, 2012 12:49 PM GMT
    Thanks for this morning's fiction.

    There's no historical evidence of increased taxes on securities resulting in lowered investment or just creation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 18, 2012 1:49 AM GMT
    Christian73 saidThanks for this morning's fiction.

    There's no historical evidence of increased taxes on securities resulting in lowered investment or just creation.

    It was a balanced discussion from NPR which you obviously did not even take the time to skim. Why bother when all you do is pump out a party line with no thought whatsoever.