E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe Tampa Bay Times: “On Tuesday, Obama will appear at Florida Atlantic University to make the case for the ‘Buffett Rule,’ a proposal that would require the wealthy to pay at least 30 percent of their income in taxes. The visit kicks off a nationwide push by Democrats on an election year issue that Republicans decry as class warfare that would been a drop in the deficit bucket. … It's also a way to remind voters about Mitt Romney's wealth, and that he paid a tax rate of 13.9 percent in 2010.”
“A week before a Senate vote, the Obama campaign on Monday ramped up its advocacy of the ‘Buffett Rule,’” the Boston Globe writes. There was a campaign conference call and email yesterday about it. Republicans say raising taxes on millionaires would do little for the deficit; “The Obama campaign has compiled a list [of what the revenue could fund] of similar examples on a new website encouraging passage of the Buffett Rule.”
On the Third Way poll on swing voters, Roll Call sums it up this way: “Independent Voters Like Barack Obama but Prefer Mitt Romney’s Message.”
More debate over whether the health law would increase or reduce the deficit.
Obama went 1-for-5 in a shoot around at the White House during the Easter Egg Roll (with basketballs with his face on it).
Leave a Comment:
Even St. Reagan Backs The Buffett Rule from the grave
Last fall, when President Obama debuted the Buffett Rule — the simple idea that millionaires and billionaires should pay at least the same tax rate as middle class workers — we climbed into the wayback machine and found a video of President Ronald Reagan decrying “crazy” tax loopholes that allowed a millionaire to pay a lower tax rate than a bus driver. .
With the Senate set to vote one week from today on a Buffett Rule bill that would make sure millionaires and billionaires pay a minimum tax rate of 30 percent, we now present another video of former President Reagan supporting the principle behind the Buffett Rule. In today’s video, President Reagan describes a letter he received from an executive who wanted to come to Washington and tell Congress why it’s “wrong” that he was able to “take advantage of the present tax code” to pay a lower tax rate than his secretary. Watch it:
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/04/09/460853/new-video-president-reagan-backs-the-buffett-rule/
Please tell us honestly how much Mr. Buffet's secretary makes.
It doesn't really matter, if all of her income is wages or salary and Mr. Buffet takes the majority of his income as capital items, the tax code provides for a 15% rate on capital gains.
Since having ordinary income converted to capital gains is something that usually only applies to top earners, it is readily apparent that this tax code item really does favor the wealthy.
Now if the President really wanted to go after this income, the tax code should be rewritten to tax this as what it really is, ordinary earnings AND make it subject to ordinary income taxes complete with social security and medicare taxes. That's what is truly bad about this. It allows the wealthy to convert ordinary income to capital gains at low tax rate and on which they pay no social security or medicare taxes.
My gawd, the GOP/TP can't keep on message. One minute, they run through the streets screaming hysterically, ranting about class warfare and the War on Religion, the next minute they denounce using the term war, describing it as unpatriotic. Sorry folks, can't have it both ways - oops, I forgot, GOP/TP is the party of hypocrisy, so yes, they will push like heck to have it both ways.
Wow ! You should be a Hollywood writer !! With your flair for the dramatic and lack of focus on reality, you could at least be an Obama speech writer !!!
If I had $10 for every speech Obama has given, then I could be in the 1%. LOL !!
@jim-1455434
Like most people, who are full of BS that is, your comment makes no points except to criticize someone's comment that made 1 good/bad (however you see it) point. RedDevPS may be dramatic but at least the comment said 'something'. Even if I disagree, which I don't, there is at least some point made. Your comment has no point. If I'm wrong and your point is Obama gives a lot of speeches; so what? What is wrong with a good speech? It inspires people. Having a charismatic leader who is able to speak well in public is not a bad thing. It seems you hate Obama so much that you are trying to turn positive traits into insults. This is my problem with so many anti-Obama critics these days. You give no actual reason to hate him, you just hate him. You hate anybody who doesn't hate him. You hate anybody who doesn't align themselves with the GOP/TP.
A libtard such as yourself has absolutely no knowledge of what is in my heart toward the President.
Mr.Obama has a very charming personality, but when it comes to financial matters, balancing the budget ........... oh hell, even PRODUCING anything resembling a decent budget proposal and issues of spending way, way beyond our country's income, Barack Obama is an absolute financial moron.
Mr.Obama's concept of government is that all the problems of the world can be solved with more money and more government. But more government means more tax dollars drained from the private sector of the economy. Thus, funding government is like feeding a voracious cancer with a huge appetite. Obama wants to TAX AND SPEND, and with his spending he wants to "redistribute the wealth". As a financial person, I see this does nothing to improve our country's economy.
People like you will distort reality, then attack others for pointing it out. Meanwhile, Obama wants to tax and spend some more as he seeks to divide the country over tax issues. Nothing new from him.
If the President proposes a budget and the Congressional Progressive Caucus proposes a budget, and the media barely mentions those budgets and focuses completely on the Ryan budget, does that mean neither the President nor the Progressive Caucus proposed a budget?
Heartlight3: according to Fox Noise... yep, You betcha!!!
I really do hope Sen. Reid puts the Paul Ryan budget up for defeat some time late summer. Gotta see each and every Republican string this alabatross around their necks right before the election.
Class warfare rears its ugly head once again ! This is Obama trying to make political time with a wealth vs poor issue. Hell ! Obama could take 50% of their income and it still won't offset the annual deficits his "budget proposals" would create.
Our country needs a President who can unite its people, not one who seeks to divide for purposes of being re-elected. Our country has serious spending problems and until he has the balls to face those issues, he will be useless.
When does Obama present a realistic budget proposal to Congress ? When will the Democrats pass a budget at all .... 3+ years and counting !
The GOP can't keep on message? Wow, what an asinine statement. Barry is all over the map. Last week he was trying to intimidate the Supreme Court. Then he saw this poll. Views of the Supreme Court have improved dramatically following the hearings on the president’s health care law. Before the highly publicized oral arguments were heard by the court, just 28% thought the court was doing a good or an excellent job. Now, as the belief has grown that the court might overturn the health care law, the number offering positive reviews is up to 41%. Most voters continue to favor repeal of the health care law.
Now it's back to "pay your fair share." When that flops, it will be some other spoon fed trial balloon
Jim: do you call the Republican Paul Ryan "throw grandma off the cliff and give her money to the wealthy" budget realistic ?
You do realize that Mr. Ryan's great plan does not even come close to being balanced for at least 20 years, and in that time it runs up deficits greater than the budget President Obama presented ?
Have you even read the GOP summary of Paul Ryan's budget, let alone the actual document ?
Heard a little bit of Ryan touting his "budget" with Joe Scarborough this morning on the way to work. What a piece of work this guy is. The rich get all the tax breaks, but he counters with the fact that tax loopholes and deductions for the rich are going to be changed. The only thing he can't say is which tax loopholes and deductions, how exactly they would be changed, nor at what dollar amount these loopholes and deduction would kick in. How convenient for the man who would be Vice President.
DEE, Barry's budget got no votes. That's like in Zero, Nada, Zip point $hit. Not even his own party wanted it and you want to rag on Ryan.
Good Luck with that.
Dee,
No one .... and I repeat NO ONE can define specific loopholes to be changed. It's a universally accepted concept that nobody seems to be able to define very well. I have heard a few actual comments that might hold some merit, but most who talk about "loopholes" are unable to give specific examples they would change.
Nice attack on Mr. Ryan though. At least he has the guts to recognize our country must reduce spending and strive to live within a budget. Obama submits budget proposals so bad, he gets no support from within his own party. Harry Reid refuses to bring the budget up in the Senate ... kicking the can down the road again.
Pray tell, why can't you name specific loopholes? They're there for all to see and discern. Pick one, two, three or four and go with it. What an excuse. The CBO has looked at this "plan" and determined it will raise the deficit within the next 10 years, so what's that about kicking the can down the road? Courage, smourage.
So....why do you think the President's budget didn't get any votes? What was in it?
Dee,
You opened your mouth but FAILED to produce any clear-cut SPECIFIC examples of loopholes .... thus proving my point. Take the challenge, give us some specific and clear-cut examples .... or we must assume you are all "puff" and no substance.
Hey the "courage smourage" thing reminds me of 4th grade ... perhaps that is where your mindset still resides.
Last year's budget proposal was voted down 97 to 0 in the Senate ! Apparently, "what was in it" was irrelevant since NO ONE voted for it !! This year's "budget proposal" from Obama called for EVEN MORE SPENDING INCREASES .... so bad that Harry Reid will not even bring it up !!!
Looks like the Democrats intend to avoid the law and simply try to run without any budget .... still no budget during Obama's administration which is in its 4th year !!!!!!!!!!
Jim
You're pretty delusional. You think I should come up with loopholes? It's your party's budget, not mine.
The 97-0 vote was taken on a MOTION to take up the 2012 budget. Not to actually vote on one. You need to get your facts straight. Provide me a link to the law that's being broken. It's obvious you don't understand anything about politics. Reid won't bring up a vote because he knows it won't pass the House. Why doesn't the Republican budget get passed? No votes in the Senate? Duh......but we only have 7 more months til November. Then the Dems will have control of the White House, Senate and House. OBAMA/BIDEN 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dee -- Let me take a shot at this. Let's first see if we can agree on the definition of a "tax loophole".
This is from dictionary.com:
A provision in the laws governing taxation that allows people to reduce their taxes. The term has the connotation of an unintentional omission or obscurity in the law that allows the reduction of tax liability to a point below that intended by the framers of the law.
If we are good with that then here are a few federal tax loopholes for you to consider:
If you are a qualified performing artist or other professional, and you paid for job-related expenses out of your own pocket, then you can claim those expenses as a tax deduction. Normally job-related expenses are a miscellaneous itemized tax deduction, subject to the 2% floor. If you qualify, claiming the qualified performing artist deduction will provide a bigger tax break.
Student loan interest is a tax deduction found in the adjustments to income section of Form 1040 or 1040A. That means you can take this deduction even if you don't itemize, or even in addition to any itemized deductions. You can deduct student loan interest on loans issued for yourself, for your spouse (if you file jointly), and for your dependents. There are income limitations for being able to claim the deduction.
If you are a teacher, and you paid for classroom supplies and other materials out of your own pocket, then you can claim those expenses as a tax deduction.
Introduced along with the income tax in 1913, the mortgage interest tax deduction has since become the favorite tax deduction for millions of U.S. homeowners.
@Dee #4.5 (or perhaps I should call you "puff"), you remind me of a wheel ... spinning around in circles, going nowhere.
In YOUR post at #4, you brought up loopholes .... you did genius, not me.
Then in #4.5, you try to shift the burden of proving YOUR POINT onto me:
"Pray tell, why can't you name specific loopholes ? They're there for all to see" . So when I challenge you, the person bringing this up to name specific loopholes, you dodge the subject, call me "pretty delusional" ..... but totally fail to answer the challenge of defining specific "loopholes" to be changed.
So when challenged to put up or shut up, you are incapable of either. James is right. Loopholes can broadly be applied to anything in the law that encourages an activity .... including the tax "loophole" for buying a hybrid car or the tax break for converting to a high efficiency A/C system.
Really an epic failure to answer the question by you. Oh, and the excuse for Reid not bringing it up .... Harry Reid is in the Senate, not the House. If the Democrat-controlled Senate actually bothered to pass a budget and the Republican-controlled House failed to pass one .... it would only make the House look foolish.
For now, only Obama and the Senate are unconcerned with a budget.
One "loophole" that seems pretty obvious to be closed is the mortgage interest deduction. Mortgage interest should be deductible on a primary residence only. (More than 50% occupancy in a given year.) No deduction for multiple mansions and vacation homes.
I believe the present law allows for two, and I think the second mortgage deduction is capped.
If you start attacking the mortgage deduction, however, you better be careful. The housing market is not quite on life support, but it's pretty damn weak. Any significant tampering will weaken an already weak market. Besides, not everyone lives in apartments like they do in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and other crowded cities.
Again, "loopholes" are provisions specifically put into law to encourage something. Dee was unable to answer the challenged and ran away from discussion when challenged.
Jim & James: isn't there a provision of the tax code which allows compensation paid in the form of stock, stock options, stock appreciation rights, and other equity based compensation to be exempt from social security and medicare taxes; to be immediately deductable by the employer/grantor, and for the recipient to be taxed on sale or conversion at capital gains rates ?
How about eliminating that loophole. I mean, afterall, its big enough to drive a street through (wall street.).
"A millionaire rock star who squanders all his income on high living is taxed once. An entrepreneurially minded rap star who prudently sets aside some earnings and invests them in enterprises that make headphones or fashions, which create wealth and jobs, is taxed a second time on the dividends and capital gains that may eventually be generated."
-- RANDALL W. FORSYTH
http://online.barrons.com/article/SB50001424052748704768704577181631178842166.html?mod=googlenews_wsj?mod=googlenews_barrons
Obama duped the American people into electing a SOCIALIST. Is that the hope and change the taxpayers wanted?
Obama is intent on rewarding the people who do not put forth an effort to better themselves and do the right things and punish those of us who do work hard to achieve and do the right things.
Obama's "Class Warfare" is not class warfare against the rich, it is class warfare against the good American people who work hard and do the right things. More and more American people are tired of supporting the people who do not want to work hard and succeed but instead want to live off the our tax dollars (government).
Obama believes in RECKLESS SPENDING, HIGH TAXES, and INTRUSIVE REGULATION. Obama started the class warfare rhetoric and he is the enemy of freedom and the American Dream. Obama is the most divisive President in history. The sooner the American people can vote him out of office, the sooner we will see job growth.
Obama is not just too liberal, he is RADICAL.
Obama's "balanced approach" is not balanced.
People collecting food stamps, welfare, or from any other of the infinite government programs should be required to do some work in return. That would be a "balanced approach" since the average American taxpayer must do work to get paid.
Government employees who receive benefits and salaries far beyond what the average American taxpayer receives, should have those benefit and salary plans reduced. It would be a "balanced approach" to make the benefit and salary plans of these employees comparable to the average American taxpayer.
What you need to do is come up with a plan to get rid of the disabled, disadvantaged, unemployed, and dependent elderly Americans. Their problem and yours is failure to become rich. 95% of American citizens are holding back the top 5%, and don't even play polo.
Majority of people utilizing government programs are children and elderly. Unfortunately there are people out there that do abuse the system, but to force requirements is not the answer. Social programs have been around for decades and they are not going away.
I do not think this bill will pass the house. Just like Ryan's budget will not pass the Senate. All this is political BS and is wasting time and money. Sorry to break it to the GOP, but you cannot beat Obama this year. Wait until 2016, maybe than, if Hilary does not want to be President.
"Majority of people utilizing government programs are children and elderly"
Your comment is misleading. There are MILLIONS of people working the system. Go to the inner cities and see all the people "collecting" who also work under the table or engage in crime (like selling drugs or theft). If you collect government money, you should work for it if you can. That would be a balanced approach.
The biggest problem in the US today is we have made it too easy to not be productive and Obama wants to extend that culture much more.
Dividends and capital gains that are not taxed are never taxed. Quit trying to make it sound like dividends are taxed twice - they are not.
Dividends come from earnings that are normally taxed for C corporations. The resulting dividends, paid out of retained earnings (after taxation at the C corporation level) get taxed again. This is why there has been a huge shift over the years to S-corporations where the income flows through directly to the individual tax returns of the shareholders (like a partnership) and where they are then taxed at individual rates.
blearyeyed at #5.5. I suggest you get a cup of coffee and study tax laws before talking about them again. You may be exposing your lack of knowledge. Either that, or get a CPA to explain it to you !
Affinity GW: you said:
I know (or at least hope) that's sarcasm, but it does point out the GOP plan.... one word: death.
The GOP really are pushing to have the old, poor, disabled (particularly veterans), the disadvantaged, elderly, and even women to just die. As the GOP presumptive leader pointed out, "I don't care for the very poor."
Obama's presidency has all about campaigning. He does not care about the American people. All he wants to do is get elected for a second term so he can continue his liberal / radical war on the American Dream and continue to implement his socialist policies.
Dems. Get the he@# out of the way. Quit digging holes.
Magically taken out of system .... !!!
Which policies are the socialist policies? The Heritage Foundation proposal to have everybody participate in private insurance? The George H.W. Bush proposal to replace a strict government-command system of environmental regulations with a market-based incentive system in which business trade the right to pollute?
The poll discussed in this article is a classic example of garbage in/gargbage out. A tax system can be both fair and encourage opportunity or it can be unfair and discourage opportunity. The two are not necessarily in conflict. The question about fairness is whether everyone pays an appropriate share. The question about opportunity is whether the tax code blocks the middle class and the poor from having a chance at becoming wealthy. Arguably, the current tax code is both unfair and blocks opportunity by giving lower rates to certain types of investment income without regards to whether that income is invested in the US or overseas.
We have had a progressive tax system for 100 years. After 60+ years of boom/bust capitalism the American people approve of a mixed economic system. America joins the rest of the modern industrial world in 1933 and provides a guaranteed retirement program to the american worker via social security. In 1965 America to prevent the largest group suffering poverty(the elderly) introduces medicare.
2012 the RepubliCons and Teapugs openly campaign to remove the safety net. Lets return to pre 1900 America when the 1% could really live it up- the Guilded Age.
I need: isn't that the Tea/ GOP theme "take back America" ?
What the GOTP fail to tell everyone, is that they also want to return to the era when no one except OLD WHITE MEN had a vote.
read in the paper today the good news is the american teen mother is on the decline. But the top 25 states where this continues to be a problem is like 23 out of 25 the reddest of the red states. What the heck is it in your water down there- recommend you invest in a water filtration plant or something. Interesting these are the same states that pay the least in tax and take the most on fed grants to support their failed internal policies.
So why take your failures NATIONAL?
It's not the water, it's the "abstinence only" sex ed. They're the ones who get to demonstrate that it doesn't work.
So exactly how much money would the "Buffet Rule" raise? Can't seem to get a straight answer. It ranges from a few billion to 100s of billions. So far the ranges I have seen would barely make a dent in the budget deficit.
Maybe if Obama would actually pass a CURRENT budget, the first in almost 4 YEARS, we could get a better picture. But he can't even do that.
If the government is going to raise taxes they damn well better cut spending FIRST, then see where they are at. Hell, just cutting 1% from the federal budget would save almost $37 billion, but not even that is enough. Lets take 10% - $370 Billion.....nope, not even close.
Spending in Washington is SOOO far out of control you can't tax people enough to balance the budget. Not without totally destroying the economy.
Until the government cuts their spending I will be against any tax increases. And yes that goes for the rich to.
The President does not "pass" a budget, the Congress does. The current Congress is determined that nothing of substance will pass.
I keep hearing you guys whine about cutting spending before allowing any tax increases. There have been many agreements to cut spending in the last couple of years (remember the big deal prior to the downgrade last summer when congress agreed to cut a certain amount of spending or automatic cuts would kick in later in the year? Remember Obamacare agreeing to cut $500,000 from Medicare which the Repubs then used to excoriate the President for wanting to cut Medicare? There have been so many spending cuts that public sector job losses are seriously lowering the net jobs increase numbers?) What happens to all of those spending cuts? It looks to me like there have been many agreements for spending cuts, but I have yet to see one single tax increase. For every spending cut, the Repubs toss in a few more tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. That will never reduce the deficit.
Obamacare contains a number of tax increases reducing the ability to deduct medical expenses among them. But of course, "you'll have to read the bill to see what's in it".
THAT'S why the Republicans want to repeal it, it contains tax increases.
Oh, and helping to have millions of previously uninsured americans get health care coverage is totally unacceptable to the GOP as well.
Remember 2010 I do.
It will happen again. Run lib run. Just run away