-BREAKING -President Obama supports the Socialist President who favors the Buffett Rule
Web Link v=PvcarAqryIY&feature=player_embedded#!
Nation asks: "Will GOP candidate Romney, who pays <14% tax rate on $40 million income, join Socialists Hoover, Ike, Nixon, Reagan, Obama in Solidarity?"

Reporter asks: " Why not call it the Romney Rule?"

Republican budget (the Romney-Ryan budget) would cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent.

-BREAKING - Thirty Fortune 500 companies paid no net federal income tax from 2008 through 2010 -Costs working families $78.3 billion

Web Link 2012/04/big_no-tax_corps_just_ keep_on_dodging.php

Nations asks: "Mitt, why cut corporate tax rates when none pay those tax rates anyway?"

breaking - best candidate remaining calls it quits

Senator Santorum gives up. Think he'll have the nerve to ask for our support in 2016 after showing he's a quitter?

Double D - you are taking the comments of one of our greatest presidents out of context. Ronald Reagan was not a socialist.

Yes, from Wikipedia - so feel free to take your shots at this reference even though it is fully sourced to the Department of Treasury and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Remember, if you can't refute the message, attack the messenger.

...President John Kennedy called for a reduction of the top income tax rate from 91% to 65%, reduction of the bottom rate from 20% to 14%, and a reduction in the corporate tax rate from 52% to 47%. The stated goal of the tax cuts were to raise personal incomes, increase consumption, and increase capital investments. Evidence shows that these goals were met to some degree by the tax cut. Unemployment fell from 5.2% in 1964 to 4.5% in 1965, and fell to 3.8% in 1966. INITIAL ESTIMATES PREDICTED A LOSS OF REVENUE AS A RESULT OF THE TAX CUTS, HOWEVER, TAX REVENUES INCREASED IN 1964 AND 1965...

Of course, increasing tax revenues does not mean that we avoided deficits because Congress still spent a lot more than they took in. Sound familiar?

Cutting tax rates COUPLED WITH ELIMINATING TAX LOOP HOLES - that nasty detail that disingenuous partisans conveniently forget - is something that many of us would like to see. Wouldn't it be nice to eliminate all of those subsidies everyone (including our President) seems to complain about?

This plan was actually proposed by a majority of the Simpson-Bowles Commission. Too bad that everyone, including the President that appointed this commission, has ignored them.

POGO:

of course everyone ignored Simpson Boles. It was non-partisan and as such gored everyone's ox. God forbid in our partisan paralysed politics we adopt a bi-partisan or non-partisan solution to our problems. No. It's all about political posturing and maneuvering. It's disgusting. Super Pac money has only made it worse and will continue to make it even worse. We could solve our problems by adopting Simpson Boles, but no, it will never happen. It would be in the best interest of the country, but not in the best interst of the craven politicians that the sheeple have elected to screw them. I'm sick of it and I have no hope that it will ever change. Especially when the supreme court says corporations are "people." What nonsense!

MV -

Don't forget that Citizens United gave Unions "personhood," too. And they are the biggest source of political money... by far.

Personally, I have no issue with money in politics, provided it is transparent and disclosed. People are complaining that Rove's Super Pac will have $200 million to spend to help Romney. But keep in mind that President Obama's own team announced (somewhat prematurely it turns out) that they had a target of $1 BILLION for their campaign war chest.

Kennedy's tax cuts did indeed close many loopholes from the heyday of Tax Shelters.

Few tax increases or cuts since have closed more loopholes than they have opened.

Jeanette -

Good post and you are quite correct. Tax reform has become a euphemism for more loopholes.

But Simpson-Bowles actually eliminated almost all deductions, subsidies and loopholes in exchange for a simplified tax structure.

In addition to elimination subsidies for big oil, big banks, etc., I think they should also have eliminated our subsidies - the mortgage interest deduction which discriminates against renters (ironically, the more economically disadvantaged), the child deduction which discriminates against people without kids (ironically, they should probably be rewarded!), charitable deductions (is it really charity if it reduces your taxes?), and non-taxed, employer paid insurance premiums which discriminate against the self-employed.

Think about how easy it would be to fill out your tax return...

Pogo-

Obama's 'Grand Bargain' was the closest thing to the SB Commission plan, with $4 Trillion in cuts, yet Speaker Boehner rejected it outright. SB would never get the votes, either.

The thread is about the Buffett Rule. I support it if they also cut spending.

U.S. Senator Chris Coons(D DE) offers an interesting perspective on the Buffett Rule regarding a carveout for small business which merits consideration.

Please read

Web Link

Hank -
Thanks for the link. Senator Coons has a good suggestion to support small business should be debated along with the rest of Obama's proposal to make taxes fairer. I'm just concerned that the Fortune 500 companies will figure out a way to define themselves as "small businesses" to get under the fence.
It's interesting, though not surprising, that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell would be against it - even though other Republican presidents from Hoover to Reagan were in favor. If it passes, it's a win for Obama and McConnell's overriding goal is to defeat Obama. Nothing that will improve Obama's chances will be allowed to pass the Senate, regardless of how beneficial it will be for the country & regardless of the poll numbers that show the vast number of Americans support it.

To clarify, from the Washington Post:

The “Paying a Fair Share Act” doesn’t mean someone making $1,500,000 will pay at least the same percentage of his income in taxes as the average middle-class family. It means he would pay a somewhat higher marginal rate on the income he earns over $1 million — in this case, on the excess $500,000.

Moreover, that higher marginal rate would only reach 30 percent on income over $2 million. Between $1 million and $2 million, the Buffett rule phases in so as to avoid a sharp “tax cliff” at the million-dollar mark.

The top 10% with an AGI of $112,000 a year or more pay more than 70% of federal income taxes. The bottom 50% with an AGI of $33,000 a year or less, pay zero federal income taxes.

I agree. That doesn't seem fair at all.

Pogo:

It doesn't seem fair to you? Do you favor a flat tax or a progressive tax structure? Americans have had a progressive structure for a century and most view it fairly.

Why not go a lot further - "Top 1% Paid More in Federal Income Taxes Than Bottom 95% in 2007". Add in capital gains, since most of those gains goes to the top couple percent anyway, and the numbers skew more.

Frequently, those citing the Heritage numbers leave out a relevant point - how much of the total income that slice is accounting for.

"The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 40.42 percent of total federal income taxes in 2007" because that 1% makes about 25% of all income that year.

Capital gains would also skew that figure up as well.

The question comes up ofter: how often in the last century have the wealthiest Americans paid a lower tax rate than today's rate? About 5 out of the last 100 years. Taxes for the wealthiest are about as low as they've ever been in our lifetimes. Web Link

Pogo, please continue to share your views, in these times of historically low tax rates on the wealthiest Americans:

- flat tax, or progressive tax?
- should Buffett pay a lower tax rate on millions of income and gains than his secretary pays on her wages?
- Should Mitt Romney's $40 million in income be taxed at 13.9%, far below the tax rate a cop or a plumber pays on their wages?
- if elected, should Mitt Romney cut his income tax rates even lower, as per the Paul Ryan plan that Mitt enthusiastically supports? (for obvious reasons)

I can answer all of your questions with two words. Simpson-Bowles.

I heartily endorse this commission's proposals which garnered "only" 11 of 18 members - so it wasn't officially adopted. Too bad they have been ignored by the President that appointed them as well as the House and Senate. Shameful that they did so much work to no avail. Perhaps we should appoint another commission (that's already been proposed...).

Progressive - yes. But eliminate ALL tax loopholes, subsidies and deductions. Yes, I said ALL - oil, gas, real estate, home interest, children, charities, employer health insurance premiums. ALL.

Regarding Buffett's taxes, he receives DIVIDENDS which are taxed for him at a 15% rate. But Buffett's dividends are paid out of PROFITS in his companies which are already taxed at 30%. If he owns half of a company, he has paid half of their taxes. And now that Japan has lowered their corporate tax rate, we proudly sport the highest rate in the world. And before you tell me about all the corporations that pay no taxes, please re-read the prior paragraph. I said NO deductions or subsidies.

Your question about Mitt Romney is a reprise of the Buffett question. But I will say that even the most optimistic projections say the Buffett rule will produce about $5 billion a year... about equal to the amount we borrow every single day. Not only is it not a panacea, it's a joke. That's not the kind of reform I can believe in.

And I disagree with our President. Taxes aren't about "fairness." Taxes are about revenues and paying for our government. I believe everyone should have skin in the game. That's why your health insurance makes you pay a small co-payment everytime you go to the doctor. If they didn't have that, you would have no incentive to limit your trips to the doctor. So it is with taxes. I think everyone should pay something - even if it's $25 a year. As our Vice President says, "it's patriotic."

I have no comment on Paul Ryan's tax proposal. As I said, I endorse Simpson-Bowles without equivocation.

Clear enough?

Clear enough? Yes.

You do not favor any incremental changes - you seek a plan that did not pass the commission that created the plan, and has zero chance of passing the House.

Quite clear.

Makes it pretty easy that way. No need to look at any other tax plans. No need to look at Obama's version of Simpson-Bowles, the so called $4T Grand Bargain Jeanette mentioned, just blame Obama for not adopting a plan that failed to get adopted by its creators.

Clear enough? Yes. $5 billion here, $5 billion there.....

Hey, Double D - you asked, I answered (pretty unusual for this website). A simple thank you would have been sufficient.

President Obama's plan which you embrace also has no chance in the House and probably has no chance in the Senate because of swing state Democratic Senators up for re-election this year. But unlike President Obama's "Grand Bargain" plan which you are so fond of (and no detail was ever provided for that plan) nor Representative Ryan's plan (also with no detail), Simpson-Bowles - which President Obama IGNORED and failed to ask for a "thumbs up/thumbs down" vote in Congress - had BIPARTISAN support. Getting 11 of 18 votes in the Committee was pretty impressive by any measure. Unfortunately, the committee's rules made it nearly impossible to get a formal approval. That said, both Simpson (R) and Bowles (D) have endorsed it. Find that in any other plan.

And I don't pick my philosophical choices because they can be passed by the House or Senate. Houses and Senates change. But you asked and I answered.

Remember, President Obama's budget hasn't received a single "yes" vote from any Republican or Democrat in the House or Senate in two years. And it only takes 51 votes in the Senate to pass a budget resolution.

In the meantime, Nero is fiddling.

This is my favorite Buffett Rule

Web Link

Come down and party

Web Link

Rather than dance on the heads of millionaires' pins, the following better sums up the global view, to my way of thinking:

Web Link

Romney wants a $5 trillion tax cut for millionaires over ten years, the Buffett Rule would raise $50 billion over ten years.

Of the two, I'll take Nero and his fiddle. You may hold out for your version of perfection if you like.

;-)

Meanwhile, in the real world....

"NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Move over Warren Buffett. The White House said Friday that President Obama has a lower effective tax rate than his secretary.

"The president's secretary pays a slightly higher rate this year than the president on her substantially lower income," White House spokeswoman Amy Brundage told CNNMoney.

The president's secretary is Anita J. Breckenridge, and according to White House disclosure forms, the "personal aide to the president" earns $95,000 a year. Brundage declined to say exactly what tax rate Breckenridge paid."

The Reagan, Buffett, Obama team. Or trillions more in tax cuts to millionaires.

Perhaps this is why Mr. Buffett has such a low tax rate:

Web Link

Turns out he doesn't pay the taxes he does owe. No real surprise...

The hypocrisy is truly amazing.

The Buffett Rule passed the Senate yesterday with 51 votes.

Republicans filibustered on behalf of millionaires and billionaires who will return the favor with large donations before the elections this year.

On the other side of the halls of Congress, the House announced that they will pay for more tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires by slashing food stamps.
Web Link

Who's on the right side of this 'give money to billionaires while slashing food stamps' strategy?

Let's ask Americans!

"Would you favor or oppose a proposal to change the federal income tax rates so that people who make more than one million dollars a year will pay at least 30 percent of their income in taxes? April 13-15 2012
Favor 72%
Oppose 27%
No opinion 1%"

Web Link

Here's a poll question for you:

How many Americans favor nationalizing all the money and investments from Arab and middle east oil producing states that are currently in US banks and using it to pay down our debt? How about a 100% tax on oil or insurance company profits?

Just because it may be popular doesn't make it right.

POGO-
I imagine most of the 72% who favor the Buffett Rule do so because they believe that it makes for a fairer tax system. Fairness is a good thing wouldn't you agree? What's wrong with making our tax system fairer?

Steve - the libertarians and so-called fiscal conservatives won't actively recognize that millionaires and billionaires are paying some of lowest tax rates under Obama than they have anytime in the last five decades.

Want to hear crickets? Ask them under which president have they paid significantly lower tax rates than today.

Then they scream 'fairness' and 'class warfare' when most of us recognize and support a return to sane budgeting policies of the 90's. Create jobs and then balance the budget by returning to Clinton era tax rates and spending.

Americans support it.

It cost a lot of money in bribes, ummm, I mean 'contributions' to keep Republicans in office to filibuster simple steps forward like the Buffett Rule, returning rates to near Clinton era rates for millionaires and billionaires.

Pogo wants you to think that since 72% support might be wrong in some extreme example of his, that this rule is wrong.

It's not.

It's a sane step back towards fiscal sanity....even if it isn't his version of a panacea - the failed-to-reach-consensus-by-it's-own-rules Simpson Bowles Commission, therefore not voted on by either Dems or the GOP.

Actually, Steve, fairness is NOT the primary objective of our tax system.

The primary objective of our tax system is to fund our government. One could easily argue that "users" should fund their own projects. You are already seeing this in parks where people visiting the park fund it through fees - which is increasingly augmenting taxes as a major funding vehicle.

But with regard to fairness, it has frequently been pointed out that the top 10% of taxpayers (and that would include those "millionaires and billionaires" who earning $112,000) already bear more than 70% of the tax burden. About half of all wage earners pay zero taxes. Are either of those conditions fair?

With regard to the Buffet Rule, let's remember that Mr. Buffet chose to take a low salary (as do many of the ultra rich) just to shift their income to capital gains and dividends. A replacement CEO for Berkshire Hathaway would surely be paid a salary of several million dollars and pay something closer to that 30% in income tax that you and the President seem to target.

A final point. I'm betting that you realize that dividends are paid from AFTER-TAX corporate profits. Mr. Buffet's dividends have already been taxed - BRK paid a full 30% in corporate income tax in 2011 - and he paid ANOTHER 15% of those dividends. So BRK's profits were taxed at 45% before the first penny landed in Mr. Buffet's bank account. That's the reality... not the rhetoric.

That's not unique to BRK. It works EXACTLY the same for every business that's a "C Corporation" whether they are a dry cleaner, a lumber store, a jewelry company or a restaurant.

The issue is not whether millionaires pay taxes, but what we need in public funding to succeed in an increasingly competitive world. We must care for each other. That ethic, noblesse oblige, has been lost.

As Elizabeth Warren puts it: "You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did."

"Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along."

Those next kids in California, and many of them are in school right now, are getting a very, very raw deal compared to the children of the wealthy. The wealthy once paid more and we had a healthy middle class and a healthy society. The wealthy have to return to those obligations that have been swept under the carpet via the rubric of "what's mine is mine" as articulated by Ronald Reagan.

I've previously read Ms. Warren't comment. I've run several factories in my career and I'd like to address her outrageous statement. My comments are CAPITALIZED.

"You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for [YOU PAID FOR THEM BECAUSE YOU USE THEM TOO. BUT YOUR COMMENT IS MISLEADING BECAUSE I PAID FOR THOSE ROADS TOO. I PAID HIGHWAY TAXES AND MY TRUCKS PAID A SMALL FORTUNE IN ROAD FEES AND SPECIAL TOLLS]; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate ["THE REST OF US PAID"? HEY, I PAID THOSE TAXES TOO - LOTS OF THEM! BUT YOU FAIL TO MENTION THAT STUDENT WITH THEIR NEWLY MINTED DIPLOMAS OFTEN HAD READING, WRITING AND MATH SKILLS APPROPRIATE FOR THIRD GRADE]; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for ["THE REST OF US PAID FOR"? BESIDES YOUR OBVIOUS CHALLENGES WITH GRAMMAR {SEE PREVIOUS COMMENT}, AGAIN, I PAID THOSE TAXES TOO. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory [WELL, PROVIDING PROTECTION IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT A GOVERNMENT IS ACTUALLY SUPPOSED TO DO AND AGAIN, I PAID THOSE TAXES AND SPECIAL FEES TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR CERTIFICATIONS AND PERMITS. BUT THE TRUTH IS THAT YOU DIDN'T PROTECT MY FACTORY - IT WAS BROKEN INTO SEVERAL TIMES. WE ULTIMATELY HAD TO HIRE A PRIVATE SECURITY AGENCY TO WATCH OUR PLACE], and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did."

Greed at the top is bad for society as a whole.

The top 1% control 42% of the wealth in this country. I don't care how you slice it, that's not healthy.

Society matters more than kowtowing to those members of the wealthy classes aiming to turn this country into a Ayn Randian nightmare.

Wouldn't it be better to elevate the bottom 50% instead of lowering the top 10%?

If you want to do it permanently, you do it with jobs - good jobs - not by transferring money.

POGO -
Red Herring Alert!
I never said Fairness was the main purpose of taxation. That's you trying to avoid answering my direct question to you of "What's wrong with making our tax system fairer?"
You gripe that the top 10% pay 70% of all taxes. Well lucky them! That means they're making lots of money. In fact, they could easily afford to pay even higher taxes.
Remember, someone making $1 million dollars and paying at the full marginal rate, still has $680,000 left over to live on. Tough life! And if, like Romney, they shelter their income they're left with a whopping $871,000 to pay for groceries, mortgage, car, etc.. Excuse me if I can't work up much sympathy for the overtaxed rich.
As you apparently have forgotten, the rich paid a marginal rate of 91% under Eisenhower and seemed to get by just fine. They paid 70% throughout the booming 60's & into the 70's and still somehow managed to increase their wealth. Now that the top rate is only 35%, the wealthy are becoming obscenely rich while the deficit grows out of control and we're forced to shrink our government services (thank you George W).
And yet you whine about how unfair it is that the rich are paying 70% of all taxes. Give me a break! That's because the rich have all the money and have taken most of the income the economy generated over the past 30 years.
FACT: The top 1% own 43% of all the wealth in the country and the top 10% own over 80% of all the wealth. This leaves 90% of the population to share the small slice of the pie that remains.
FACT: Since the 1970's income for the bottom 20% has declined by 30%! For the richest 1% it's gone up 125%.
And you have the gall to suggest that the poorest among us should have their taxes raised because it's not fair that they don't pay enough in taxes!?
Which brings up another canard of yours: "half of all wage earners pay zero taxes." In fact, the % of workers who file and pay no income tax is only 38%, not 50%. Web Link Ironically, this is a result of the Bush Tax cuts.
But Federal taxes come in other forms including payroll taxes & gas taxes that everyone pays. CBO shows that the lowest 20%, earning only an average of $15,900 (could you even make car payments on this?), pay 4.3% in these federal taxes. The next 40%, with an overage income of $37,400, pay 9.9% in federal taxes.

Warren Buffett was right when he said: "There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”
At least he has conscience enough to recognize the unfairness of the current system and courage enough to speak out about it.

POGO -
per your last comment,
It's hard to elevate the bottom 50% when the system is rigged such that most of the increased income goes to the wealthy. Which is what's happened over the past 30 years.
One of those inconvenient facts you don't seem to want to recognize.

In light of the recent discussion, this definition seems appropriate:
REAGANOMICS: Convincing poor people they can become rich by giving the rich more money.