- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
- Messages
- 34,951
- Reaction score
- 16,311
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
The Democratic-controlled Senate failed on Monday to reach a super-majority needed to pass a tax plan offered by President Obamato require millionaires to pay a 30% minimum effective tax rate.
The 51-45 defeat of the "Buffett rule," named after billionaire investor Warren Buffett, fell mostly along party lines. The bill needed 60 votes to move forward. Sen.Susan Collins, R-Maine, was the only Republican to vote with Democrats, while Arkansas Democrat Mark Pryor sided with the GOP.Senate Republicans criticized the bill as an election-year ploy by the president who has been campaigning on a message that all Americans should pay their "fair share" in order to help balance the budget. "For him, it's not about jobs or the economy. It's about his idea of fairness, about imposing it on others," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.
Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., countered that wealthy Americans are currently enjoying some of the lowest tax rates in modern history. "This unfair system has turned the gap between the richest few and everyone else into a gulf," he said.
The White House proposal was named for Buffett after he publicly called last year for a tax code that does not allow the wealthiest of Americans to pay a lower effective tax rate than the middle class, which is currently possible because of how tax rules apply differently to money made off of investments vs. money earned through a pay check.
Read more @: Senate fails to advance Buffett rule
Dear god why!? Its common ****ing sense. When we are at a time when we have deficits that need to be closed and we need to make investments to strengthen our economy why cant a simple thing like this pass!?
[/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]
mine is around 22% and I have lots of investment income. No one in the middle class pays an effective rate of 30%. The Buffett BS is based on lies, dishonesty and appeals to envy and ignorance.
My tax bracket is 35% on earned income and 15% on investment income. The top bracket hits at 388,350+ for single or Married filing jointly.
the top end for 28% is 178K or so, 33% is 388,350. In other words, no one making under 400K (with NO DEDUCTIONS) is paying an EFFECTIVE RATE OF 30% because
you pay 10% on the first 8700
15% on the amount from 8700-35, 350
25% on 35,350-85,650
28% on 85,650 to 178,650
etc
No way anyone but someone in the top 1% is paying an effective FIT rate of anywhere near 30%
This seems to be a good time to share my favorite JFK quote:
"It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."
-- John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president's news conference
Not to burst your bubble, Porch, but the actual empirical data on supply side tax policies is a hell of a lot less black and white than JFK is making it out to be. Even Reagan realized that he had to raise rates after lowering them temporarily.
Agreed . As I said in a post a week ago or so... There is a point of diminishing returns... I do not believe that cutting the tax rate any further with result in a gain in tax revenues.
Not to burst your bubble, Porch, but the actual empirical data on supply side tax policies is a hell of a lot less black and white than JFK is making it out to be. Even Reagan realized that he had to raise rates after lowering them temporarily.
Yep. It works both directions.Agree. I think we can also agree that the reverse is true as well, when it comes to increasing rates.
Not to burst your bubble, Porch, but the actual empirical data on supply side tax policies is a hell of a lot less black and white than JFK is making it out to be. Even Reagan realized that he had to raise rates after lowering them temporarily.
I can't envision a scenario where ANYONE, including those in the top 1%, is currently paying an effective federal income tax rate of 30%.
The way that would happen is say a highly compensated athlete like A Rod. he is making earned income of many million a year meaning all but 388K is taxed at 35%. He could easily be hit with that.
a lottery winner for a given year will take a big hit-even if its spread out over the years
but for Obama to claim that middle class people are paying an EFFECTIVE rate of 30% is a bald faced lie
he is comparing marginal rates which it around the levels I reported above and comparing that to effective rates
what is amazing is how many people lap up that BS because they want to believe it
anyone who claims someone in the middle class pays an effective rate of 30% is to be seen as a complete and total moron or liar-or both
Ronald Reagan raised taxes on the top 1 percent, yes. From 1981 to 1988, their tax burdened climbed just over 10 percent. The top 10 percent of earners saw their tax burden increase a little over 9 percent.
For the slightly rich, the tax rate fell from 22 percent to 20 percent. For the upper middle class, the tax rate fell from 13.2 percent to 12.4 percent. For the middle class, the tax rate fell from 6.9 percent to 6.4 percent. For the poor, 1.6 to 1.5 percent.
So as we can see, Reagan lowered taxes where it would do the most good. Later legislation seemed to increase taxes, but it did no such thing. In 1984, Reagan enacted legislation which made it more difficult to evade the IRS. Loopholes were closed, and the Treasury Department took in more money.
Reagan’s policies created millions and millions of new jobs and ‘whipped inflation’ big time. The ingredient? Lower taxes on the workers, on small-business, and on the majority of employers. The filthy rich saw a tax increase, and saw loopholes closed.
It’s interesting that all the liberals who bellow that Reagan raised taxes – meaning, of course, that Obama should be allowed to raise taxes on everyone, including small-business – were jeering the ‘trickle down economics’ of the 1980s. See how the Left loves to rewrite history when it’s convenient?
Ronald Reagan raised taxes on the top 1 percent, yes. From 1981 to 1988, their tax burdened climbed just over 10 percent. The top 10 percent of earners saw their tax burden increase a little over 9 percent.
For the slightly rich, the tax rate fell from 22 percent to 20 percent. For the upper middle class, the tax rate fell from 13.2 percent to 12.4 percent. For the middle class, the tax rate fell from 6.9 percent to 6.4 percent. For the poor, 1.6 to 1.5 percent.
So as we can see, Reagan lowered taxes where it would do the most good. Later legislation seemed to increase taxes, but it did no such thing. In 1984, Reagan enacted legislation which made it more difficult to evade the IRS. Loopholes were closed, and the Treasury Department took in more money.
Reagan’s policies created millions and millions of new jobs and ‘whipped inflation’ big time. The ingredient? Lower taxes on the workers, on small-business, and on the majority of employers. The filthy rich saw a tax increase, and saw loopholes closed.
It’s interesting that all the liberals who bellow that Reagan raised taxes – meaning, of course, that Obama should be allowed to raise taxes on everyone, including small-business – were jeering the ‘trickle down economics’ of the 1980s. See how the Left loves to rewrite history when it’s convenient?
I'm not a fan of the Buffett rule, but I don't recall him ever having made such a claim.
The senate isn't going to pass this since they are all millionaires....LMFAO!!!!!
Reagan dropped tax rates across the board, to include reducing the top income tax rate from 70% to 28%. So where are you getting these numbers?
EDIT: I found where you got all that:
Ronald Reagan: His Actual Record « Sibboleth Nation
Which means Reagan was engaging in class warfare, correct? Raising rates for the wealthiest, but lowering rates in the aggregate for everyone else? How is that substantively different from what Obama is saying when he talks about tax credits for small businesses, payroll tax cut, and the like, while raising rates for the wealthy?
What you've provided here is nothing more than a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. I'm not saying Reagan's policies weren't helpful, but the evidence that they had a rather significant impact on the 1980s recovery, as opposed to, say, a natural rebound, is murky at best. Meanwhile, the national debt tripled.
When has Obama argued that he should be allowed to raise taxes on everyone, including small businesses? Do you like to put words in other people's mouths when it's convenient? How about the fact that Reagan engaged in what today's conservatives would call "class warfare," as I mentioned above?
Another thing you have to remember is congress promised Reagan that if he raised taxes they would reduce spending. A promise they reneged on big time.
Baker assured his boss that Congress would approve three dollars in spending cuts for every dollar of tax increase. To Reagan, TEFRA looked like a pretty good "70 percent" deal. But Congress wound up cutting less than twenty-seven cents for every new tax dollar. What had seemed to be an acceptable 70-30 compromise turned out to be a 30-70 surrender. Ed Meese described TEFRA as "the greatest domestic error of the Reagan administration," although it did leave untouched the individual tax rate reductions approved the previous year. (TEFRA was built on a series of business and excise taxes plus the removal of business tax deductions.)[xxx]
The basic problem was that Reagan believed, as Lyn Nofziger put it, that members of Congress "wouldn't lie to him when he should have known better."[xxxi] As a result of TEFRA, Reagan learned to "trust but verify," whether he was dealing with a Speaker of the House or a president of the Soviet Union.
Ronald Reagan: The Heritage Foundation Remembers
All this crap is inherent to the democratic legislative process. The reality is that compromises happen all the time, and in fact NEED to happen in order to get anything done. Every President has faced the same difficulties, not just Reagan.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?