Posted on 01/25/2012 5:16:10 PM PST by raptor22
Hypocrisy: As the great investor's secretary sat with the first lady at the State of the Union, the president spoke of economic "fairness." Is it fair to make a supporter wealthier at the expense of the American people?
During the 2008 campaign, candidate Barack Obama cited billionaire Warren Buffett as one of his economic muses. In the 2012 State of the Union address Tuesday night, the president returned to his advocacy of the "Buffett rule," a proposed minimum tax on millionaires and billionaires.
To highlight his theme of "fairness," there in the first lady's box sat Buffett's secretary, Debbie Bosanek, whom the president has often cited as an example of the unfairness of our tax code and our economy as a whole. Obama claims she pays a lower tax rate than her boss.
"Now, you can call this class warfare all you want," the president told Congress. "But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense."
No, most Americans would call that demagoguery.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...
Rush brought up a good question. How much did Buffet’s secretary actually pay in taxes?
Warren Buffett richer, the rest of us poorer.
THE FUNNY PART OF THIS IS THAT SHE MAKES OVER $250,000 PER YEAR AND oBAMA WANTS TO RAISE HER TAXES. THINK ABOUT IT.
He’s 0’s brown nose now. It’s very clever for Buffet to say he, himself should be taxed more, so the idiots won’t go after him for being rich.
Buffet would stand to lose big bucks if the pipeline happened. Meanwhile we suffer.
All the while 0 is trying to keep the class warfare going with Buffet’s help.
Personally I do not believe Obama will ever recover in popularity to any significant degree.
Hopefully you're right. Trouble is the republicans are in a circular firing squad. By the time they finish, 0bama's campaign may have to pay them a royalty for doing the job for them.
There should be a cap of 10% on taxes for everyone which should then be the basis of debate as to whether taxes should be at the 10% maximum or something less.
The budget must be zero based.
Half a percent of the revenue collected must be placed in a Emergency Fund and may not be touched except in case of Congressional declared war or a multi-state disaster.
In the case of Congressional declared war the tax rate may be raise no higher then 12%.
It does not matter if the tax is income tax or a retail sales tax put those four rules into place and watch the economy take off.
Those sound like very good ideas. Is that part of a flat tax plan or is that just HTB’s good thinking?
Yes, it is simple but then three quarters of the problem with the tax code is that it is so complicated.
If I just had to send the government a check for 10% of my income it would be so much easier.
It would be a two line tax return.
Income $34,597.48
Tax $3,459.75
You need a zero balance budget because you can not spend more then you take in.
The emergency fund is because there are times that a nation really does need a sudden influx of cash for some reason. Say if the New Madrid fault ever let go.
The 10% gives the government slightly less revenue then it could collect but would give the economy a bigger boost.
The 12% would give the government maximum revenue if needed while not crippling the economy.
I think that’s great! It may be simple but it’s very well thought out. Frankly I think 10% is outrageous but I know that realistically 5% would never sell in today’s world and wouldn’t be enough to get us out of the debt we now have.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.