The 'Buffett Rule' Should Be Known As The 'Buffett Ruse'

IBD ^ | 05/02/2012 | REP. CHUCK FLEISCHMANN

[SeekAndFind]

President Obama insists his so-called "Buffett Rule" — which cannot even pass the Democrat-controlled Senate — is a serious proposal, not just an election-year gimmick. Let's consider the facts.

If enacted, the IRS would take 30% of every dollar earned by a targeted subset of the population — in this case, people earning more than $1 million per year. We're told this is necessary because highly successful Americans just aren't pulling their weight or paying their fair share.

This line of reasoning begs the question: Is it fair for the IRS to take 30% of anyone's paycheck? Keep in mind that we're discussing only the federal income tax. Add up all the other federal, state and local levies, and some people could lose 50% of their income to tax collectors! That isn't fair, it's punitive.

According to data from the Treasury Department and the Joint Economic Committee (JEC), Americans with an adjusted gross income exceeding $1 million in 2009 paid an average effective income-tax rate of 24%. That same year, families in the ballpark of $40,000-$50,000 paid an average of 5.3%. It was 11.6% for those making $100,000- $200,000, and the incomes in between predictably fell within that same range.

We've all heard the anecdote about Warren Buffett and his secretary, but it is incredibly misleading to claim an epidemic of high earners paying lower tax rates than the middle class. As the president likes to say, this is not my opinion. This is basic math.

[SeekAndFind]

According to Treasury Data and the Joint Economic Committee (JEC), the revenue raised by the Buffett Rule over an entire decade would

* Fund just 23 days of Social Security benefits.

* Alternatively, you could defend the nation for 25 days.

* Ten years of the Buffett Rule would pay for what the U.S. borrows every 17 days or what Washington spends every 4-1/2 days.

In other words, it would not even put a dent in our deficits and debt.

[FreeAtlanta]

or just the Buffoon Rule. The buffoons’ ploy to get the buffoon vote.

[richardtavor]

What about the 51% that don’t pay any taxes at all? Is that fair?

[SeekAndFind]

[morphing libertarian]

Does anyone have info or a link regarding Buffet owing back taxes

[SeekAndFind]

RE: Does anyone have info or a link regarding Buffet owing back taxes

Here are some links for you to read:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45889

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/buffett-irs-back-taxes/2011/09/01/id/409520

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/29/warren-buffett-taxes-berkshire-hathaway_n_941099.html

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/08/30/warren-raise-my-taxes-buffetts-company-may-owe-irs-1-billion

Happy reading....

[morphing libertarian]

Thanx. I’ll be yelling this info at anyone who wants go raise taxes.

[olezip]

We're told this is necessary because highly successful Americans just aren't pulling their weight or paying their fair share.

The "fair share" argument does not make much sense when we have a government that has a well documented record of fiscal irresponsibility. Fair share has been demonstrated to be a "moving target" time and again. The government does not even have a budget, but just spends, borrows, prints money, and complains that too many people are not paying their "fair share." Crazy policy by legislators with disordered minds.

The Democrats will NEVER have enough of other peoples money to spend. Have they ever?

[sickoflibs]

It’s just a political gimmick to beat Republicans over the head with.

Obama waited to Republicans proposed spending cuts then ponced.

Seems somewhat effective, it’s one gimmick of many.

[Lou L]

In my opinion, the Buffett Rule was only for precedent. Once enacted, it would give the president room to say, "The rich are paying more...now it's only fair to ask everyone else to pull a little more of the weight, too."

Sure, he might then let us off paying a little less in terms of percentage, but it would likely be a large hit to everyone's income.

All the while, the debate will be what percentage this person or that person pays is irrelevant. We should be asking what we're getting for our money, and we should be asking whether or not it's proper to have the expectation as to whether or not the government should provide programs from cradle-to-grave. (The answers to the last two questions are "very little" and "no.")