Buffett rule
 

The Buffet rule simply compels the richest among us to pay a minimum of 30% income tax. (Millionaires and billionaires.)

Tea party supporters opposed the proposal 58% to 40%. Conservatives opposed it 49% to 51%.

Now, can we all agree these folks are their own worst enemy?


http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...0,433493.story

The Buffett Rule is nothing other than putting lipstick on a pig (our tax code). Though a slim majority may favor it, a vast majority favor a complete overhaul of our convoluted and corrupt tax code.

I concur.

Besides (correct me if I'm wrong), the Buffet rule is a tax on capital gains, which will only induce the super wealthy to move their money offshore, and will most likely bust it off in my ass whenever I try to access my measly retirement funds.

Please excuse me if I appear skeptical, but I've already fallen under the AMT (millionaires tax), and no matter what they call it, it will wind up being just another tax on the middle class.

The guys with enough shit in their britches will just fight in in court.

Just ask Warren Buffett.

Chas

I don't think this is a serious proposal. It's election year fodder for those who will bite.

Personally, I think earned and unearned (cap gains, dividends) should be taxed at the same rate. I'd favor shitcanning all deductions (including home mortgage, charity, state taxes, medical expenses, etc.) and significantly lowering rates.

How much money and time are wasted in this country dicking around with taxes every April, and furthermore, how many economic decisions throughout the year are based upon estimated tax consequences and not upon their own merits?

Rejected by GOP.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/b...224510145.html

Agreed. I think it's a political move, introduced knowing the Republicans (And maybe some Dems.) will shoot it down.

I've always hated the entire game of deductions and exemptions. Progressive rates don't bother me so much, but it should be kept simple beyond that. If the rate in a given bracket is say 20% of gross income, then you pay your 20% and you're done. No deductions, no exemptions, no refunds.

Imagine how much more easily and efficiently that could be administered.:)

Dave

I also concur. The so-called Buffet Rule is nothing more than political division rhetoric. Hey, let's blame those evil rich bastards. Utterly silly and a waste of everyones time. Now, if the Senate would actually get some wotk done. I was watching the Senate and I was aghast at the people that are elected and reelected to that once august body. They all need to replaced IMHO.

Gee Blue, that sounds like the Ryan plan. I find his plan has many more advantages than disadvantages relative to what exists now and what has not been proposed by anyone else.

Anybody want to join me in beating this dead horse again?

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

Here, here. I just finished my "dicking around" for the year over the weekend. What a colossal waste of time and money to complete 2 tax returns.

I completely agree with kicking the current tax code to the curb. Will it ever happen? I doubt it, since it will mean unemploying thousands of IRS workers and legions of tax attorneys and CPA's. It would mean that political types would need to find another way to wield power and control society. And - as evidenced by this post - it would bust the bubbles of folks like noonereal, who have drunk the kool aid and actually believe that the political class is more concerned with "taxing the rich" than they are about maintaining and expanding the best tool they have for amassing and maintaing power.

Why not, I've always been a sucker for lost causes.

Chas

Won't this increase the tax on the working poor?

Anytime congress addresses an issue of this significance just before an election it can be assured that it is no more than political grandstanding.

If the tax code is FUBAR, it's because congress WANTS it that way.

Chas

No it is because the corporations and the wealthy want it that way. They revised the tax code back in the 80s and cleaned it up quite a bit. Then the lobbyists went to work and screwed it up over the next few years.

Funny thing is that things like mortgage interest deductions don't really work. Don't have that in Canada yet home ownership there, as a % of population is marginally higher than here. Of course they also do not have a capital gains tax on the sale of your home either.

The following is from the Web site in the FAQ. (fairtax.org) Check it out. A lot of the misconceptions are addressed.

"How does the FairTax protect low-income families and individuals and retirees on fixed incomes?

Under the FairTax Plan, poor people pay no net FairTax at all up to the poverty level! Every household receives a rebate that is equal to the FairTax paid on essential goods and services, and wage earners are no longer subject to the most regressive and burdensome tax of all, the payroll tax. Those spending at twice the poverty level pay a tax of only 11.5 percent -- a rate much lower than the income and payroll tax burden they bear today.

Under the federal income tax, slow economic growth and recessions have a disproportionately adverse impact on lower-income families. Breadwinners in these families are more likely to lose their jobs, are less likely to have the resources to weather bad economic times, and are more in need of the initial employment opportunities that a dynamic, growing economy provides. Retaining the present tax system makes economic progress needlessly slow, thus harming low-income people the most.

In contrast, the FairTax dramatically improves economic growth and wage rates for all, but especially for lower-income families and individuals. In addition to receiving the monthly FairTax prebate, these taxpayers are freed from regressive payroll taxes, the federal income tax, and the compliance burdens associated with each. They pay no more business taxes hidden in the price of goods and services, and used goods are tax free."

Me too.:(

Can we still register with the Bull Moose Party?

Dave

We can certainly do better than the Bull Chit parties we've got now.

This is a whole lot of wrong.

Thanks for the info however as I had forgotten that they poor received back some monies.

I still have no position either way on this as of now. (not smart enough yet!)
Bur I am concerned the wealthy could buy things elsewhere or simply like a Buffet choose to buy nothing to pay nothing. A loophole the poor or middle class do not have.

Even if the rich do spend, they may well spend a much lower % of their income than the middle can can hence once again paying less than their fair share.

I know I am currently compelled to spend 100 plus% (savings also) of my income so then everything is taxed for me and a rich dude could be paying tax on say 5% of his income.

Thoughts?

So, how much more "tax progressivity" do you want, Noone? And how much is enough. Sounds like we're alredy pretty damn progressive as it is.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/amer...all-taxes-2010

"...those people making above $50,000 had an effective tax rate of 14.1 percent, and carried 93.3 percent of the total tax burden. In contrast, Americans making less than $50,000 had an effective tax rate of 3.5 percent and their total share of the tax burden was just 6.7 percent."

"Americans making more than $250,000 had an effective tax rate of 23.4 percent and their total share of the tax burden was 45.7 percent."

"Out of the 143 million tax returns that were filed with the IRS in 2010, 58 million – or 41 percent – of those filers were non-payers. In other words, only 85 million actually paid (federal income) taxes."

"But Tax Foundation data also shows that people who didn’t pay any income tax received $105 billion in refundable tax credits from the IRS."

Now, I betcha I could get this same outcome with 20% or less of the IRS's current staff, and about 90% of the verbiage of our current tax code, and a tax form that's one or two pages long.

Once again, you cite statistics that do not take into account the extremely regressive tax that all working people pay - social security and medicare. If the folks in DC are going to count that as part of the federal budget, then by golly, we need to count it as part of the tax burden for working people.

Regards,

D-Ray

That's right, because we're not talking about those taxes. The discussion is on Federal Income Taxes, not taxes for Social Security or Medicare. You wanna talk about those, its a big topic that might need its own thread. We'd also need to talk about the IOU's in the trust fund and the underfunding of Medicare while we're at it.

Yes.... Indeed!!

Not to make light of Whell's argument, but you do have a point.

Whenever you figure FICA and matching funds you're looking at app 18% right off of the top. And that's a tax.

If it were truly a retirement fund, you could pass it along to your heirs.

Whenever the politicians make a bunch of noise about the withholding tax, it's all smoke and mirrors for the rubes.

They're gonna get it from you...one way or another.

Chas

What do you see as wrong?

I would urge everyone to take a good look at the web site with an open mind. I don't think this plan is as well understood as it deserves to be. That being said I agree with Charles and (I think) Finn that it stands little chance of passage because it removes the ability of Congress to buy votes through tax breaks.

As far as the rich paying a smaller percentage of their income I would say that they also spend a lot more than the not so rich on housing, transportation, entertaining, clothing, etc. Therefore they would be paying more tax than the not so rich would, not as a percentage, but in total.

Another aspect is the fact that there would be no deductions from your paycheck (by the Federal government). You would take home more to do with as you please... not someone in DC.

Again all this is explained on the site. Take a little time and read through it. I personally think it would "fundamentally change" this country.

Not knowing enough about this as I said it does strike me that the wealthy can pay a much much much lower tax as a percent of their income than the struggling middle class could.

I have an open mind on this, I simply have little trust in anyone or thing.


.

Not in my experience. The wealthiest people I know have their wealth through inheritance. Not nearly the housing costs as you and me.
Also transportation and entertaining is generally covered by the business. Most folks doing well I know spend relatively less for these things.

Things in this country from top to bottom are stacked for the haves. This is just a fact.

Not really. Are you going to stop eating? wearing cloth? Driving? I think this only changes how it is collected and not much else. That said I can understand the allure to the psyche in thinking you are deciding something that really you are not.

I read a little and it was quickly obvious that the info was so slanted that I lost interest.

Too bad there is no truly objective site for any info that touches on politics.

Indeed. Fundamental tax reform may be the only issue with strong support across the partisan divide. Given that, you might think that Congress would do something about it.

However, they realize two things:

The industries who benefit from the big deductions (real estate, charities, health care) would demagogue to death the cutting of deductions that benefit them.

Your point. Congress would lose the ability to buy votes and financial support from those upon whom they bestow tax breaks/credits.

JJ, how hard would it be to buy a house with this tax?


How easy would it be to inherit one?

See.


Seems this tax would make it very hard for one to better themselves if born poor.

If you inherit even a moderate home you have even a bigger advantage than you do now.

This cannot be done in modern america just like healthcare could not, you are correct.

Too many making too much with too much power to be able to change.

One thing is certain. If nobody contacts their Congressman about it, it absolutely will not get done. They don't like to listen but if nobody is speaking they do whatever the hell they want without a thought about the voters. We have got to let them know we aren't happy with the present situation and want something done, be it Fair Tax, flat tax, or whatever.

I agree.

It seems capitalism has struck a perfect balance, the masses are given just enough to keep them from taking to the streets as our owners max out their pillaging.

At the bottom end of the scale a family could pay 2% of their income to taxes and miss meals because of it.

At what point does a billionaire even feel the loss, much less miss any meals over it?

Dave

Even though Congress has used the tax code for various purposes, other than revenue it is still skewed toward the wealthy. Take mortgage interest deduction, since the wealthy but those McMansions their tax deduction is far greater than Joe the Plumber and his 1500 sq ft rancher. Then in return for the tax deduction the slap a heafty capital gains tax on it when you sell. Bur suppose your job moves you, you are selling because you have to, not to make a profit.

Canada has no deduction for mortgage interest and no capital gains tax on the sale of your home. Home ownership as a percent of population is marginally higher there compared to here.

Property tax is deductible, basically a funds transfer from the feds to the locality. The medicare tax is higher here than Canada wher it only amounted to 0.8% on my taxable income, yet we don't have single payer?

The last return I filed back there was four pages long and one of those pages was the tax table. Erik can tell us if that has changed.

I think the answers to your questions can be found on this page....

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServ...ut_faq_answers

You now get a mortgage interest deduction on your income tax. If there is no income tax you're deducting nothing from nothing, you never paid the income tax in the first place.

Rob, check this paragraph.


"What is the FairTax Plan?
The FairTax Plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue replacement, and, through companion legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment. This nonpartisan legislation (HR 25/S 1025) abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax – administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities. The IRS is disbanded and defunded. The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend on new goods or services, not on what we earn. The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system."

It seems to lack the desired progressivity of a "fair" tax (notwithstanding the poverty provision).

Let me see, we do all of our spending here in the USA. The wealthy do a lot of their spending abroad. SS is a fair chunk of most senior's income,as is Medicare, if the payout is to be maintained then this national sales tax is going to be pretty hefty. It sounds good but without the numbers it meaningless.

They say (Fairtax.org) the rate would be 23% for it to be revenue neutral.

Yep, I have seen the "National Sales Tax" idea presented a number of times, but, always without numbers. I'm thinking that in lieu of any other tax, it would end up being "pretty hefty" as well. And steeply inflationary, in the short term. Think everything is high now, slap a ~20-25% sales tax on it.

Dave