I received this today from the Obama administration after President Obama announced the "Buffet rule" at a Rose Garden ceremony today:
This morning, the President proposed the "Buffett Rule," which would require those earning more than $1 million a year to pay the same share of their income in taxes as middle-class families do.
This proposal makes sure millionaires and billionaires share the responsibility for reducing the deficit. It would correct, for example, the fact that Warren Buffett's secretary currently pays taxes at a higher rate than he does.
The other side is already saying it's "class warfare" -- that's their rhetorical smokescreen for providing millionaires and billionaires special treatment.
As the President said this morning, "This is not class warfare -- it's math."
The wealthiest Americans don't need further tax cuts and in many cases aren't even asking for them. Requiring that they pay their fair share is the only practical way forward. The Republican alternative is to drastically slash education, gut Medicare, let roads and bridges crumble, and privatize Social Security. That's not the America we believe in -- but many in the Republican leadership actually prefer those policies, which explains their refusal to act.
That's why they'll say "tax increase" over and over again, trying to muddy the waters and trick ordinary Americans into thinking the Buffett Rule will hurt them. And if we don't speak out right now, they just might get away with it.
Of course, the Buffett Rule won't really touch most Americans -- only 0.3% of households will even be affected.
And without it, the only way to reduce our debt is to savage the programs that seniors and middle-class families rely on.
That's exactly what the President refuses to do -- in fact, he's said he'll veto any bill that changes benefits for folks who rely on Medicare but doesn't raise serious revenue by asking the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations to pay their fair share.
This isn't just a commonsense approach to cutting the deficit -- it's the only way to make sure we can provide security to people who work hard and play by the rules.
So right now, I'm asking you to say you'll stand with the President on something that won't be easy. Get the President's back today:
http://my.barackobama.com/Buffett-Rule
Thanks,
Messina
Jim Messina
Campaign Manager
Obama for America
My question is why do we distorting the facts? It is true the Warren Buffet effective tax rate is less than his secretaries nominal rate but if his secretary is making under $60,000 there is a very good chance that she pays 0% in an effective tax rate. So why don't we all get on the same page when talking about these rates. That being said it is widely accepted that our revenue, no matter the tax rate, ranges between 16-18% of GDP historically. The other widely accepted truth is that our current spending is north of 22% of GDP.
To get a handle on our deficit spending is not to raise revenue as President Obama would like for us to think; rather we need to get our spending under control. Notice that President Obama is not out there trying to defend the $535M given to Solyndra from the last Stimulus package that has now gone belly up! Perhaps we could use that money to help fix Medicare, Medicaid or SSN. Instead the notion is to raise taxes on the wealthy and claim it is not class warfare.
If we want to get serious about our deficit then start with the tax code. Flatten the tax code to 8% and eliminate all tax credits and deductions for everyone. Eliminate the corporate tax rate, and all tax credits and incentives, as corporations simply pass along those taxes onto the consumer. Then on investment income - raise short term capital gains to 55% while putting long term capital gains at 15% - this will curb some of the hedging that exists and encourage people to think long term as well.
Monday, September 19, 2011
Buffet rule - Class Warfare or Simple Math?
Labels:
buffet rule,
flat tax,
medicaid,
Medicare,
President Obama,
Rose Garden,
Solyndra,
ssn
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Per the article on Bloomberg, Buffets effective tax rate was 17.7% while his secretaries was 30%. IE, she makes quite a bit more than 60k which isn't unusual for an executive secretary. Most are paid a very healthy 6 figure salary due to the travel, high demands on them and long hours required.
ReplyDeleteI did not see that article can you post it? Also, let's look at Buffet's income too. A lot of Buffet's income is capital gains and not earned income. Since one must have had earned income to invest, to which one already paid taxes on, and we are going to tax someone on investing in a successful venture we double tax them, how does that make sense?
ReplyDeleteAnd if that secretary is making a six figure salary I hope her spouse doesn't make the same or she is considered wealthy as well and will see more taxes if President Obama gets his way.
http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-rich-taxed-less-secretaries-070642868.html
ReplyDeleteI think this is about more about closing tax loopholes than it is about taxing earned income.
ReplyDeleteObama is failing to use the advise of his debt reduction panel which wanted to lower the effective tax rate and close loopholes and deductions. I heard some estimate that shows there is over $1 trillion in tax deductions and loopholes.
This whole thing is political. Obama sees and opportunity to play up the "soak the rich" scheme.
"Notice that President Obama is not out there trying to defend the $535M given to Solyndra from the last Stimulus package that has now gone belly up!"
Viper lets just stop right there. That is a drop in the bucket compared to all of the military boondoggles that the government (mostly Republican) invested in over the years.
Anon - I have long advocated a flat tax and the elimination of all tax credits and deductions. I agree that Obama knows his line in the sand of vetoing any bill with no tax increases is no different than the debt ceiling debate spearheaded by the Freshmen crop of GOP's.
ReplyDeleteThe difference between Solyndra and War spending is that President Obama said this company would hire 1000 ppl and lead us into the future of green energies. Everyone knew that we did not go into Afghanistan or Iraq for the reasons stated. For those that believed that are very naive.
Then again Obama did expand the Afghan War and entered us into other areas; namely Libya.
I don't think you are understanding what I'm talking about...
ReplyDeleteAll of the hype around Solyndra fails to note that the company also got a lot of money from private investors, that it was the Bush administration that made the first moves to provide the company a loan guarantee, that the loan represents just 1.3 percent of the money that DOE has given out, and that all technology ventures come with some level of inherent risk. And some of the leading hype-sellers on the Solyndra subject haven't been as critical of other energy projects that also suck up a lot of funds with little pay off (see: nuclear loan guarantees, FutureGen).
Now...as far as military spending, the investments go way further. I am not talking about war spending. Yes, Viper....your government shovels billions of dollars into private, military type projects that never see the light of day (see: ballistic missle defense, global information grid, F-35 lightning, etc...).
I applaud Obama for making that kind of effort. Like all the libertarians say, they have a right to fail also...right?
Anon - I understand that many military dollars spent to find the next jet,weapon or armor doesn't find its way into the use by the military. R&D is something that needs to be done to make things better. It is through R&D that we got the stealth fighter and predator drones. That being said, I don't think our government should subsidize companies nor guarantee loans.
ReplyDeleteIf a company cannot make it then allow it to fail via bankruptcy court. Solyndra is just another example of Obama's failed policies - and I do understand that Bush's administration laid some of the foundation.
Solyndra is a statement of failed policy, but not how you and the other GOP puppets are thinking.
ReplyDeleteIt's a statement of Obama's (and Bush before him) failure to enforce the WTO regulations on dumping.
Solyndra's product was revolutionary and should have succeeded. However, China copied the tech and dumped massive quantities of the cheaper version on the US market driving down prices which Solyndra couldn't compete with.
Dumping is illegal per the WTO but China does it regularly in steel, timber, electronics, etc and we do NOTHING to stop them for fear of their growing economic power.
This is Obama's failure, but you all are so rabid in finding the next Monica Lewinsky with your faux investigations that you can't see the big picture.
“A lot of Buffet's income is capital gains and not earned income. Since one must have had earned income to invest, to which one already paid taxes on, and we are going to tax someone on investing in a successful venture we double tax them, how does that make sense?”
ReplyDeleteFirst, one must not have earned income to invest. If I inherit a million dollars, I have not earned it but I have it to invest. Or if I sell a million dollars of stock that I paid $500,000 for, I have income but not earned income that I can reinvest. Second, we aren’t taxing them on investing we are taking them on the income they make. It’s new income. If I buy $500 in stock and sell it for $500 I have no income. If I sell it for more than I paid, that is what I’m taxed on. So it’s not a double tax on prior income but a tax on new income, what I didn’t have before, the gain. And then I’m only taxed when I sell. Under your theory, we could technically have a person who inherited money, made billions of dollars investing, and not have to pay tax on anything.
How does that make sense? So no, there is no double taxation as new income is being taxed. The fact that you are a financial planner and wrote the above is concerning. Either because of your lack of understanding or your intent to mislead.
"Then again Obama did expand the Afghan War and entered us into other areas; namely Libya."
ReplyDeleteWhat? Let's be clear here, you have NEVER supported your allegations that we were actively fighting in Libya and I've refuted your old claims about 2000 marines moved into the combat zone in the past. So other than the initial airstrikes which lasted only days and which we flew less than 20% of, and material support (missiles/bombs) used by NATO, how exactly were we actively fighting in Libya?
Anon - The vast majority of investing - i.e. 401k,traditional ira's and roth ira's - require earned income. Granted one may get an inheritance but one will pay taxes on that money as well. My point is that ones investment income should not be taxed at a rate equal or greater than earned income. To do so will not encourage people to invest in their future or save for a raining day. So inherited money would get taxed again.
ReplyDeleteTruman - Here is an exert on the role of the United States - The United States is providing unique assets and capabilities
ReplyDeletethat other NATO and coalition nations either do not possess or
posses in very limited numbers — such as suppression of enemy
air defense (SEAD); unmanned aerial systems; aerial refueling;
and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR)
support.
Notice the last three items definitely included boots on the ground.
“Anon - The vast majority of investing - i.e. 401k,traditional ira's and roth ira's - require earned income.”
ReplyDeleteNot true. IRAs don’t require earned income. Sure you need money to invest in them, but it doesn’t have to be earned income. I could find $1,000 and put it in an IRA. And the vast majority of people invest in a 401k for a variety of reasons. The ease of having it deducted from a paycheck. Easily understood investment options. The option to invest pre or post tax. Most importantly, a company match. The vast majority of people invest with earned income because that is their only source of excess money to invest.
“Granted one may get an inheritance but one will pay taxes on that money as well.”
The vast majority of people don’t pay any estate tax given the current 5 million dollar exemption per person.
“My point is that ones investment income should not be taxed at a rate equal or greater than earned income. To do so will not encourage people to invest in their future or save for a raining day.”
Why shouldn’t it be taxed at that an equal or greater rate? Why is income that one has not earned but gained from essentially a gamble more special? If I have an opportunity to invest money and make $10,000 on my investment I’m going to be discouraged because I pay 10% more on income tax? I’m sure there is a threshold where a tax rate discourages investing because the potential return isn’t worth the risk but for me to pay means I have to end with more than I started with. That’s a good thing because I’m better off. Are people really going to just blow throw all their money today because they don’t want to pay more tax on more money? And it no way discourages savings since I can save all the money I want and still not pay tax on it. It’s only when I make money that I pay the tax. I’m all for a discussion about how higher taxes might lead to an undesired allocation of resources into safer investments, but that’s a different discussion. People have invested for decades regardless of the capital gains rate.
“So inherited money would get taxed again.”
Except, you know, the huge exemption above which would mean, what, 99% of people don’t pay estate tax?
Please stop with this notion that taxing investment income is a double tax because it is in no way true. I have more than I started with, that excess has not been taxed.
Anonymous
ReplyDeleteYou realize that in a 401k, 403b and traditional IRA that you because contributions reduce your income as the money goes in pre-tax? You cannot put money into a retirement program that does not come from earned income source.
Other Anonymous thank you for your input and you are correct. For retirement contributions, including the Roth IRA, you need earned income equal to the amount you are setting aside.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous you are correct that until the end of the Bush tax cuts extension that estates are protected up to $5M after that it will drop significantly. Granted in either situation it will not impact the vast majority of Americans it is still a form of double taxation.
As for inheritance tax that is dependent on the State in which one lives. I don't believe Minnesota has one but I could be mistaken there.
And you are correct that you are taking on the risk of investing, so if you are successful why should the government, or wealth transfer agents, be allowed to soak one for making money? I do acknowledge the moral hazard of investing which is why having a short term capital gains tax at a higher rate, say 50%, is good way to mitigate the moral hazard. Long term capital gains, if we must have one, should be at a must lower rate - 15% max - and for those millionaires and billionaires - roughly 1% per the IRS - should not have those gains taxed as ordinary income.
Viper, you presume that if you make money you shouldn't do your part and contribute to the country that helped you gain that money in the first place. Taxes support infrastructure required for you to make that money it only stands to reason, the money you make should in turn support that infrastructure.
ReplyDeleteSay you invest in a trucking company and that company wins an exclusive contract to haul garbage in NYC. The stock in that company skyrockets. You sell and make millions. Why should you not pay taxes on that? After all, it's not as if that contract could be executed if the government hadn't built the infrastructure for your company to operate.
So tell me, how is the government soaking you again? You lose, you don't pay taxes on other income by using your loss as a tax write off. You win, you pay taxes to support the system that supported you.
Or are you saying that all the infrastructure would exist without the government involvement?
Truman - Did you read what I wrote? The reason why people like Buffet pay less of a tax rate than others that earn less is because of the investment income - which I know you understand - my point is that if someone takes on risk and does well then the profit should be not be taxes as income. I am all for long term capital gains tax but not a rate higher than the bottom tax rate for earned income. That being said, to mitigate the moral hazard aspect of investing, keeping the short term capital gains higher, say 55%, is a good thing. As for the loss aspect, you can only write off the loss equal to your gains and nothing more.
ReplyDelete"my point is that if someone takes on risk and does well then the profit should be not be taxes as income"
ReplyDeleteViper, I'm a libertarian and I can't even see the logic of your argument.
First off, why shouldn't income from investments be taxed? Risk is relative. I take a risk working for a company every day. There's the risk I won't have a job tomorrow. How is that risk any less than making educated investments? After all, the wealthy don't sit at a computer and invest themselves - they have professionals that do it for them. Therefore, income is income. Why should one be exempt from tax and another not? Why should ones labors be taxable whereas ones investments are not? That's not a balanced tax system but rather one that favors the rich. So why should a tax code be regressive in nature?
Why should we force the middle class to pay a higher % of their income in taxes than a wealthy person?
As of 2001, the top 1% control 42% of the wealth in this country, mainly through investments while the bottom 40% control <1%. If you look further, the top 20% control 85% of the private wealth in this country.
You talk about how the bottom 50% pay no taxes, that's because the median income in this country for a family (NOT INDIVUDUAL) is 36k. Think about what that means, it says that 50% of the households in this country make LESS than 36k a year. Exactly how much of that should be taxable? Poverty is considered <20k a year for a household.
Nevermind the fact that the bottom 50% pay a disproportionate % of their income in taxes through the same medicare/ssa taxes as those making up to 106k with gas, sales, property, etc all hitting them the same as the rich which means that as a % of total income, their tax rate is higher and therefore regressive.
If you really want a fair tax system, you can't exempt certain incomes from taxes thereby favoring the wealthy while demanding that the bottom 50% pay more. Even if you took 100% of what the bottom 50% earn, you'd only have the equivalent tax increase of taking another 3% from the top 1%.
The math is undeniable except to those who are puppets kowtowing to the wealthy in the hopes that they'll get to be dogs eating the "supply side" driven scraps.
Good luck with that.
Truman
ReplyDeleteI don't think long term capital gains should be taxed as ordinary income. I can see it taxed at say 15% but not taxed at ordinary income levels.
Why not? Why should speculation (which is what investing is) be taxed at a lower rate than earned income? You are talking about subsidizing on the backs of working people what is effectively gambling.
ReplyDeleteSo your argument is for a flat tax but only on earned income. If that's the case, why would any executive for ANY company be paid in anything other than stock issuances at favorable timelines such as what Bill McGuire did at UHG? Why not line their pockets at the expense of the shareholder who see diminished EPS driven by these stock issuances and tax payers who see diminished tax revenues?
Why should ordinary americans who work for a living make up the difference so that the super wealthy (top 1%) can earn more money and pay less taxes?
You talk constantly about fair and equitable, but I fail to see how an imbalanced, regressive tax code is fair and equitable. Especially when wages are stagnant but investing incomes are skyrocketing.
Where exactly do you expect the tax revenues to come from to pay off the debt? Because you can cut EVERY DOLLAR of discretionary spending and still not stop the hemoraging that is the deficit. And we all know entitlement reform is as DOA as are tax increases.
So this is a moot discussion anyway.
Truman
ReplyDeleteTaxing investment income and earned income at different rates is not a subsidy nor does it come at the expense of workers. If the company pays their CEO with stock options, which is how Buffet makes income, then the long term success will be tied more directly to CEO compensation then a salary.
Companies are only have so much stock to use this option for anyway. If they run out of there reserve stock they would have to put it to a vote of stockholders to increase the outstanding shares and gain SEC approval too. The fallacy is that, per the IRS, only 1% of millionaire and billionaire tax returns fall into the "Buffet" affect the other 99% are paying a larger effective tax rate then the secretaries or janitors.
Now when President Obama says that CEO's should pay the same as janitors; is this code for a flat tax? It sounds like he wants everyone to pay the same amount - is that the same percentage or the same dollar amount?
All of this conversation falls back to the fact that a) we have a spending problem and b) our base line budget process is feeding the spending problem. It is time to go back to zero sum budgeting and require our government to establish a budget that equates to 85% of the total expected revenue. By doing this we can have flexibility in case of war,disaster or economic slow downs.
"Companies are only have so much stock to use this option for anyway."
ReplyDeleteMost corporations that are not cash starved, a trait which has other negative financial implications, regularly operate stock buyback programs that perform 2 unique functions; A) resupplying the reserve stock pool, B) short term increase in EPS. I've yet to hear of a major corporation that couldn't issue stock in the form of options because it's reserve pool was depleted. And even if it was, the same people being offered the options, are the same people who decide on whether to push a buyback. Seems like a conflict IMO.
"It sounds like he wants everyone to pay the same amount - is that the same percentage or the same dollar amount?"
Obviously it's not dollar amount, that's a highly regressive system that not even the GOP could stand behind. It's clearly %.
"a) we have a spending problem"
No, we have a budget deficit, not a spending problem. How you resolve it is where you determine if it's spending or revenues. That's NO DIFFERENT than in a household. I can choose to cut spending by cutting cable or increase revenues by getting a second job. Either way, the end result is the same, the deficit gap declines. To call it a spending problem implies that there is only one solution which is a false premise to the argument.
"b) our base line budget process is feeding the spending problem"
This I can agree with wholeheartedly. Giving government departments statutory budget increases that exceed the inflation index for the prior year is ludicrous. For the last 2-3 years we saw near 0 inflation but agencies saw 5%+ growth when there was no reason. Govenment growth should be capped at the prior year inflation index which would keep it in line with revenue growth for the most part. (This includes medicare/SSN) Any new spending beyond this inflation index would require 2/3 vote in both houses if not offset by spending cuts/new revenues.
That's the way to resolve this, but if you think the GOP has that as the answer, look at the last 30 years of history to see how wrong that belief is. Once they get in power, the shackles will come off in the interest of whatever new reason they can come up with.