Skip to comments.Obama Goes on Offensive Over Taxes on Wealthy Obama Makes Case for the Buffet Rule
Posted on 04/11/2012 3:32:43 AM PDT by lbryce
All but certain now that his Republican opponent will be Mitt Romney, President Obama has made his proposed Buffett Rule minimum tax for the wealthiest Americans like Mr. Romney a centerpiece of his re-election campaign, defying the political risk of being seen as a tax-and-spender by wary voters.
With a rousing speech on Tuesday to a receptive university audience of about 5,000 in this battleground state, Mr. Obama defined the coming contest as a clash of philosophies: His argument that tax fairness and the common good demand the richest Americans pay at least as much as middle-income taxpayers do, contrasted with Republicans opposition to any tax increases as job killers and class warfare, even at the cost of deep cuts in domestic programs.
While voters have not often rewarded candidates who advocate tax increases, Mr. Obama and his campaign advisers, in league with Democrats in Congress, express confidence that voters are on their side, with polls showing that Americans overwhelmingly agree that wealthy taxpayers should pay more and that they favor spending for programs like education, research and health care.
The Democrats offensive, not coincidentally, is tied to the likelihood that Mr. Romney will be the nominee. Even as Mr. Obama was speaking at Florida Atlantic University, Mr. Romneys chief Republican rival, former Senator Rick Santorum, was announcing that he is leaving the race. In past months Mr. Romneys Republican rivals had caricatured him as a Wall Street investor raking in millions with job-cutting corporate takeovers and slashing his taxes through loopholes and Swiss bank accounts, so he was hardly likely to get off more easily with Democrats.
At bottom, Mr. Obama seeks to talk about the still-weak economy and job creation in a way that plays to Mr. Romneys weaknesses, and Republicans generally, and underplays his own
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Now when people hear about the "Buffet Rule", the name Obama has given to his new tax proposal, that the wealthiest Americans are to pay a minimum of 30% in federal taxes, most think it's in reference to Warren Buffet and his own proposal to pay a higher federal tax rate.
I say this somewhat tongue-in-cheek, maybe even cynically so, but I'm not so sure as to the source of Warren Buffet as inspiration for the name given by Obama for his new tax increase.
After checking out definitions for the word "buffet", as posted below, and knowing all too well Obama's hatred for America, his Socialist, Communist design to destroy America in any way possible, it occurred to me that indeed the President chose to call it the "Buffet Rule", the horrible negativity the word connotes, it made perfect sense to call it the 'Buffet Rule' because of the effect Obama hopes it will have on America, Americans, to destroy it in any, every way he possibly can.
The Buffett Rule is the name President Obama has given to his proposal to ensure that the wealthiest Americans pay at least 30 percent of their income in federal taxes.
The proposal derives its name from the longstanding complaint by the billionaire investor Warren E. Buffett that his secretary pays a higher federal tax rate than he does. It has become a centerpiece of Mr. Obamas campaign for re-election.
Republicans have responded by deriding the idea as class warfare, asserting that it would kill jobs or arguing that the problem has been overblown.
In April 2012, Mr. Obama and Senate Democrats kicked off a coordinated pressure campaign on Republicans a week before a procedural vote on April 16 that will decide whether the Senate will even debate the Buffett Rule bill. Mr. Obama traveled to Florida on the 10th to deliver a speech on the rule. And his campaign held Buffett Rule events in other swing states that day.
Making a case for the Buffet Rule, Mr. Obamas economic team, the White House National Economic Council, released a report saying that over the past 50 years the average tax rate paid by the wealthiest Americans has dropped much more than the rate for middle-income taxpayers, even as the income of those at the top of the scale has grown significantly more than for everyone else.
The main reason for the disparity in effective tax rates is that wealthy Americans receive much of their income through capital gains, which are taxed at a lower rate than earnings from wages or salaries.
The Buffett Rule, if adopted, would only raise $47 billion over 10 years. But the proposal could hold political advantages as well. The presidents Republican challenger in November is expected to be Mitt Romney, who in the Obama campaigns view is the personification of the argument for a minimum tax on the wealthy.
Mr. Romney, with a big investment portfolio, reported income of about $21 million in each of the last two years and paid about 14 percent of that in federal income taxes. That effective tax rate was far below the tax codes top rate of 35 percent on the highest incomes because much of the Romney income is from capital gains and dividends, which are taxed at 15 percent, and because he claimed an assortment of tax deductions.
Findings From the Report
According to the White House report, the average federal tax rate of the top earning 0.1 percent of Americans, including income and payroll taxes, has dropped 50 percent over the last half-century, to 26 percent from 51 percent. The 400 richest Americans all with annual income exceeding $110 million paid 18 percent in federal income taxes in 2008, the report said; as recently as 1995 their income tax on average was nearly 30 percent, the level of the Buffett Rule.
Great guy, that Warren B...
He ONLY owes a coupla BILLION$ or so to the IRS, it seems.
As the Republican candidate, I would propose the Timmy Geithner Rule. This rule would be that any public official who evaded paying taxes be thrown out on their ass.
How about the Hollywood rule? All Hollyword “artists” should be assessed a 30% fee off their gross income to support the “starving” artists in the US. See how that flies.
Obama....I’m paying the price for your policies...at the pump, at the supermarket, wherever I spend money and in the tax law changes.
This Buffett Rule
Berkshire Hathaway, the eighth-largest public company in the world according to Forbes, openly admits to still owing taxes for years 2002 through 2004 and 2005 through 2009, according to the New York Post. The company says it expects to "resolve all adjustments proposed by the US Internal Revenue Service" within the next year.
All Obama does is deflect people from his disastrous policies by ginning up class warfare.
The “Buffet Rule” would garner an extra $ 5 billion a year in taxes.
All for “fairness” (Notice— another undefinable term, like “hope” and “change”).
If the 47% of the people who now pay NO taxes paid a minimum tax, how many multiples of the Buffet rule would that be?
Thanks DJ MacWoW for posting this:
Thanks Vintage Freeper for posting this:
I like this very much. Entertainment is a ‘right’!
What a joke. Check Obama’s tax returns over the past few years. He consistently uses deductions and loopholes to pay less than his bracket percentage. Yet, somehow, he claims he “doesn’t need it.”
We must turn the tide against liberalism before America
is swept away by their tsunami. Please do your part.
Support conservative candidates. Vote. Support Free Republic.
What happens to Muni bonds? Still tax free? How does thataffect local governments?
Meanwhile, Warren Buffet owes 366 million dollars in unpaid taxes.
Do not the wealthy already pay an Alternative Minimum Tax?
“What happens to Muni bonds? Still tax free? How does thataffect local governments?”
Mess with muni bonds and you’ll hear from the Kennedy family.
Let’s FIGHT BACK with real FAIRNESS in our tax policy. FairTax is Fair.
FlatTax is a fair tax.
A dictator, such as Obama, only has the power that the people give him.
Currently at least 40 % of American voters are gladly willing to give Obama the necessary power to continue his dictatorship.
Dictator Obama has designed Obamacare to become active only AFTER he is re-elected, thus enabling THE NINE SUPREMES to delay ruling on the Constitutionality of the dictate of the individual mandate until Obama is once again the Illegal Foreign White House Occupier, (IFWHO).
The purpose of Dictator Baby-Doc Barack is simple: 1.) Regulate; 2.) Control; and 3.) Destroy. By his own count he as achieved 60 % of his goals, according to the note he says he carries in his pocket.
Obamas obvious deep hatred of America could have only come from his childhood.
Since there are no known networks of childhood friends from Obamas past, Obama was probably a member of a Marxist sleeper cell funded by wealthy men with a Marxist view of the World.
The lack of credible evidence that has NOT been forged requires a long-term, highly skilled and well-funded support group.
Who the key members of Obamas probable support group and probable sleeper cell were and are is well known to the CIA and the FBI.
Will the Citizen Journalists such as Breitbart Editor Joel Pollack be able to out-spy these two tax-funded spy entities?
BTW, forget about the LAM, (Liberal Agenda Media), as they are saving their notes to write their tell-all Obama books after Obama has SAFELY retired back home in Kenya.
BTW, BTW, to all the doubters of the above speculation: what does your gut tell you?
I completely agree. Lower the middle classes taxes.
Increasing capital gains taxes to 30% would raise little if any revenue. It would, however, substantially increase the cost, and decrease the availability, of new capital for American industry, particularly start-up or development stage ventures. Having worked in the capital raising business for more than 30 years, I know this to be true. Without those start up companies, our economy will be much less dynamic and innovative and will create many fewer jobs. Surely the American public will not vote for this economic disaster just to increase the progressivity of what is already one of the most progressive income tax systems on earth.
Charles Gibson: "...And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28%, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected"?
Obama: "Well. Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gain tax for purposes of fairness".
The correct approach here, IMHO, is to counter this with the "Buffet Suggestion"!
The only "rule" here is the one created by the left.
Don't give in to this shit! Counter it LOUDLY at every opportunity, especially if you're going before the media.
When questioned about it, point out the inanity of calling this absurd thing a "rule". After a short time, believe me, they won't question you any more. They'll simply try to ignore you.
Count that turn of events as a small victory.