- Joined
- Jan 2, 2006
- Messages
- 28,186
- Reaction score
- 14,274
- Location
- Boca
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
President Obama on Monday will call for a new minimum tax rate for individuals making more than $1 million a year to ensure that they pay <br><br>
at least the same percentage of their earnings as middle-income taxpayers, according to administration officials. With a special joint Congressional committee starting work to reach a bipartisan budget deal by late November, the proposal adds a new and populist feature to Mr. Obama’s effort to raise the political pressure on Republicans to agree to higher revenues from the wealthy in return for Democrats’ support of future cuts from Medicare and Medicaid. Mr. Obama, in a bit of political salesmanship, will call his proposal the “Buffett Rule,” in a reference to Warren E. Buffett, the billionaire investor who has complained repeatedly that the richest Americans generally pay a smaller share of their income in federal taxes than do middle-income workers, because investment gains are taxed at a lower rate than wages.
Mr. Obama will not specify a rate or other details, and it is unclear how much revenue his plan would raise. But his idea of a millionaires’ minimum tax will be prominent in the broad plan for long-term deficit reduction that he will outline at the White House on Monday. Obama’s proposal is certain to draw opposition from Republicans, who have staunchly opposed raising taxes on the affluent because, they say, it would discourage investment. It could also invite scrutiny from someconomists who have disputed Mr. Buffett’s assertion that the megarich pay a lower tax rate over all. Mr. Buffett’s critics say many of the rich actually make more from wages than from investments.
Behind the arguments of Mr. Obama, Mr. Buffett and others about the inequity of the tax system is the difference between taxpayers’ marginal tax rate, popularly known as their tax bracket, and the effective tax rate they end up paying after subtracting for deductions, credits and other breaks.marginal tax rate is the percentage paid on the last dollar a person earns. The current system has six marginal tax rate percentages — 10, 15, 25, 28, 33 and 35 — and each applies to a progressively higher amount of income. In theory, a wealthy filer pays the lower rates on income within each bracket, but the bulk of their income is taxed at the top 35 percent rate. Middle-class taxpayers generally pay marginal rates of 15 percent or 25 percent. But investors like Mr. Buffett pay no more than 15 percent on most of their income because that rate applies to capital gains, dividends and “carried interest,” which is the compensation paid to hedge fund partners and investment managers like Mr. Buffett.
Another reason many wealthy Americans pay a smaller share of their income in federal taxes is that the Social Security payroll tax does not apply to
income above $106,800; most people do not reach the cutoff and pay the tax on all their income. Counting income and payroll taxes, Mr. Buffett
has said he paid an effective tax rate of 17.4 percent for 2010 compared with an average 36 percent rate for many employees of his company,
Berkshire Hathaway. Mr. Obama’s proposal, Mr. Buffett and others with taxable income of more than $1 million would pay a minimum tax rate closer to his
employees’ rates. But Mr. Obama will leave the details of how such a rate would be calculated — whether to focus on the overall federal tax
burden of middle-income individuals generally, or their marginal rates — to the debate over rewriting the tax code.
snip
The rest of the article can be found here
The effective tax rate is at least 3% less than it was during 2000, when we had a balanced budget. Conversely, tax revenue as a percentage of total income (using the income approach to national output) is at its lowest level since 1950, when tax revenues made up 14.4% of GDP (FWIW, they were 20.6% in 2000). No credible long term deficit reduction can occur without restoring a competent policy. The starve the beast mentality does not take into account fluctuations in the business cycle, and is now taking its toll on our politicians ability to not only fund itself (ala August 2nd), but to enact the necessary fiscal policy to combat the persistently high unemployment rate.
Still say we need a flat on all income levels above the slightly the poverty line and allow no deductions.
Put a similar flat tax on all business without any loopholes. Singling out the people who start up the new businesses and create the jobs sounds great until you inhibit growth with taxes and over regulations.
It's a dumb idea that flies in the face of what has gone before and failed.
What's a fair share?
We have 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax, is that fair?
That is a question that you will never get a liberal to answer because to do so would create an opening that destroys their entire argument. What is it about Obama supporters who always focus on what someone else makes and supporting the amount of money that Congress spends? never do you hear a liberal complaining about how money is wasted by Congress but only who they can get more money from. If you feel that Congress isn't getting enough money then close the loopholes on the 47% that don't pay any FIT or how about creating policies that put 25 plus million unemployed and under employed Americans back to work paying their fair share?
You won't hear that but instead nothing but class warfare
We have 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax, is that fair?
this board crawls with tax hikers who constantly whine that the top one percent (or the rich) don't pay their fair share even though the top few percent are the ONLY Group that pay MORE Of the federal income tax burden share than their share of the national income. to them fair share is whatever is needed to buy the votes of the envious who want more handouts without paying for it
Bingo, in fact, the bottom 30% actually pay -3%, getting back more than was withheld.
Surprisingly, Wolf Blitzer had to school the DNC Chair on this very issue. I vomit in my mouth a little every time I think that she's my Congressman.
PolitiFact Florida | Debbie Wasserman Schultz says Wolf Blitzer was wrong to say the wealthiest pay the most in taxes
Wasserman Schultz is like the Bachmann of the democrats.
Crazy that these people continue to get elected.
no loopholes save one : give them a preferential tax rate if they directly create jobs with the money. that's one main argument i've seen against "raising" the tax rate on the very wealthy; so let them deliver on the job creation promise.
problem solved.
Still say we need a flat on all income levels above the slightly the poverty line and allow no deductions.
Put a similar flat tax on all business without any loopholes. Singling out the people who start up the new businesses and create the jobs sounds great until you inhibit growth with taxes and over regulations.
It's a dumb idea that flies in the face of what has gone before and failed.
What's a fair share?
We have 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax, is that fair?
You're not likely to get this info on FOX so I'll give you some helpBBC News - Obama plans taxes and spending cuts to reduce deficitMr. Obama will not specify a rate or other details, and it is unclear how much revenue his plan would raise.
At least he's consistant.
Still say we need a flat on all income levels above the slightly the poverty line and allow no deductions.
Put a similar flat tax on all business without any loopholes. Singling out the people who start up the new businesses and create the jobs sounds great until you inhibit growth with taxes and over regulations.
It's a dumb idea that flies in the face of what has gone before and failed.
What's a fair share?
We have 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax, is that fair?
snip
The rest of the article can be found here
The effective tax rate is at least 3% less than it was during 2000, when we had a balanced budget. Conversely, tax revenue as a percentage of total income (using the income approach to national output) is at its lowest level since 1950, when tax revenues made up 14.4% of GDP (FWIW, they were 20.6% in 2000). No credible long term deficit reduction can occur without restoring a competent policy. The starve the beast mentality does not take into account fluctuations in the business cycle, and is now taking its toll on our politicians ability to not only fund itself (ala August 2nd), but to enact the necessary fiscal policy to combat the persistently high unemployment rate.
no loopholes save one : give them a preferential tax rate if they directly create jobs with the money. that's one main argument i've seen against "raising" the tax rate on the very wealthy; so let them deliver on the job creation promise.
problem solved.
I think the if the republicans were smart they would offer a reverse Buffett Rule where everybody pays the same percentage Buffett alleges to pays. I think most people would be more happy only paying 17.4 percent instead of the 36 percent rate that Buffett alleges that his secretary pays.
I though you had to make almost $200,000 a year to pay that percentage not $60,000, something is not right about his claim. 2011-2012 Tax Rates – Federal Income 2011-2012 Tax Brackets
You're not likely to get this info on FOX so I'll give you some helpBBC News - Obama plans taxes and spending cuts to reduce deficit
The problem isn't how much the rich are paying in taxes. The problem is in how much the middle class is NOT getting in terms of fair compensation for their labor. I'm sure I don't need to tell anyone that the rich have gotten dramatically richer in the past few decades while the people that work for them have stagnated. THAT'S the real problem. Raising taxes on the rich is a crude and inaccurate tool for addressing the disparity. Myself, I would rather more money in my paycheck than broader government benefits.
If the right wants to complain about Obamacare and government control, then they should be arm twisting CEO's to give across the board pay raises to their employees. There will be a cold day in hell before that happens.
In many ways irrelevant. His secretary pays 25% on her income, where as he pays 15% on his. His point still stands and is very valid.
How would he pay only 15% if people who make over $383,350 a year are in the 39.6% bracket according to this link? It seems to me He is leaving out why he only pays 15%. If he was all that concerned about paying more taxes he would set an example by not using any exemptions and donate what he feels is his fair share. He claims his secretary pays 36% for making 60,0000 a year which is also fishy,so either he doesn't know how much is secretary makes or what conditions require that she pay that much or he is lying.
It's not applying tax breaks/credits/loopholes. Yeah, 39.6% is the technical rate but after all breaks and such he actually only pays 15%.
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?