Washington (CNN) - Senate Democrats formally unveiled legislation Wednesday to ensure that all millionaires would pay a minimum federal tax of 30 percent.
The legislation comes as the relatively low tax rate for some high earners –like investor Warren Buffett and GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney– takes center stage in both the policy and political arenas in Washington.
Follow the Ticker on Twitter: @PoliticalTicker
President Obama and congressional Democrats have made enactment of the "Buffett Rule," which they say would force high earners pay a higher tax rate than their secretaries, a central part of their re-election messages. They argue it's both a matter of fairness and the best way to reduce the staggering deficit.
Buffett supports the Democrats' legislation.
"These middle class families are really struggling to get by and then they find out that some people with really extremely high incomes are actually paying lower all-in federal tax rate than they are. That's, to them, just not common sense," said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-Rhode Island, and author of the bill. "Americans deserve a straight deal and right now they are not getting one from our tax system."
A key reason Buffett and Romney pay a lower tax rates is because most of their income comes from investments. Taxes on capital gains from investments are capped at 15%.
The legislation would apply to people earning more than $1 million a year, be it from salaries or investments or both. They could still take some deductions – such as for charitable giving – but after all is said and done, they must pay an effective tax rate of at least 30 percent of their income as federal taxes.
Whitehouse says his legislation would raise billions for the government but there is no official estimate from the Congressional Budget Office about how much it would raise.
Most Republican strongly oppose raising the capital gains tax because they argue taxing investments at a higher rate will stifle job creation and hurt the economy.
Senate Democratic leaders have not decided when they will push for a vote on the legislation, which is called the "Paying a Fair Share Act of 2012." They want to consider first a handful of bills they consider to be job creation measures, including a highway funding bill, the FAA funding bill, and postal reform bill, according to aides.
Also see:
From CNN Politics
© 2011 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Contact us | Work for us | Help
This looks to me like it could potentially hurt the stock market. At least hurt middle class investors (like me) that don't have millions to invest. I don't make much in the market anyway and if you take 30% of it, basically double, it really isn't going to be worth it to me to invest. If I understand this correctly (I'm no financial expert by any means), it could broaden the gap between the rich and middle class. If I have it wrong, someone explain it to me please.
The last time Congress tried to raise the capital gains tax, a huge lobby formed to fight it. And they won. Mitt Romney led the lobbying group.
Is the GOP still touting that nonsense about "job creators"? Hasn't that already been thourally debunked? If they had to pay higher taxes on dividend interest, perhaps they would indeed become the risk takers again and begin creating jobs, instead of just letting their money sit in offshore accounts.There's incentive for you.
This nation needs this bill desperately, o.k, Shame on Congress and Senate idiots not to comprehend it and pass it all this time. What took so long. Now this nation is in this fiscal mess because No one were dare enough to pass this bill. Had it passed, Romney would not have paid 13.8% taxes, he ought to have paid 40-45 percent taxes. So are wealthy. Nation would not have doomed with gloom. Just pass it. OK. Then talk. Buffet makes sense.
Making millionaires pay their fair share won't cost a single, solitary job. Not one. This is evidenced by the fact that the overwhelming majority of their income, in whatever form it may be, is not used to hire people. There is no valid economic basis whatsoever for the claim that making millionaires pay as much as their secretaries in taxes would cause them to initiate mass layoffs.
If Republicans are so concerned about millionaires creating jobs, why not propose a law mandating that millionaires dedicate a minimum percentage of their income toward hiring? Something tells me they'd take issue with that proposal. Again, proof that this has nothing to do with jobs and everything to do with simple greed at the expense our country's well-being.
only hurts u if u make 1 million or more. read the whole article..
Are you a millionaire?
This could bring back the Clinton Economy.
I like the intent but I don't think it's a fair way to go about solving this issue...
Will the Republicans please shut up on this baloney about taxing the rich resulting in less incentives to create jobs? For heaven's sake, if that were true, we wouldn't have a jobs crisis right now. All you so-called job creators out there: WHERE ARE THE JOBS YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE CREATING???? Your taxes are at an all-time low. So, where are the jobs??? Either produce jobs you claim to create or shut up.
Girgi– You wouldn't pay the 30% rate unless you make over a million dollars per year from all of your income (after deductions). I don't know about you, but that certainly doesn't apply to me or anyone in the middle class.
@Gurgi Unless you make over $1 million annually, this bill wouldn't apply to you. Therefore, it would not effect "middle class investors" since if you make over $1million, you are not middle class.
@Gurdi – If you don't make more than the cutoff income (I believe it is $1 million), this will not impact you at all. And before anyone starts screaming about job creators, here are three facts:
(1) The economy did just fine in the 50's when the top marginal rate was 90% and through much of the 60's when the top rate on unearned income was 70% (I am not arguing for rates that high).
(2) Business decisions are based in EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization)
(3) Job creators are a dime a dozen. If you want to take your marbles and go home due to a 30% tax rate, go ahead. There will be a long line waiting to take the opportunity you passed up.
Mitt "Gordon Gekko" Romney, like his friends, just want to keep paying their 13.7% tax rate. The will say and do anything to keep it. Don't get sucked in by their BS. Please don't vote for a coprprate raiding parasite. Obama 2012
Buffett Bill meet the paper shredder.
Doesn't all monetary bills have to be originated in the House?
sonny chapman–
It won't bring back the Clinton economy as that was based on 1) lower taxes, and 2) the explosion of the internet.
If only we had a good thirty years of trickle down economics being an abject failure to demonstrate that this bill is needed. Yep, you sure would have to stupid or possibly illiterate to ignore thirty years of evidence empirically proving that tax cuts for the extremely wealthy leads to zero new jobs or other benefits for everyone else. Hmmm... Now where could we find such data?
Ken in MD–
We already have extremely high CGT anyway. Raising them means less investors, less investment, means money goes elsewhere.
if the dem have something to do with it,were screwed
GOP job creating touting, what jobs did they create, baking Pizza, selling TVs, or cell phones. shame.
If the rich pay their fair share of taxes, guess what: They are still rich.
So, if you don't make $1 million a year, you don't have that 30% tax rate?
I want to repeat what ha said. It only hurts if you make a million or more a year. The average investor will not be subject to 30%. This fact will be ignored by republicans who will try to terrorize small investors, of course, but spin machines can't alter truth.
@gurgi – Are you going to make more than $1 million dollars? It's pretty easy, if you will make less don't worry. If you are going to make more than that then you will pay more. But if you make $1 million in a year and can't afford to invest because of the taxes, you are not managing your money well at all. 30% fed taxes is still the smaller than what rich people paid before Bush was pres. They didn't complain much then. Why now?
Ok, I'm a bit slow to update the page. I got it. Thanks.
I got so excited when I thought this was about food!!! Then the truth hit me.
It's now been 1006 Days since Reid's Senate Passed a Budget.
Peter–
Hey they are trying. Keystone Pipeline, well that was vetoed.
The first thing, which no one wants to address are what specifically is causing the economy issues, and no it is not the Republicans, and no it is not the Democrats. Neither party alone is the cause, and neither party is innocent. Also the people of this country are also the cause as well.
I could write out a comprehensive outline of truly all the issues with the economy in this country, but no one cares to listen nor wants to believe it.
As long as you aren't making a million a year, this won't apply to you.
This is not a tax hike or something to unfairly hurt people with money. This is letting the taxes go back to what they were before lobbiest like Mitt carved out special deals to financially benefit the rich... letting the 'special treatment' expire.
About time for the Buffett Rule to kick in. Good for you, Democrats!
I think the capitol gains tax, that by the way to lowered to 15% by GWB to reward his rich friends was set to expire in Jan of this year. It think it is supposed to go up to 20%.
I bet they will pass this rule and still not have enouogh money. Its a spending problem not a revenue problem duh.
HAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHH! "$40 – $50 billion? That's it? Is this a joke? This won't dent any deficit or debt! LOL That's like $114 per American worth of government goods or services. 1/3 of an XBox 360. LOL
What, you want to tax the job cremators at the same rate as a city garbage man?
It amazes me how many people think this might somehow increase their taxes because they invest in the stock market. This rule applies if you make more than one million dollars a year in income!!! Nobody posting here is in that category!!!
Gurgi–
This bill would in no way affect your tax rate. The proposal, as I understand it, is not an increase on the capital gains rate. Instead, it sets an overall rate floor of 30 percent **only for those making at least a million a year**. Small investors such as yourself would not be affected in any way.
Gurgi,
Unless your investments earns you over a million dollars per year, you will not be affected. This bill is not aimed at the middle class or working class.
What at first was plunder assumed the softer name of revenue. ~Thomas Paine
I completely agree with this. I hope it extends to all aspects of investment income particularly the hedge fund managers and PE guys. Paying their fair share is a step in the right direction as far as supporters of the "Occupy" movement are concerned.
Kris Craig
Making millionaires pay their fair share won't cost a single, solitary job. Not one...
________________________________________________________________________________________________
And you are exactly wrong on this. The very first impact of raising Capital Gains tax rates is to increase the threshold for capital investment. It's not opinion or guesswork. It is plain simple numbers. Economics 101. Every professional investment calculation factors in tax rates before a decision is made. This increase in taxes pretty much by definition will have a huge impact of slowing down investments and private sector jobs are created by capital investments. It is a very direct correlation.
Who would this new tax hurt more, the investor or the unemployed? I will give you a hint. It will not be the investor. He or she already has extra money. And he or she will keep a little more of it rather than make that next investment.
Frankly, this sounds more than fair.
What I love the most of the arguments that higher taxes "kill jobs" is that they completely ignore the hard statistics that job creation has fallen uniformly with the LOWERING of taxes, and raised with the increase of taxes. If they're going to make a point to protect their precious income, they could at least bring some evidence to the table that contradicts the evidence we have to the contrary.
Does this mean that Democrats are attempting to serve themselves more of the buffet? Mr. Buffet is nothing but an Obama butt kisser who, just like the president, don't give a hoot about the middle class and the problems they face. Mr. Buffet just wants to help get the president reelected so that he can continue making more and more millions.
Have this administration not taken enough from the already strapped taxpayers yet?
So much for Mr. Obama's promises. America, PLEASE don't be hoodwinked AGAIN!!!
So we should give our government more money because... they spent all of the money we gave them and ran up the national debt? Brilliant! And when they spend all of that they'll come after the middle-class again.
How about a smaller Federal government.
@Gurgi You are somewhat correct. The problem is that it hurts the stock market by killing the price of stocks when people stop investing (Lower demand means lhigher suppler which in turn means lower prices, and therefore a lower DJI index.
However, I would say if you are a millionaire then you aren't middle class (there are only 240,000 people in the US that make more than $1million a year).
As much as I am for Obama, this is not a good solution, especially since it only raises around 3% of the money needed to erase the national debt. As nice as it is to think that millionaires should pay more, they truly are the people investing the most capital in the economy. That doesn't mean that there aren't other ways to raise more revenue.
How is a low capital gains tax supposed to create jobs? If we want to create jobs, tax capital gains a ton and provide big tax incentives to actually start a business and employ people. Then, and only then, will money shift from the stock market to the real market. As long as the stock market is the better investment, the money will not move.
EITHER BUFFET DOESN'T UNDERSTAND TAXES, OR HE LIED. No way did his secretary pay a higher rate the Buffet. Effective tax rate is Total Tax on a 1040 divided by AGI. His secretary would be more like 11%, as most American taxpayers are. Check your own return. You'll see.
Well, Gurgi, if you are going to pay 30% tax on your investments, then you must already have over a million dollars. Thus, you are not a middle class investor as you claim. You are wealthy. So sorry for your loss.
Let's see, if it goes up about 7% for Mitt, that would mean he would have to pay another million in taxes next year! WaHaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
You know the number of morons on this board is amazing. Why should anyone pay a higher percentage because they earn more? They should NOT. The bill is a socialist bill by all characteristics. If you want a truly balanced system, then have a FLAT tax that everyone pays exactly the same percentage of tax. Making someone that is making more pay a higher rate is neither equitable or reasonable and is flatly not in the spirit of our nation.
"Gallup released their annual state-by-state presidential approval numbers yesterday, and the results should have 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue very worried. If President Obama carries only those states where he had a net positive approval rating in 2011 (e.g. Michigan where he is up 48 percent to 44 percent), Obama would lose the 2012 election to the Republican nominee 323 electoral votes to 215."
-------------------
Ok Barry....take a seat at the end of the bench...we've seen enough...some people just aren't presidential material.
Well, they can either pass this bill or wait until the system regenerates to the point of people killing people. And yes, it will happen. When you've "hit bottom" and there's no hope in sight, just about anything can happen, and does. I'm not worried about the effect on the stock market or any short term issues. The market will recover over time and a good shake-up would prove beneficial in the long run.
If I were a Republican right now, I'd join the Democrats and make sure it passed too.
So you take away the money that otherwise would have been invested in economy and managed privately (efficiently) and given to the government to be managed inefficiently. The investments therefore will not only be inefficient, but driven by political reasons, such as desire to get re-elected. As a result, the money if invested privately, would in turned have been earned by people who work, as opposed the money given via taxes to the goverment would be given away via politically motivated programs – free housing, welfare checks etc.
Sure, let's layer yet another kludge onto the already overly-complex tax code rather than simply fixing the root problem. This is a prime example of why our laws, and our tax code in particular, are so ridiculously complex.
Why don't they increase the capital gains tax?! Would they make more that way? Especially from millionaires who sometime choose to make a $1 salary. If you doubled capital gains tax, I feel like the amount the US government would get would significantly increase.
It won't pass the House.
To paraphase the movie Animal House:
Harry Reed: " I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part!"
Schumer, Durban and Whitehouse: "We're are just the guys to do it!"
"Have this administration not taken enough from the already strapped taxpayers yet?"
Oh man those millionaires sure are strapped. They're struggling hard. If the transmission goes out on their seventh BMW, they might not be able to get the replacement completely diamond plated.
Buffett's secretary makes a few hundred thousand dollars a year.
With the buffet rule it is basically putting a floor in their taxes if you make over 1 million a year in investments , when the tax cuts expire and if they expire completely their income tax (without investments) will be 39.5%....and with this tax rate in the Clinton years our country actually saw a bright future and with the top earners reaping the benefits from the policies that lead to the recision this tax rate is long over due to help the ones the lobbyists screwed over...the middle class
A great way to make the case for the bill would be to show annual amounts of these additional funds and how they would impact the debt. If nothing else treat them like the Bush tax cuts and put an expiration date on the increase.
Personally I would sell it like this – we expect our troops to risk giving their lives for our country. Is it too much to ask that the wealthiest among us give more from their pocket books? If we are truly in a national crisis as the GOP/TP likes to infer, how is sacrifice not patriotic?
Hey...It doesn't harm me, so tax away, right? What a bunch of thieves!!!
Even if this passes people will find ways around it. CEOs will get a $999,999.99 paycheck and a $5 million dollar housing allowance or some garbage that won't be taxed. Simplify the system for everyone already and close the loop holes.
I would like a list from the Republicans of "job creators" If all the Billionaires are creating jobs I want to know who they are. Specifically how many jobs has Romney created – unrelated to his campaign of course. Many of the wealthy don't even own a business so how would it stifle job creation!
I can see that the intent of this bill is noble, but there is a concerning part. Since it is going to be tax-dollars, the money goes straight into the Government's hands. This is reflected by the statement that it "... will make billions for the Government...". We already see how effective the Government is at managing it's funds with the $2,000,000,000.00 Tax-Payer dollars unaccounted for in Iraq DoD spending. I can see many politicians voting for this law since it benefits their funding, however there are no actual statements on exactly how it will help the citizens. They don't state that the money received from the increase on the rich will go to food banks or homeless shelters. They don't state that it will go to Federal School GRANTS (screw Fed Loans, they route you just like the banks do) nor do they state it will go to Medicare, Foodstamps or anything that helps the struggling. When you take out the statements that seem appealing, you realize it doesn't truly help the classes at all. All it does is take more money from the rich who then pass the costs down to the poor. High-income Investors make $$$ and must may up to 30% taxes => Governnment takes taxes which goes to Government funds, makes them billions => Then what?? The Bill is noble in nature, but it exists to solely benefit the Government's pocket until it is clearly defined to make sure it helps the struggling and the poor. State where the money is going to, instead of just "the Government".
I am all for fair taxes. Rich pay more? Sure. The 49% that pay nothing pay a little. Sure. Fair tax means everybody has skin in the game. Class warfare means some pay all and some pay nothing. Rich pay more vs some paying none = class warfare.
Trickle down economics - Lie. The rich are job creators - Lie. Raising taxes on the rich will cost jobs - Lie.
@Kris Craig:
Give the $Ms a tax credit equal to one and a holf times the salary per annum for all jobs created and filled for the entire tax period, Then tax capital gains at 25%. Everybody oughta be happy.
Millionaires should have to pay no more than non-millionaires. Why should they be punished for doing well for themselves and their families?
It's about time! Republicans don't understand that you can't just cut, cut, cut without generating revenue. Everyone should have to pay fairly and everyone, especially the rich, should want to! It's our country, after all! I wouldn't want to be rich in a country full of poor people!
Jerry, how would Buffet make millions and millions by saying he wants his taxes raised....stop making excuses and listening to Glenn Beck and wake up.
Why would you penalize someone for being successful? Buffett is a hypocrite... he KNOWS full well that his comparison of his tax rate of ~15% on investment income vs. the ~30% paid by his six-figure WAGE income secretary would create a political crapstorm that would favor the _resident...
Why are successful people suddenly being punished for being successful? So 'community activists with a past to hide' like Obeyme are seen as saviors of America?
Not likely... I've created a wealthy future for my family and successive generation; I don't owe you lazy asses anything. I keep what I earn, and you keep what YOU earn.
Sarah Baan
Why don't they increase the capital gains tax?! Would they make more that way?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Every time that has been done government revenues from Capital Gains have decreased. It's true. And it makes sense. People have a choice whether or not to make investments. They can either use the money to buy boats and cars and houses and airplanes , etc. or they can invest it and buy boats and cars... with the money they make on that investment. If the money they make on that investment becomes less because the government takes more, then what do you think happens? The idea to invest the money becomes not so attractive anymore. So investments decrease. Quickly.
Makes me wonder if raising captial gains taxes soley on passive income (buying stocks), but retaining the same break for investing in a company directly, such as personally financing projects, thus removing the banks from the picture, and the break only be valid if the company that is invested in creates and maintains a high percentage of employees. In short, reward those companies and their investors that invest in creating more jobs here at home.
Sort of a ramble, but I'm curious how it would work.
We could raise everyone's tax rates to 100%. do you know what the politicians in congress would do with it? Waste it. It doesn't matter how much money we give congress, they will spend more than we make.
What's being ignored by most of the (extremely ignorant and poorly informed) comments here about why this is a "bad" idea is that the majority of the tax burden is on the lower classes. We have a system that exemplifies the saying that "the poor get poorer and the rich get richer," because while the taxes for the lower classes have actually INCREASED several times in the last decade, the taxes for the rich and especially the super rich continue to decline. Job creation has declined uniformly with that tax decline.
The beauty of it, from a rich perspective, is that nothing can technically be proven as to what creates jobs and helps the economy. Well, it can be – on paper, you can see lower taxes creates jobs. On paper, we live in a happy world of honest people who strive to do better. In reality, what has played out and what actually lead to many of our current economic trouble, is that these companies don't use their extra income to create jobs. They use this income to push higher rewards to employees who use it to buy more and more excessive personal items. In fact, they use it to do so to the point that they then use borrowed, non-existent investment money to continue funding their operations, but that's another story altogether.
Yeah, on paper, lower taxes may help the economy. But this is reality. To say lower taxes has helped the economy and job creation is to ignore the reality of the very stories that have plastered CNN for the last five years. You tax these people more, their response is to spend more wisely and to make better choices. You tax them less, they turn into slovenly pigs who would rather roll in their cash than make a wide decision. We can keep hoping for them to be better, or we can stop pretending humanity is going to suddenly change after thousands of years of this behavior and treat them accordingly.
RE:
"Steve
You know the number of morons on this board is amazing. Why should anyone pay a higher percentage because they earn more? They should NOT. The bill is a socialist bill by all characteristics. If you want a truly balanced system, then have a FLAT tax that everyone pays exactly the same percentage of tax. Making someone that is making more pay a higher rate is neither equitable or reasonable and is flatly not in the spirit of our nation."
Flat tax system isn't fair, either. The ONLY equitable system is a graduated tax system. Cap it at 35% for top wage earners, and ALL income levels pay taxes. All of them. Period.
Buffet is such a hypocrite!! First, he (and any other American) can over contribute to the IRS; but he hasn't. In addition, Berkshire Hathaway (his company) is fighting to not pay a $1,000,000,000 tax bill. If he thinks the rich aren't paying enough, why not just write a check? All the shareholders in this company are 1%'ers they can afford BH to write the check. Instead the US tax payer has to foot the bill to fight BH's lawyers to get this money. FREAKING HYPOCRITE!!!
Remind me not to invest in any more local and state municipal bonds. If there's no deduction, I'd much rather just buy more equities. Call my construction company if you want to build some infrastructure, good luck getting financing.
Gee -- wonder how THAT will turn out...........................................
RE:
"Joe
"Have this administration not taken enough from the already strapped taxpayers yet?"
Oh man those millionaires sure are strapped. They're struggling hard. If the transmission goes out on their seventh BMW, they might not be able to get the replacement completely diamond plated."
Hmmm... I sense sarcasm AND jealousy -
Complete election year ploy, not to mention that it's not going to work. How are you going to enforce it? You're going to leave the rest of the tax system in place, but this rule just goes on top? It just doesn't mesh at all with the rest of the tax code.
Besides, it's just stupid. I don't know if you noticed, but billionaires have enough money that they can afford to move.
I don't know much about the complexities of economics, but seriously who does? All of these so-called experts got us into this financial meltdown, and different experts have different solutions year after year. What I do know is history. Since Reagan introduced 'trickle down' economics, the wealth gap has widened to the historic high it is at today. The tax cuts Bush enacted did nothing to spur economic growth. During the Clinton years the economy grew at a significantly faster pace, what is wrong with those rates?
So can anyone tell me how a CEO gets a multi-million dollar bonus (on top of millions in salary) when his company goes bankrupt under his leadership? Thousands of people that live of their sad little checks were fired and thousands more did not even get ANY bonus because the company made bad investments. Yet the leaders reward themselves with millions that could have kept the employees on board for a few months longer. You want to talk about class warfare? You (the rich) have been waging it since the dawn of this country.
@ steve:
It's not asking to pay a higher rate because you make more. It's requiring you don't pay a lower rate than the people who bust their @$$ day in and out to make ends meet. Yes, in dollars you pay more, but as a percentage it will be more equal.
Right wingers scream that we have to reduce the deficit. Anybody with a barely functioning brain realizes that in order to do that we have to BOTH cut spending and increase revenue. But, try to increase revenue, and the same people scream that we're killing the "job creators". Looking at past history, cutting taxes hasn't done a damn thing to create jobs. All it's done is divert more money to the already rich, which says to me that when they get a tax break, they just say "thank you very much", and stick it in the bank.
It seems the Senate Democrats have never heard of the Origination Clause.
Maybe, just maybe Buffet's secretary (the 'Joe the Plumber' of the Democratic party) is paying too much. Just a thought.
Yeay, Alright, yes. Finally!!!
Its a beginning. We've got to start somewhere. This is as good a place to start as any. I don't care why its taken this long anymore. Just get it done. Let's get it going, Now! Go, go, go.
@Steve,
A flat tax is much worse for the poor than our currnt system. It has been proposed many times and has never been taken seriously by economists.
IMO a 30% millionaire tax would INCREASE job creation. The tax is on their income AFTER they are all done creating jobs. Creating jobs costs money that will be written off their taxes BEFORE the 30% is paid. The more jobs they create the less tax they will pay. 30% IS NOT ENOUGH! After all, the tax rate used to be as high as 70% and that was back when the USA was a GREAT country! 'Republicans' seem to be forgetting this...
This is crazy. I'm no where near being a millionaire. But if I sacrificed and put in the hard work to become one, I sure as hell wouldn't want the government to take 30%. Wow.
This is crazy. I'm no where near being a millionaire. But if I sacrificed and put in the hard work to become one, I sure as hell wouldn't want the government to take 30%. How does the government determine what a fair share is anyway?
Why doesn't Mr. Buffett just pay a voluntary tax if he's so concerned about how low his taxes are? Also, since Mr. Buffett has brought his secretary into the conversation, why won't she make her income a matter of public record? Is she a lowly, underpaid secretary or not? If she is, why doesn't Mr. Buffett just give her a raise? If Mr. Buffett's effective tax rate is so offensive to everyone, doesn't it make sense to lower everyone else's taxes to match his? I'm tired of Mr. Buffett being obama's puppet for the simple reason of deflecting attention away from obama's failed three years in office and onto how evil rich people are. Political theatrics. Nothing more.
@Four You're citing outdated economic theories that have long since been disproven. In fact, they have been disproven over and over and over and over again. What you're saying may look good on paper, but that's not how it pans out in reality.
In fact, the capital gains tax has been raised numerous times in the past and it has never caused a decline in job growth. Not once. Why? Because the tax applies on RETURNS of investment, not on the investment itself. That's why it's called the capital GAINS tax. As you said, it's Economics 101.
If anything, a higher capital gains tax would motivate investors to put more money into the market in order to offset the reduced returns. That, in turn, will lead to more jobs, not less. Nice try, though.
So this creates jobs, how exactly? Seems to me Obama doesn't have a plan (or a clue) and now needs class warfare to have even a chance. Sad.
@sharkbait The pipeline wasn't a jobs bill. The people who would've been working on that are already employed. This was just a politically-motivated giveaway to the oil industry at the cost of tearing-up our environment. There's not much point in having a job if you can't breathe.
Gurgi,
It won't affect middle class investors at all. they're not changing the capital gains tax to 30%. There saying that, if you make more then a million dollars your overall tax rate can't be less than 30%. They're essentially doing what the Alternate Minimum Tax (AMT) was supposed to do in the first place, which was to prevent the very wealthy from taking advantage of tax breaks that allowed them to pay a lower percentage in taxes than middle class people did.
You can read more at Washington Post – they don't want to change cap gains, it's more like if you make more than $1m, take what your income and multiply it by 0.3 – if you're not paying that much in taxes, pay the difference. Simple, elegant, and leaves cap gains tax alone for the Middle Class. I like it.
"This looks to me like it could potentially hurt the stock market. At least hurt middle class investors (like me) that don't have millions to invest. I don't make much in the market anyway and if you take 30% of it, basically double, it really isn't going to be worth it to me to invest. If I understand this correctly (I'm no financial expert by any means), it could broaden the gap between the rich and middle class. If I have it wrong, someone explain it to me please."
That's incorrect unless you make a total of a $1 million or more. If you're under that level your taxing would not change. The entire point of this is that the people making $1 million+ / year are taxed lower than nearly everyone else if they use capital gains as a method to avoid reporting their income. It is a massive loop-hole that has plagued the American tax system for generations. Only people who truly don't understand how bad this loop-hole affects us all oppose it. Simply put, the bill creates an equal taxation method in relative to EITHER Income OR Capital Gains or a mix of both. There would be no loop-hole to get around paying the existing tax rates. It isn't a raise in "taxes on income" either – Its fix to people avoiding their income tax.
Furthermore the fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans involving taxation is simple: Democrats view taxes based in percentages. Example being 30% tax rate on top 2% of earners. Republicans view taxes based on total revenue, saying that the top 2% pay "millions" more in taxes than anyone else. While Republicans are correct, the top 2% pay "more" taxes – the notion that they pay more in relation to the wealth of the individual is completely false. If Warren Buffet pays only 15% and you pay 24% then it isn't equally fair. If he paid the ALREADY existing 30% tax rate (by closing loop-holes) and you pay your 24% then both of you are taxed relatively the same. Although then finally the rich would pay their fair share.
How about cutting spending. The government keeps spending over 1 trillion dollars more that it brings in, this tax will do nothing to alleviate that.
i have never seen such uneducated comments in my life.
Raise capital gains taxes to 30% and see the stock market crash.
Taxes from capital gains has already been paid by the company that paid corporate taxes.
Now they want another 30%?
Seriously you people need to read a book...
So who and how is "Fair Share" determined?
Let's see... the top 1% pay approximately 35% of the country's revenue and the top 2% pay about 50%. And the rest want them to pay more? Really?
The issue is less about revenue than costs associated with government's waste and monumentally failed social programs. In my opinion, everybody, from the top earners to the bottom earners should pay less and fewer taxes. But, then again, roughly 50% of people don't pay income taxes. I presume these are the same people who are complaining that "rich" people – however that's defined – don't pay their fair share.
Obamanation: robbing Peter to pay Paul. Doesn't work. Pretty soon you run out of money and people who have (had) the money leave. Who's gonna pay for the social programs when that happens?
Gurgi – no one is trying to increase capital gains tax from 15% to 30%. This bill is saying that if you earn over a million dollars per year, your overall tax rate should not be less than 30%. A middle class investor like you (that does not earn a million bucks a year) will continue to benefit from capital gains rate of 15%. The idea here is that you likely earn most of your money from other sources where you likely pay 25%, 30% or 35% income tax, unlike the millionaires that earn most there money from investments and end up paying only 15% as things are now.
How much is this supposed to bring in again? Oh, that's right...less than 0.1% of the debt. The Federal Government INCREASES spending EVERY YEAR by more than this bill brings in. This is just a feel good, political ploy for those that hate millionaires. You want a real solution? CUT SPENDING! Unless someone here shows me by the numbers how we can tax our way to a balanced budget (not even reducing the debt, just balancing the budget), the problem will always be spending!
Ron,
I believe one of the objectives is to simplify the tax code by removing the loopholes that allow millionaires to pay a lower percentage.
Paying the fair share is only fair if it applies to everyone equally. It is not fair to tax one group one percentage and another group another. How is it FAIR to charge a different amount? Did someone change the defenition of the word?
Who cares about taxes when Americans are starving for food. Disability in America is nearly a death sentence and social security is no better. I am glad the government took my money for years of dedication and hard work and has moved me from middle class to poor class. By the way the Buffet Rule is at least a start in the right direction. By the way Income taxes were started to pay off World War 2. I can't be positive, but I am sure we have paid for that war by now. At this time, with the war paid for, taxes are illegal in the United States anyway.
Why is this so tough. 9% flat tax and forget the income tax and slap a 30% tariff on imports from China.
If anybody on this board makes more that 1 million dollars annually...you are not middle class...thats just my opinion. If you make less than 1 million dollars annually then this rule will not apply to you.
The tax rate is for people making over $1 million, which in my world is definitely NOT middle class.
99%'er here. Far from being a millionaire. In fact, I seriously doubt that I will ever come close to being worth one million dollars in my lifetime.
That being said, why should the federal govt benefit from the risks taken by investors.
I say if you invest and lose, you don't get to write it off. If you invest and win, you don't have to pay taxes at all.
Why should one person profit over the risks of another?
I'm also for capping income taxes on the first 40 hours per week of employment only. And I get paid salary so I don't get overtime anyway.
But again, why should the feds get more of YOUR money when you are the one working harder? If you want to help the lower and middle class you can start right there. After all, the ones working overtime and getting paid hourly wages are clearly the lower and middle class.
If the Democrats want to spout off about fairness then they need to go all the way. Why stop at just taxing the millionaires.
And if Buffet really cares about the middle class then he can give his fortune to the IRS to help alleviate some of the problems with our debt and deficits.
TJ,
Do you realize that you are probably paying close to 30% now and that is partially due to millionaires paying 15% or less? I think it is very kind of you to be concerned for them, but rest assured they will be OK without you paying their share.
Hmmmm.... the DNC is playing politics once again. So by wording it that millionaires pay less rate they willfully lie regarding the actual dollars. Let me help. Lets say Buffet's secretary earns $60,000 and pays lets say 20%. She then pays $12,000 in taxes. Now lets say Buffet makes only $1 billion at lets say 10%. Buffet already pays $100 Million.
This is just another backhanded attempt at socialism for the left.
The chances of this getting through the house are slim to none.
Kris Craig
If anything, a higher capital gains tax would motivate investors to put more money into the market in order to offset the reduced returns.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Risk-reward is not a confusing concept and that's what is going on here. If the risk of losing my money on an investment is greater then I want more reward for making that investment. However, if my reward is going to be reduced because the government is taking more away, I will choose to invest only in less risky places. My investments by definition will decrease because the slightly more risky investments are not attractive anymore. (I'll just take another vacation with it.)
I love it! It's only fair. However, 25% for all would be even better.
Why are they wasting time! There is no way the Republican house will pass this and they know it. They blame the Republicans for wasting time, but the Democrats are just as guilty.
Well, the Democratic Robin Hoods want to spread the wealth. Wow, and when the democrats get more money and spend three times as much, then what? And when this country is so far in debt, nearly there now, and the economy is so messed up because of the democrats leadership, we all will loose. Long live the Obama administrations class warfare, don't be stupid America, if this keeps up, our entire society will be a welfare state, and the American dream will be no more. Keep spending people, and take from others that which is not yours, it will come back around in the end, that you can count on, and the Democrats are depending on it, you have been fooled.
People do realize this is more for show than actually solving anything correct? Lets see here 500 million raised against trillions still owed? Yup that really comes closer to solving the national debt problem. Why don't senators and congressional leaders actually take a look at serious issues and start solving them instead of saving their jobs by appealing to pointless rhetoric.
This is strictly a political move pandering to the lazy masses who want more freebies from Obama. Even it passed it would be of little benefit to the middle or lower class.
Does the Buffet Bill also require Berkshire Hathaway to pay their back taxes>?
1% of americans already pay 40% of all taxes. What's our fair share? Please give me a number. I'm a family of only 4. How many more families should I pay for in this country to do my fair share? 200? 400?
Maybe all those people here seething that it's time for the rich to "pay their fair share" should ask what would be their own fair share. After all, there is the ugly fact that 47% of you pay less than zero taxes. But I'm sure that seems fair to you.
Not to worry – after a few years of the inflation we're heading into, you'll all be millionaires, and you'll all be paying a minimum of 30%.
Incidentally how exactly is that going to work? Obviously the bill can't just impose no lower limit on people who make $0.99M per year and 30% those who make $1M. So there will also have to be a minimum imposed at lower levels. How low? We'll, to make a difference to the federal deficit problem that would have to be like, say, as low as what some significant fraction of the population makes. Basically anyone who works hard.
What, you think you work hard? Not if you're making the low $40k median U.S. income. You can get that for having pulse. Working hard only applies to what you do after you come home from you're day job. Sorry, that's just the way it is. You can't expect to be and work average and earn an above average income. Unless you're a rapper, I guess.
I will gladly pay the tax. Although the people I will lay off from my business will not like it! I will get the money from what I would have paid those folks who work for me now. My quick math says I will probably layoff about 6 people out of my 75 employees. Oh well, at least this millionaire will pay more!!!!,
This is simply a political stunt by the Democrats to embarrass the Republicans. It won't pass, but it will make for great campaign adds in the fall.
Hope the Democrats are able to hang this around the Republican's neck costing them the House and a smaller head count in the Senate.
Obama 2012
It's pitiful that a handful ( 12) of representatives is to decide our fate, isn't it ? Isn't that pathetic ? If they can only do with 12 – why not put all the others on permanent layoff ? I mean, there is 535 right ? I say, lay 'em all off, and do with 12 . No wonder Perry wanted to give them part time work.
Larry in Houston
When the Republicans oppose it, It must be good for America
Gurgi – You have it wrong. THe increase in tax rates only applies to those with incomes >$1,000,000 (a million dollars). You'll stay in your current tax bracket.
since Capital gains was decreased to 15%, there has not been one net positive job created in the United States. In fact, we are in the whole a few million still. So, job creators, i'd like to hear your response to this.
80% of all Americans pay less than a 15% effective tax rate. 47% pay no federal income tax at all. Zip, nothing, nada. So except for a few isolated cases, millionaires, with an average effective tax rate in the mid 20% range, do indeed pay more than their secretaries and everyone else for that matter. And what exactly is Obama's 'fair share' for those who pay nothing? This is nothing more than yet another attempt for Obama to find someone to blame. Blaming Bush won't work any more, so now he has to find a new scapegoat. I've yet to see a single explaination that can factually tie more taxes to the rich with creating a single new job. Even the effect on the deficit is minimal. An election year gimmick, no more.
Way to pick and choose which "Buffett plan" to back. Wasn't it Buffett who also suggested that in any year that congress failed to pass a balanced budget that it would make EVERYONE not eligible for re-election? Now that's a "Buffett Plan" I can get behind!
"These middle class families are really struggling to get by and then they find out that some people with really extremely high incomes are actually paying lower all-in federal tax rate than they are. That's, to them, just not common sense," said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-Rhode Island, and author of the bill. "Americans deserve a straight deal and right now they are not getting one from our tax system."
I just have one question for the Senator or anyone really; How exactly will this help Middle Class families? Seriously, if the millionaire down the road from me pays more in taxes, what benefit will I see from it?
STUPID! ABSOLUTELY STUPID! Do these people not realize that we need millionaires and billionaires for our JOBS!?!? What happens when millionaires decide, "To hll with America. There's a small Caribbean Island with my name on it out there." These people don't have to pay the tax, because they'll leave. It's what I would do. I'm not rich, but I understand this.
I'm sure there's some kind of loop hole the wealthy will find to avoid paying taxes. Maybe this will help create jobs and pay down the national dept at the same time. The wealthy will find some way to reinvest the money to keep it from shwing up as income, and maybe create some jobs that way. I'm sure the republicans would still try and bolck the bill. Even if it would help their rich friends get richer.
Couldn't have put it any better myself BETTERDEADTHANFED. It's amazing to me how the hatred of wealthy people can get in the way of 3rd grade math. Come on liberals 2+2=4 no matter who you vote for.
its funny to see others decide what a fair share is! all for an an amount of money that will be a drop in the bucket as far as our debt is concerned. Its all political games to show the middle class that hes tough on those big bad hard working tax paying rich
As an Independent, I support it if its coupled with spending cuts. When budget talks broke down last summer, it hurt this nation. All experts know full well that the only way to address our national debt and get the economy back on track is to both raise taxes so everyone pays fairly and to cut spending. Both parties need to swallow their medicine and hopefully this will be the year they realize that making sacrifices in the name of what's best for the nation, even if it disappoints their bases, is better than doing nothing.
The problem with the logic here is that an assumption is being made that the dividends or capital gains are coming from investments in the stock market. Investments in the stock market are not very risky at all and likely should be taxed based on normal income tax rates. The ability of an investor to divest limits risk. It is the investments in start-up and/or private companies which are risky. There is no way to get your money out once it is in. Those risks should be rewarded with lower tax rates because, contrary to what was stated above most business decisions are based on Return on Investment, not on EBITDA. ROI is negatively impacted by tax rates because the returns are lowered, which means marginal investments in businesses which are not "home runs" would be shelved solely due to higher tax rate.
Funny how we always hear about how raising the taxes of the wealthy will have such horrible consequences and thus we must not do it... but creating a huge underclass of working poor (to make the wealthiest even wealthier) never gets a single word of press for its horrible consequences. If you think this will have negative consequences for our economy, then look back at what tax rates were on the wealthiest before the Reagan era... back around the time when our middle class came about in the first place. Ever since St. Reagan started the trend towards failure to tax the wealthiest the wealthiest have also enriched themselves with higher and higher executive pay and shareholder dividends... so success wasn't enough of a reward... they needed to reward themselves with more money.. and have government reward them yet again for their success with incredibly low tax rates on their fortunes. This of course means that all of us who are not wealthy are by those standards "failures". Teachers, soldiers, police, fire fighters... all of them utter failures... because they aren't wealthy. Sound right to you?
Most of us are lucky to get 1% on savings. But the rich should get 20% or more return on there money. The rich will still invest 10% is better then 1%.
My new goal in life is to make $999,999 a year. Gonna beat the system. This entire debate makes no sense the sheer amount of money that these extremely rich are paying is an insane amount anyways. Yes they can afford it, but on principle it makes it seem that success is going to be punished. How does that make sense?
IF buffet wanted to pay extra taxes the IRS has a volunteer program.
I smell some lies coming from DUMFFET
If you look back over the last 100 years to the creation of a stock market (and really even further beyond that) history shows investment did not decrease when taxes were increased. Investment has steadily risen even during economic downturns. As an investor myself, I do not shy away from a good investment because of taxes. As a matter of fact, I don't even think about it. The only thing lowering rates has done over the past 30 years is incrased wealth for top earners by 250%
Im looking for the text of the bill, but this bill needs to have an inflation table added to the tax code. Investors have always paid half of the top tax rate (give or take), because you have to factor inflation in. So to keep things simple, they just make Cap Gains half. Having said that, a 5 to 10% increase could be nice.
If it worked for Reagan and for Clinton, if corporations are making record profits, if the top 1% control more of the nation's wealth than ever before, then I am in favor of returning tax rates for the wealthy to Clinton era levels. The rich want to go after entitlements that people depend on to stay alive. while arguing that they are overtaxed. It will not sell with me.
They chose a terrible name for the bill. They're just asking for screams of "socialism". They should have named it something like "The Progressive Tax Reform Act". People like tax reform. Progressive makes it sound like we are moving forward, not looking back. I haven't heard any conservative blow-hards using "progressive" as a pejorative.
TAX ME TAX ME TAX ME! I make too much money! Tax me and give it to illegal aliens!
Maybe we can bring back the Clinton economy...Republicans control both houses and thus all spending bills and budgets and a second-term President turns moderate in order to create his legacy. Clinton had the benefit of cutting a million from our military at the time and he passed the Republican's balanced budget amendment and welfare reform. Obama is too divisive to be a Clinton, though. Every time he talks he rips apart half the country.
To whom much is given, much is expected.
Our government spends tremendous sums per year to run the world's remaining super power. Those make great sums of money need to pony up to cover a fair share of those costs, be it for the highway system over which their goods travel, or the huge DOD that keeps this nation free to practice free enterprise and capitalism.
There are thousands of poor boys who've been horribly wounded in the recent wars and who need care, and the wealthy who live wonderful lives behind their protective shield need to pay their fair share of what it costs to restore the broken bodies and minds of our veterans.
We also should stop taxing capital gains at 15% as most of these wealthy people have done nothing but trade stocks in the markets, few if any of them have ever really created any new factories like the idiot Bush said they would in 2001.
Its about time.
Why are some people worried about their investments. This rule specifically said for people who make over 1 million annually from either income or investments. Those who make less wont be taxed at 30%
This won't make it through congress.. not a chance; but this is a good leveraging bill. If Romney wants any hope of beating Obama, then he'll have to support this bill and put it through. If not, then he can kiss his chances goodbye.
Hmmmm. Then there are the folks who don't pay any taxes at all but get refunds and government assistance. The entire tax system is screwed up. What a messed up government we have when the people who pay nothing get something and those who work hard and pay taxes get zinged with even more taxes because they were evil enough to work and make money and create jobs and products for the rest of us. Take away a man's incentive for working hard, promoting growth, new ideas and tech and you wind up like Russia and all the other Commies and Socialistic Countries. Ask them how that all worked out for them? And in the end there were still 2 classes the extremely poor who waited in bread lines for food and the rich who lived high on the hog while the rest of the country starved. I like my chances of obtaining the American dream when the playing field is equal and fair.
Question: Is it too much to much to ask for just a little common ground!
Democrats Good! Republicans Bad!
( JUST VOTE ) November/ November/ November
P.S. Thank you so much for setting up the sight for our comments.
Romney made over $21 Million and paid 14% and did not create not 1 job. If your a middle class republican it hurts you to when you pay more the top 1%.
The millionaires are doing just fine and don't forget the Bush tax cuts were supposed to END, they were temporary. Business is sitting on Three Trillion in cash but they've shipped too many jobs overseas. Nobody is against capitalism or success but an overwhelming majority of Americans feel that tax loopholes which (legally) allow millionaires to pay half the tax rate of say a teacher or plumber is unfair and the tax code should be fixed. This proposed change would not affect those earning UNDER $1 million so some senior retiree with $200,000 in a SEP and other than his SS benefit, having no other income, he's not going to pay 30%.
I am for this bill, but it is a band-aid for a sinking ship. It will not raise enough revenue to offset the losses from sending most manufacturing jobs overseas. Bring those jobs back and there will be more middle class tax payers, and fewer poor to pay entitlements to. This bill, plus a tariff on imported goods will encourage job creation here, or raise more revenue to offset some of the costs of having such a large number of unemployed. There would be more jobs for American workers if employers would be held accountable for employing illegal aliens. Our nation's problems are too complex for one simple patch to fix it all.
Finally the perfect answer. The problem is not that the federal government is spending too much. The problem is that they don't have enough to spend. More cash should go to the inefficent federal government instead of where it can do real good. I find it amusing that Romey's 15% is used in this article and by the Libs. However, they forget to mention that his taxes showed that he gave an additional 30% of his income to charity. Riddle me this – If you were Romney (or any other smart millionaire), would you give the feds 30% and still give charity 30% or would you reduce the amount you gave to charities because now the government has decided they are better at determining how to spend your money. Please also tell me what percentage of your income is fair to give to government. The 15% cited was only the feds. He still has to pay state taxes, local taxes and every other dollar they can wring out of him just like the rest of us. Maybe millionaires should have to pay all of their income plus 10% to taxes. That only seems fair. Who would know better on how to spend money than the Federal Government.
It won't, and shouldn't, pass the House. This is just more of Obama's and other Democrats declaring war on the rich. Both chambers and Obama would be better off completely revising the tax code, ridding it of this credit and that deduction.
Anyone notice the article stated it was the best way to reduce the DEFICIT, but not one word on reducing the overall DEBT. In other words, Obama and the Democrats want to continue to spend the same amount, just not borrow as much. That just states the obvious our government has a SPENDING problem. And why should we pay more, so Obama can continue to throw it away on companies like Solyndra?
Raise taxes on millionaires, that's fine. But Liberals still fail to recognize that the problem is not a lack of funding, but an excess of spending. According to this article, dems want to push for this AFTER they have voted for the FAA, Highway, and other spending projects. Quit spending and you won't even have to worry about the current tax rates.
Looks like Obama, Gov. Brown & Mr. buffett are the only ones that know how the economy should work.
How naive can you get. If you decide to punish these guys they can alter things any time they please so their 'income' appears to be whatever they chose. They have other family members, ther companies, non-taxable benefits etc. whcih wil now just be \altered' so they will be 'below the line'. There s nothing that can be doen to them. You can't hurt them. Will always be that way. Don't like it? Well then become one.
Top 50 companies pay no corporate tax or single digit at best. And those same companies receive billions in corporate welfare. GE is the biggest outsourcer of jobs in our history received $1.4 billion YES dollars in subsides while posting record profits. Why?
If Buffet's secretary makes $60K then she is a clown if she is paying 20% income tax....I made $70K with a spouse and three kids last year and my effective tax rate was 2.8% and this is with a standard deduction. Don't people realize that there is a huge difference between effective tax rate (what you really pay after all credits and deductions) and the withholding rate? I think I can save this secretary some serious cash this tax season.
RE: Gurgi
I don't think the bill is designed to raise the capital gains tax to 30% It is worded so that if you make 1 million or over in income from any source, then you pay a 30% minimum.
Let's just tax the rich at 100% and be done with it. They'd only spend the money on foolish things like cars, travel, homes, eating out, investing in businesses and so on, and we all know those things don't create jobs for the middle class. Oh wait a minute...they DO!
I wonder how many jobs Romney created this past year with his low effective tax rate?
Stifle job creation???? It certainly hasn't helped job creation by being low. This is all BULL. Get on with the program.
I agree that this all should be fair!! Let's be like McDonald's every person pays the same for a hamburger. It does not matter what you make. That folks is fair!!! set a flat amount of tax everyone pays for the year and be done with it.
There goes the stock market. You Democrats are clueless. you will raise billions from this, but lose alot more than that when the wealthy pull out of the market and move it overseas or into bonds. whats the point? Is a few billion really going to help? Now that you took the incentive away for them to invest in the U.S stock market, its the guy like me who doesnt make six figures that hurts when my 401k plummets now that theyll pull money out
Increasing DOUBLE TAXATION on money we ALREADY PAID TAX on is STUPID – - WE already PAID TAX ONCE – and TWICE – and HOW MUCH MORE does the Congress want to TAKE from us ? ? Hey – we are using our earning from previous earnings / Investments to PAY EMPLOYEES – - STOP SPENDING CONGRESS – STOP TRAVELLING AND CAMPAIGNING – Let Us Build Small Business On Our Own – -
We would like to see the school economists who corroborate the theory of the repugnant repubs. touting for tax deduction for the super rich to create jobs. Their moronic mumblings and pointless drivel may get support from the Laffer curve evidence and the lackadaisical Larry Kudlow shows.
Of course they fail to mention nobody actually pays the tax rate of their bracket. Everyone gets the standard deduction then you have the earned income tax credit, the making work pay credit, deductions for have kids, daycare and a multitude of other deductions. Nearly 50% don't pay any income tax and a lot of those don't pay THEIR FAIR SHARE of payroll taxes and some of those get a "refund" even if they pay no payroll or income tax.
The only 'FAIR' tax is one that all citizens pay. Maybe that could start at, say, 30k per year taxable income, and have anyone with less pay zero. But with a higher tax on higher earners, all that will do is make it less desirable to become a millionaire in the first place. Less small business investment, less new jobs in those small businesses, and more people dependent on a larger government.
Chances of this getting through the Republican House are nil so this unfortunately is just another partisan party trick. They really have to come up with better names for these bills. They sound like names straight from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. Who is John Galt?
Never will pass.
Which is a shame.
How about a flat tax for all types of income? Liberals usually hate that idea. Conservatives usually love it. But isn't what Obama's proposing (raise tax rates on the rich, who currently pay less than the middle class) closer to a flat tax than what Romney/co. is proposing (cut cap gains and corporate taxes, leave middle class taxes the same...aka...cut taxes for the rich)?
Seems to me if you're a conservative flat tax type, then you're for Obama.
The first responder said he is a middle class investor who will be hurt by this bill. Well, sorry to hurt your feelings, but millionaires aren't part of the middle class. This bill isn't supposed to hurt people, it's supposed to make sure millionaires pay their fair share.
Through some of the strongest economic periods in the United States, the upper-class had tax rates of 70% and higher. It did not stifle job creation, the economy was strong. This is as recent as the 1970's.
The argument about paying fair taxes will stifle job growth is another of the long list of Republican lies meant to drive our middle-class into poverty-stricken servitude to the rich. There is a class war alright, and it is being waged by the rich onto the lower 90%.
Seriously? Dividends and capital gains are already taxed at the corporate level before they are distributed/realized by actual people. Additionally, it is galling that folks talk about the "greed" of some and then demand 40-50% of what they've earned. I'm a Democrat-leaning independent and think this whole discussion smacks of a sanitized version of what we see of looting during riots...
When asked in an interview if he realized that raising capital gains taxes would actually REDUCE revenue to the federal government Obama said yes but that didn't matter. It just isn't fair. They are not doing this raise revenue. They are doing this to punish success.
This theory that when rich have more money they invest is a bunch of bolony. If that is the case then, with the Tax breaks for the rich in the Bush era, we would be in this situation. One of the main reason for the huge deficits is the war in Iraq and the tax breaks.
During the time of Margette thatcher, she followed the same thinking and gave huge tax breaks for the rich. The rich took that extra money and traveled the world. One of the most popular "buys" was villas in southern spain. It didnt do a darn thing for the British economy. And Briton never recovered after that!!!
Fact is the CBO said yesterday federal taxes will increas some 30%(so will municipals, and states) as old tax laws expire(president Bushes) over the next few years. This really means almost everyone will pay more taxes. This is just ANOTHER OBAMA scam to appease the far left (his only supporters), taxing the wealthy that is.
The CBO (non-partisian), yesterday, also put the real unemployment rate at 10% (probably really 18%, including those who quit looking for work). The CBO said it will take six years for the economy (employment) rebound...and this is because of the federal debt and increasing taxes (taking tax $ from the economy).
NOW, KNOWING ALL THIS, WHY WOULD ANYONE ASK OBAMA TO STAY FOR ANOTHER TERM? Our only hope is private sector job growth..period! These phoney mortgage givaways, obamacare, union appeasement is all vote buying retoric. How can you reasonably expect a career politician/community organizer to help create private sector jobs? Only one in six newly created American corp jobs are domiciled in the US now...mostly because of the current federal policy and mistrust...it will take a real strong business leader to fix this...not a radical marxist ideolog. I have not even goten into the foreign policy mess and the very dire seriousness of obama's failures there and how these (middle eastern and african) disasters can effect our futures...
@fourandthedoor: millionaires will still invest and investment will not decrease because income on investments will STILL be considerably more than investing in things or having it sit in a bank vault or under a mattress. Income from market investments will always be more attractive than any alternative.
"How about cutting spending. The government keeps spending over 1 trillion dollars more that it brings in, this tax will do nothing to alleviate that."
Umm would it be too obvious for me to point out that your statement contradicts itself? I.e. "The government [spends] more than it brings in," followed by, "....this tax will do nothing to alleviate that." In other words, you're saying that "bringing in" more money won't have any effect on the fact that the government isn't bringing in enough money. Nice.
I can't see why capital gains on investments shouldn't be taxed as an income..? For all intents and purposes thats just what it is. Many countries already have this system and they're doing quite well. I can also see that this will cool down the stock market since the investments would need to be better made to offset the extra taxing. This means that more investments would look at longer term investments thus giving more stability to the market. However, this will render some investment banker without a job. But there are enough dodgy ones out there the world would be better of without, some sort of natural cleansing.. All in all I believe this is the right way to go.
The Obama Administration was all about CHANGE. That is right 48% of the people are below poverty line. The Obama's administration is a money lawndering administration. Send your reporters to investigate a new red truck plate 13 REG at 11820 Lark Song Loop, Riverview, Fl., out of the PGA Pro Timothy J. Sereikis Trust Fund, with Bank of America. -$20,000.00 last quarter, plus all the minus with new air conditioners, roofs, ktichens, etc. Obama is under the table and so is his administration. I only have a part time job, without health insurance and fractured back ribs that float and heave my entire rib cage and the Obama money lawndering machine is lawndering with buy a vote with gifts herein Hillsborough County, Summerfield, Riverview, Florida. Investigate this and you will know the truth!
It's funny how CNN and the Dems,Pres make it sound like Buffett's Sec is in the middle class when she isn't she makes over $200,000 a year being his Sec. She has 2 houses. thats not the middle class. Oh and buy the way why don't you start reporting fairly the law is 15% tax. That is what Romney and Obama and all the other millionaire senate DEMS and Repubs pay by law. CNN doesn't say either that Romney gave 7+ million to chairites compaired to Obamas 1 million so whos greedy.
- hrough some of the strongest economic periods in the United States, the upper-class had tax rates of 70% and higher. It did not stifle job creation, the economy was strong. This is as recent as the 1970's.
The argument about paying fair taxes will stifle job growth is another of the long list of Republican lies meant to drive our middle-class into poverty-stricken servitude to the rich. There is a class war alright, and it is being waged by the rich onto the lower 90%
It is not surprising to see the libs supporting the proposals of a multi-billionaire to make him richer.
Numbers are manipulated to prove whatever you wish. But who really pays the MOST in taxes? It's the rich, not the middle class and poor. I want to pay the MOST in taxes, because that means I earn the most! Half of our population pays no income tax at all, so is that fair? I vote for the FAIR tax, which is based on spending, not income. Get rid of the INCOME TAX totally!
Illinois raised taxes 67% last year to help pay their bills, keep unfunded union retirement funded and avoid addressing medicare/medicade cuts. Well, with the tax increase they are back, taxes were not enough, pensions are unfunded by 85 billion dollars and debts the state owes to contractors and suppliers have not been paid for over a year and cost over 35 billion.
Obama wants to do what Illinois has proven will fail, raise taxes in everything you can find and when you continue spending like a mad man your problems will grow. At some point you will find that spending is your problem.
Mr. President, just cut to the chase and tell us when we are getting your go ahead for the lynching of anybody making more than minimum wage.
Booseyboo – spending bills must originate in the house. Since this isn't a tax cut (which is spending), but an increase, should be fine to start off in the senate.
And why shouldn't someone earning $1M or more pay a rate similar to my tax rate? A major portion of stock market investment capital comes from middle class investors putting money into their 401k accounts. Just because a CEO earns most of their total compensation in stock shouldn't give them a way to pay less tax than I do.
This bill is dead on arrival. This is pure politics by the Democrats. Class warfare. Blame the job creators for the problems of the low wage (or no wage) earners. The problem with this is if you over tax these high income people they will just stop investing it or invest in in tax friendly investments, maybe out of the country. The Dems know this but it resonates with those who are ignorant (i.e., those who claim to be the 99% but really aren't). If the 99% was really the 99% then we would be Soviet Russia or China where there is no opportunity for anyone.
@Joe, so slovenly pigs just roll in their money? If that was the case, then they have the same mental problems that are exposed on "Hoarders." However, if they just blow their money on other things...then the people invest in those thing-making companies, not to mention the workers at those thing-making plants, get to enjoy the fruits of the slovenly pigs' efforts/effluvia. What, economically speaking, is the downside of letting the slovenly pigs spend like there is no tomorrow on overpriced watches, luxury cars, and spray-on tans?
"Let's see... the top 1% pay approximately 35% of the country's revenue and the top 2% pay about 50%. And the rest want them to pay more? Really?"
Yes, really. You conveniently left out the fact that the top 1%; who, as you complained, pay 35% of the taxes (which is incorrect, btw; the number is actually 23% according to published figures (Business Insider, 2010)), control 33.8% of the country's wealth.
So, let's do a little math here. The top 1% have 34% of the nation's wealth but only pay 23% of the taxes. Hmmmm.... Gee, I wonder why that would lead people to believe they're not paying their fair share....
typical congress. they are missing the root cause, the tax code. it needs to be simplified, updated and corrected.
stop with the band-aid "fixes". fix the problem.
Beware of the fox in the "hen-house!" Government is not designed to save money, it is designed to spend the calculated tax base. Tax dollars are used to pay the INTEREST on the government borrowed money, thus tax revenue will NEVER reduce debt. Durable goods, a product that has value, is the only thing to reduce "debt", thus stocks and bonds, etc have no "value", they produce nothing; they are only ink on paper, contrived value, ones and zeros. Jobs are only created when demand for goods are present. Become educated into what really "makes" the system work.
Romney says that he is not concerned about the poor.
Well, I am much less concerned about millionaires.
The government can't properly spend what they get now, what makes you think they'll do better with more? That way they can put more people on da welfair!
@citizen – Yes, say Buffet pays 100 million. Now say he pays 300 Million. He still has 700 million dollars. If you tried to take any more from his secretary, she can't send her kids to school or has a hard time eating. We have to pay the bills so how and you can't cut all of it away.
How about the Senate pass a budget. 1000+ days without one now. Once they show they're mature enough to do that, then we'll talk about taxes.
A millionaire is someone whose net worth is over $1 million. This bill targets annual incomes over $1 million. Apples and oranges.
The Democrats will not let the half who pay no taxes bear the burden of the other half who do not pay their fair share.
The GOP doesn't get it... it is demand that will move the economy and create new jobs. Businesses could hire now but there is now demand for their goods and services!!!
Todd: you are thinking about it the wrong way. Don't think of the tax rate as it applies to your total income, but merely your disposable income and you will see that a flat tax is actually a regressive tax.
For example, if a family making a combined salary of $50k pays an effective tax rate of 20%, this would be 10k. If you figure that $20k of their $50k is disposable income, the effective rate is 50%.
If a millionaire pays 20%, however, they would be paying 200k in taxes. If you figure that $900k out of their $1 mil is disposable income, their effective rate is just 22.2% (and notice, I gave a more generous amount to the millionaire, $100k vs $30k, to live off of).
Therefore, a flat tax is not a fair tax. It is a regressive tax as the more money you make the less effective tax rate you pay as a result of your disposable income.
@BetterDeadThanFed
the top 10 percent can stop paying the majority of our costs when they've created jobs and put the money they've taken from us all with their subsidies, bailouts, and tax cuts AND PUT IT BACK INTO THE HANDS OF THE MIDDLE AND LOWER CLASS THROUGH ACTUAL WORK.
THAN we can return to a more reasonable tax line. But until then, they've been merrily shipping off jobs over seas despite RECORD LOW TAXES. When they were gifted these RECORD LOW TAXES by Reaganomics, their income increased THREE HUNDRED PERCENT while middle and lower class only increased AT INFLATION.
So in short, your idea how this works is incorrect. Get an education.
Fact is that working men/women in this country pay the 99% of property and sales tax. The 1% always yell they pay more taxes (Income) but they don't want to talk about property/sales. Maybe we should balance these taxes.. homes that cost above the norm should have their taxes adjusted by a few thousand percentage points (just to be equal you know). It's time that the Rich understand they go that way MOSTLY from being given it (Mitt as an example) by their family and those that earned it did so by making use of labor and infrastructure provided by the 99%. Mitt is the perfect example of a man gamming the system...thought Bain Capital (his company) he lead a lobbying effort to reduce long term capital gain to 15% which is where the 1% are parking their money... unfairly... ok that and off shore to avoid taxes all together.. somehow to them contributing for the good of all is just wrong. This bill works to close some of those give aways to large donners and help the country as a whole.
Funny how easily people get confused. Will try to clear something up on this. It is not a raise on capital gains tax. The only way you pay more is if you make over $1 million. So if you make all of your money from capitol gains but make only $995k you pay 15% taxes. This won't hurt the middle class at all in that sense. You could make the argument that it will stifle investment but I think that is crap. They still make more doing the investments than not and thus it will continue...end of story.
So they could not even think up their own plan, they had to go to one of those evil rich people that run a big corporation? Pathetic.
That's kind of odd that there are people still under the idiocy that wealthy don't create jobs, the reason I find this odd is cause of all my years working I have never worked for a poor person. I don't think I would want to work for someone which couldn't pay me. As far paying a fair share of taxes then remove all the tax brackets and have just one percentage for everyone, and then if you scream "What about the poor!!" easy if they make zero dollars nothing to worry about. And this business about freezing the federal workers pay that's fine BUT you do realize our military will be the ones hit by this and not the X amount of congressional aides etc or your typical federal civilian (non-military)
No matter how much we raise taxes, it wont work. We already have tax rates set high for rich people. What we need to change is the tax codes. Just get rid of tax codes then we will see the revenue goes up. Too many tax breaks, too many tax deductions, etc. According to About.com 2011 tax rate schedules, a person earning over $379k will have to pay 35% tax.
If this alone was the only factor, those arguing against raising CGT may have a point, but our tax system is so complicated and multi-layered, I really see other things happening. So....the argument is that raising the CGT will lower investments and kill job creation (as if they were really related anyway since CG's are PERSONAL income). Let's say that this is true. Raising the CGT lowers investments. Hmmmm... well, what is a big way for corporations to get tax deductions and to lower their taxes???? <-- Expenses!!! And what does more expense mean: (1) it means either the corporation is spending more money, which is likely to create jobs somewhere or (2) they are hiring more people to generate more expense to get tax cuts. I guess they could in theory just spend even more on CEOs, but that probably wouldn't be really good publicity. All-in-all, it doesn't make much sense to assume that raising the CGT will hurt job creation. All it really means is that the super-wealthy will pay a fair share of their PERSONAL income tax. That's one thing to realize here...CGTs really mostly affect INDIVIDUAL tax returns since corporations pay tax on all of their income according to the federal tax rates - with the one exception of dividends - not the same as a capital gain. Also, a person who has losses gets to offset the gains with those losses, and if the losses exceed the gains, they get a deduction against their income which would be taxed at the FULL tax rate. Furthermore, for the most part, small businesses and small business owners probably aren't doing a WHOLE lot of investing as a key part of their income. So....what is the argument exactly? I'm not sure I'm buying it. Alas, maybe I'm just wrong.
Elitist (n): A liberal who believes that extremely wealthy individuals such as Mitt Romney and Warren Buffett should pay the same percentage or a higher percentage of their income in taxes as their butlers, secretaries and chauffeurs.
The problem the DEMS are causing on themselves in this election period will be grave. All those wealthy multi-millionaires will be sending far more millions to the super pacs this time, in addition to what they wanted to spend already.
Romney is backed by high flying rich, mostly Wall Street guys and they don't mind spending 100 million each to get him in the White house. The first the DEMS should do is try to overturn the courts rule allowing super-pacs and unlimited funds.
If Obama wants to win, he will need at least two billion, not one as he thought would work.
Politics is a sin and the only winners are the very wealthy. The middle class and poor are suckers for the rich and they still vote against themselves.
Whatever. Pathetic this is the best our leaders can do. All this bleeding heart cr*p about fairness.....Capitalism is not fair or equitable. And Billions more for the gov't is not going to solve anything.....our politicians are not good enough.
why go only to 30%, if 30% is good, why not go to 50 or 60%-particularly if you live in NY, CT, or MA, this way you can give almost all you earn to the democrats to mess up
Lets not worry about the deadbeats sponging off the system. Lets go for the rich! They got the cash!
Why do you or the President think you are entitled to another's money? and what is fair in taxing one group more than another? If you want a real fair tax – go flat tax with no write-offs. That way renters don't pay for others to own homes or you don't pay for the next door neighbor to have another child Don't argue it stimulates the economy – same argument is used for the 15% capital gains tax. It seems to me people are irresponsible these days and believe it's easier to raid another's finances instead of fixing their own. The current administration speaks fairness but doesn't come close to establishing it.
God forbid a bill be proposed that just closes the current loopholes and simplifies our tax code. I have no problem with the rate increase but why doesn't Congress (Dems and Repubs) address the real issue – the tax code's complexity? Do we really need billions of pages to tell each citizen and business how much they owe in taxes?
Just a backdoor way of raising the capital gains tax. I despise the lack of integrity regarding fiscal matters with Obama and the Democrats in Congress.
Two Words: Deferred Compensation
Democrats, we have a SPENDING problem NOT a taxing problem.
How will raising taxes on some one help the middle class?
Why not cut the middle class taxes to 7% and keep the capital gains tax at 15%?
THAT would help the middle class.
Pass a balance budget amendment.
THAT would help the middle class.
We don't need the Federal Government to take our CHILDREN'S money and spend it for us.
We need the Federal Government to let us keep our money and let the future citizens keep their money.
THAT would help the middle class.
Citizen -
That is the most bizarro rationalization I have ever heard. Of course he would pay more, he makes 500x more. Let me put it another way. The same secretary makes 60k and pays 0%. She still has 'only' 60k to live on. While Buffet even if he's paying 30% of 1B would have 'only' 700m. Who is better off?
The law is correct and fair .Millionaires have to pay their fair share as middle class does
The arguments against this are really weak. "If investors don't get as good of a return they won't invest as much." Really?
Because I imagine they will invest MORE to make up the difference. Thus creating untold numbers of jobs and helping EVERYONE.
But hey, Republican logic. Who can argue with it?
Grandstanding before an election is all this is. The Senate knows it has zero chance of passing, so there are no worries for the likes of Buffet or Romney or any other bloodsucker on Wall Street
If people like Buffet want to pay more taxes let him donate.
We can't get this guy out of office soon enough. He's just clueless. What a disaster.
I like the principle, but this will require more thought. Maybe the answer is to have short term gains, medium term gains, and long term gains. In this case medium term investments might be somewhere between 3 and 5 years. Long term investments could still have a lower tax rate incentive.
Gurgi
have to asj since when is someon emakin gover 1 million a year considered middle class or did you not read the article? this bill woul dnot effect the middle class and that is a fact.........
Has "it will stifle job creation" become the fallback excuse for any and all conservative obstruction now?
Conservatives have cried wolf too many times, and now anything they say about fiscal matters or the economy I feel cannot be trusted or believed.
This will be interesting to see how it is implemented and how many dollars are actually brought in. One reason tax rates have been reduced from time to time was the trade off to simplfy the process. (loopholes to some) For those with a business know the tax process changes every year. We are on first name basis with our CPA. I can only guess with this rate increase there will be more incentives for investments. Especially at this time. This means even more changes to the tax code each year so those making over 1 million and even those under will have more deductions which impacts the AGI and lowers the tax paid for a greater number of people. You have to be careful what you wish for. It will be important to see how this is written and implemented through the years.
It doesn't matter, the filibuster record will be added to as the GOP/TP/Norquist puppets obstruct progress again.
I will just sell $999k worth of stock
Millionaires give Republicans 10million in campaign donations, (so they wouldn't pay one million a year in taxes), it doesn't make any sense, right?. But I understand , I received 7000 in tax return, and dont want to give back 500 that I owe them. THIS IS GREED BABY.
I love all the people who can't read. This does not raise the Capital Gains tax at all. You "Middle Class Investors" are safe unless you earn more than a million dollars and your effective tax rate is less than than 30%. If either of those aren't true for you, than nothing changes.
This is just another in a series of politically motivated pieces of legislation that all of Congress knows has no chance of passing. This wastes time and money for political purposes instead of actually doing something to help the nation.
There should be a minimum tax for all income sources for all. This should be 10% to 15% range with no deductions of any kind applicable to the minimum. Any tax liability over the minimum could be offset by deductions.
If the government would limit its spending to no more than 15% of GDP and require a balanced budget higher taxes would not be needed.
This bill is long overdue. The very wealthy should be willing to pay their far share of taxes.
Congress should no longer be able to vote itself a raise. Their salaries should be set to a fractional percentage of GDP that automatically increases or decreases with the GDP. Members of Congress who have substantial assets should get paid only a dollar. Those with few assets the full salary. Those in between an amount relative to their asset and income bracket. The more they have, the less they get paid.
then the rich will jsut put all their money into a SUPERPAC where u can do absolutely anything u want with the money. u can invest any amount u please and do anything u want with the money....
This isn't raising the capital gains tax. This is imposing an "Alternative Minimum Tax Rate" for the rich. When I sold my interest in a company, why did I have to pay 30%? Because I am not a millionaire. I had to pay the "Alternative Minimum Tax rate" for the poor and middle class. Yes, there is such a law. If you aren't filthy rich, you will pay a minimum rate, no matter where your money came from. Why shouldn't the rich have the same law?
We need to simplify the tax code AND have capital gains equal to income why? because it is income! The income tax should be every kind of money that a person gets that they did not otherwise have either by labor, investment, estate, luck, ext, and should be taxed as so 0-30k taxed at 5% 30k-100k at 15% 100k-1mil 23% and 1mil+ at 30% with all deductions, write offs that are currently on the books limited to 5% of income. (if you make 75k your first 30k will be taxed at 5% and the remaining 45k will be taxed at 15% before writeoffs and deductions)
This is a more fair tax code, a simpler tax code, and it lowers taxes on just about everyone. Why wont it happen? because wall-street and congress dont wont it to.
So if you make one million one hundred dallers you get taxed 30 percent are you going to quit ivesting were you make 700,000 dallers cause you didnt make your million come. So seems you have to pay more you would make nothing at all in that please tell me gow that goes
Makes perfect sense to me. Romney can say he has given to Charities, like lostly Mormon-specific;) So, all these millionaires and billionaires will fund only those they like. At least if it's with govt., they can fund another war, right?
Economics for dummies:
if taxes on investments go up will there more or less investing?
who does more investing? The rich or the not so rich?
If there is less investing will the stock market go up or down?
If the stock market goes down with there be more jobs or fewer jobs?
If there are fewer jobs who gets hurt more? the rich or the not so rich?
Still think this is a good idea? if you said yes, you failed! go back and read the questions again and think this time!
All you little guys are subject to paying the Alernative Minimum Tax so why shouldn't the rich have a minimum tax? This will not hurt the stock market because investors do not watch the tax rate until the end of the year when they start their selloff. Then they selloff their dogs and take it off their tax.
Just wait... I am sure they will conveniently forget to index their $1 million dollar tax for inflation. This will turn into another AMT. Somewhere down the road, the middle class will get sucked into paying a minimum 30%. Don't say I didn't warn you.
I see that argument all the time that corporations pay tax before the dividends are issued. This is not always true.
Exxon Mobel paid no tax and then issued dividends and GE paid no tax and issue dividends. Any many many companies do the same. It is time millionaires paid their fair share. Buffett pays more dollars than his secretary, but his secretary needs the money more than he does. Also more of her salary is subject to sales tax than his.
I think that if this bill actually made "millionaires" pay 30% in taxes then I would be ok with it. But it has two main issues. First is that I see no definition of "millionaire." If it was specified that a millionaire was an individual NOT a small business then I would be ok. Otherwise this tax increase is a massive increase on business's making over one million in investments. If the small business is only taking in a little more than one million then this will destroy them.
My second issue stems from how the bill seems to be structured. By changing the capital-gains tax rate itself, you affect everyone who has an investment. This would cause "millionaires" to pay more in taxes, but it would also hurt every other person who tried to make an investment.
Also here is a small simplified economics lesson for everyone (kind of a tangent but still somewhat relevant). When measuring GDP one does not take into account any form of transfer payment (ex: Government takes money from person A and gives to Person B). Thus simple redistribution of wealth does nothing to "help" the economy in and of itself. Person B does have more money to spend (and these expenditures would get counted in GDP) but so would Person A's potential expenditures. Meanwhile we forget that the money had to be transfered from Person A to Person B through the Government (with the Government taking a portion for itself). This is inefficient. We should look for a way to have Person A give money directly to Person B (through the form of a transaction).
For those who didn't feel like reading: Transfer payments do little to help the economy or small businesses. The only way to redistribute money is through the system itself. Jobs. This bill doesn't help.
Economics for dummies:
If you are wealthy and taxes on investments increase do you continue investing the same way or do you seek investments with lower tax consequences?
If you said " I'd invest the same way as before so I can pay my fair share " then you failed. Try again.
Define Fair – Correct me if I'm wrong, but this bill's intent is to make a group of people who currently pay Federal Income Taxes to pay more. Meanwhile the estimates for 2011 are that 47% of those who Filed will not pay Federal Income Tax. Now, I get the poor i.e. the 15% of Americans living below the poverty lines, but you mean to insist that the other 32% shouldn't pay ANY Federal Income Tax, and that is Fair! Sorry but I'm not buying that for a second. I'm also not a buyer of the argument that they pay other taxes because so does everyone else, but that shouldn't exempt them from Federal Income Taxes. The percentage of filers (not to mention those that don't even bother to file because their income is gained illegally or through their illegal status in this country) continues to grow. In 2009 it was 42% and is projected at 47% for 2011, heck at this rate give in 20 years only the Top 3% will pay any Federal Income Tax. I don't think we can talk about Fairness in Federal Income Taxes and ignore those not paying any now. Just for the record, I'm middle class and nowhere near being a millionaire but what I'm hearing feels more like a desire to let government redistribute wealth. I'll leave the impact of Capital Gains on job creation to economists, but I can decide what I think is fair on my own and don't need a Bill to tell me what it looks like, especially when the proposed bill creates more unfairness by taking more from those already paying and giving a huge segment of the population a free pass.
For all you "This is class warfare!" people. Class warfare was started when billionaires (like the Koch Brothers) and corporations started spending millions of dollars (pocket change to them) to buy lobbyists and Congressman to pass legislation that lets the rich get richer by paying an ever-smaller share in taxes while the rest of us pay an ever-increasing percentage. They've made legislation that effectively funnels money from the non-rich to the rich. A big company like GE makes a bad investment? Well they just call up their buddies in Congress to give them an interest free loan (or outright gift) to pay off their bad investments. But if they ever make a profit, they whine "We should be able to keep it all because we took all the risk!" That's Socialism for corporations.
I love how the rich and their lap dogs will always shield themselves with "This will hurt job creation" whenever a represented plan would create conflict to their interest or profit.
People need to understand that there is a difference between personal income tax and capital gains tax. And after understanding the difference, people must also understand that jacking up people's taxes is going to hurt the economy.
CAPITAL GAIN at 15% and a LOWERING of Corporate Taxes if PERSONAL INCOME – whether through Earned Income or Investment – in Excess of $1,000,000 would be TAXED at 30% and a LOWERING of Middle Class Tax rates as Proposed by the Democrats would mean LESS tax for more than 99% of Individuals and small business and Corporations Too – Just NOT ROMNEY
Economics for dummies:
Let's say you are very wealthy. So wealthy that you earn millions of dollars in investment income. Now let's say the government raises taxes on investments by 100%.
Question: can you afford to not invest your millions and just wait for more favorable tax policy?
Now if you are not so rich and these tax policies cause lower investment activity, resulting in slower growth and fewer jobs, can YOU afford to not work for a while you wait for more favorable tax policy?
Would it make you feel good that a rich person makes less money on investments even if it means you are unemployed?
See how easy basic economics can be?
just obama politics...just think about the money this will chase out of America. As it is Corporations have enough cash in foreign banks to pay off the national debt... Six out of seven jobs go overseas too.... GM it's self opened plants in Mexico and China just last year (after the obama cash infusion).
Home ownership is at a 70 year low...CBO says real unemployment is 10%(yesterdays report, nonpartisan). The middle east is on fire, the dollar is under attack...and there is much much more...and obama offers everyone a 3% mortgage...WHY WOULD ANYONE VOTE FOR ANOTHER 4 YEARS OF THIS?
There is a ton of momentum right now in terms of populist support for restoring some equity to our tax system. The election, and Romney in particular, have helped make things like "carried interest" part of common verbiage. Let's keep up the momentum to raise the capital gains taxes, particularly on hedge funds and things like carried interest. (Items that are not about creating jobs, but rather simply shift wealth). It is in our national interest to restore some level of equity and to reduce executive compensation down to a multiplier more in line with the rest of the world (CEOs getting no more than 40x the average employees rate; I know, still a ton, but we are over 100x right now, far in excess of any other country in the world). It ain't class warfare, it is simple fairness, and it is the right thing for the U.S. of A's future.
If I were a millionaire, I would simply add 30% more to my products that I sell to the little people. Just like ALL previous tax hikes. Charge it down to the consumer.
Who do you suppose pays for ALL taxes (expenses incured by the welthy anyway)???
DA
Economics for Dummies:
Fact: Increasing taxes on anything results in less of the taxed activity.
Fact: Increasing taxes on investments causes less investing
Fact: Less investment results in slower growth
Fact: slower growth means lower employment (higher unemployment)
Question: Does Obama understand basic economics or is he a very smart politician just trying to score points with those who don't understand basic economics?
Once again the Democrats are trying to screw the People. Leave the tax rates alone, A person making 30K a year would pay 15% which amounts to 4500 dollars a person making 300, 000 a year would pay 45,000 dollars at 15% tax. So rich people allready pay more in taxes. This is nothing more then a cheap political stunt to get votes.
I would love to be a millionaire. Which means that I would love to be able to pay this tax.
Call their bluff! Have a few Repubs that aren't running again vote yes on it and put the Senate & the President in a spot when they have to change their mind. There is not a chance in Hell they are going to pass this.
It won't pass because all the money lobbyist will pay off the dems and repubs not to vote for it. Money rules sad day in America
Girgi,
Do you make a million dollars a year? Then it doesn't affect you, read the article........
@ anagram – we are talking about effective federal income tax rates. if you have an effective federal income tax rate of 30% on earned income (wages) then you are making in excess of $650,000 a year. I kind of doubt that. If I'm wrong and you are making that much, good for you.
even at Romney's effective federal income tax rate of 14% (it's that low due to the fact the majority comes from investment income and taxed at a lower rate) he paid over $3 million dollars in federal income tax in one year. that's more in taxes in one year than most people will "earn" in their life times.
This will lower the net income tax from investments. 1) Investors will shift to non dividend paying stock, 2) they will sell before the tax takes effect, and 3) lastly since capital gains tax is elective meaning you do not have to pay it if you don't sell stock, fewer sales will occur and only for need and not for simply trying to find the best investment. This also doesn't address Treasury bonds which are tax free. If you include those, our interest rates will jump as people dump treasuries and move money offshore.
The Republican held house would never go for it, they have become the party of the super wealthy.
Wake up people. Those that make a million a year don't need Social Security(SS), they have a big 401K or IRA they can tap with a million in it. If you rely on SS and not your investment to live on when you CAN retire, the Government taxes that too! Even after you paid taxes on it when you earned it. Your SS should be tax free, it's called double taxation and is supposed to be illegal and was until Congress took it away from us.
this "Buffet Rule" will bring in somewhere around $50B in annual federal tax revenue. the projected FY12 budget deficit is about $1.3T. Only $1.25T to go.
I think it is about time for everyone to wake up and realize a vote for a Republican is a vote against themselves unless they make over $1 Million a year. This will not hurt jobs in the USA at all, the only things hurt by this legislation will be offshore banks where crooks hide their illicit funds from all the rest of us and the government. If the Bush tax cuts actually created jobs we would ALL have 3 jobs each by now instead of having 9% unemployment. Bush Tax Cuts= Unemployment over 8%
Dave is right. This bill is just politics. This bill will bring in less than $50 Billion—not even enough money to run the Federal government for a week. It puts a measly 3% dent in this year's deficit.
A part of me hopes this thing passes. That way, liberals can't complain about the rich not paying their "fair share", and we can go about the business of cutting the remaining $1.2 Trillion out of the budget to balance it for once.
For fifty years, the capital gains tax was 28%. Good times and bad times, it was 28%. The Bush tax cuts of 2002 cut the capital gains tax down to 15%. The Bush tax cuts and the two unfunded wars are responsible for the deficit of $15T. We have had a deficit since the second world war. Obama did spend alot of money, saving jobs in the auto industry, saving the bank deposits of millions, feeding the unemployed millions and providing healthcare to millions. The president did what he is suppose to do, promote the general welfare, it's in the Constitution!
The rule for capital gains should be: if you have made more than $1,000,000 in capital gains, then your tax is 30%. I don't know what these GOP people think and can prove about these people creating jobs here in the US. I'd like to see their so called proof.
"The legislation would apply to people earning more than $1 million a year, be it from salaries or investments or both"
They will never be able to tax enough to pay off the debt without cutting spending. Bring our hundreds of thousands of troops overseas back here to guard our borders and spend their paychecks here at home and let the wealthy Asian and Eurpean countries pay for their own defence.
ill care when my investments make a mill a year. btw, the dems are only doing this because they know it wont pass.
all this talk about the middle class. most people are glad they have a job, if they have one. they have downsized their ambitions. they are kind of in a daze. hope they getenough toeat and a place to stay.
@Gurgi Your fear the Buffet rule would "hurt middle class investors (like me)" is unfounded unless you earn more than one million dollars a year. If you do earn that much, you should stop calling yourself middle class.
You apparently missed the following sentence:
"The legislation would apply to people earning more than $1 million a year, be it from salaries or investments or both".
I love how the media trumpets Buffett's secretary as an example of fairness towards the middle class when she makes over $200,000 a year herself.
"Most Republicans strongly oppose raising the capital gains tax because they argue taxing investments at a higher rate will stifle job creation and hurt the economy."
One of their biggest complaints about the current president is his jobs record. But... Obama kept the taxes as low as Bush did. So really, they're complaining about themselves? Therefore, Romney hates Romney, Gingrinch hates Gingrinch, etc.
A poor man goes out to work for his money.
a rich man sends his money out to work for him.
Your civic responsibiliy is the same. Certinly not less.
So why do we have a progressive tax? You all know the answer... On the low income end there is very little disposible income so a flat tax would be regressive. On the high end there is the assumption that is was just too easy. There are some very deep roots that honor real work. ...and our world is shifting to honor knowledge. So how do we honor this? We lighten your civic responsibility (slightly). BTW when I refer to knowledge, I don't mean knowledge of how to exploit the markets, resources, or people.
This will never pass the Republicans. They would have to agree with the majority of Americans, which they have been tone deaf to so far. The only way is to get all the Democrats back in in November 2012. Then this will happen along with the Bush tax cuts. Then this country will have the revenue it needs to improve our infrastructure and create jobs at the same time.
I'm sure this will make a lot of people feel better. It won't boost tax revenue, though. It's not like those who are well off need a whole lot of income to keep their lifestyle up; the amount of investment dollars they actually cash in is quite small. Should they decide to use some of that wealth to actually do something large, there's now a strong disincentive to cash any of it in, and the potential return required to offset such a shift will need to be almost impossibly high.
What I don't understand is that most people don't understand how a economy works. Most of the younger generation was forced to take a government or economics class in high school, so they want to vote for Ron Paul. Which means they are making an "educated" decision. Where most just pick and choose people because of how they look, or if they are the same party as themselves. Which is complete bull. I for one think the idea of the Buffet Bill is a good start, but a bad decision. I agree, however, with the poster that said something along the lines of a flat tax. I'm pretty sure someone's son has already proposed that, Rand Paul maybe? Most politicians don't like you to know that they are making plenty of money. Most voters don't know what a Federal Pension really entails. A congressman who automatically gets a Federal Pension for doing a few years in office, makes about $115,000 a year of our tax money. That's ALL after he's not even doing anything for the tax payer anymore, messed up huh? Count up all your congressmen, senators, represenatives, and even the presidents since I believe it was somewhere in the 50s or 60s that are stilll alive and getting that Federal Pension. Then multiply that number by just the $115,000 and see how much every single year we as taxpayers would save our country, if their own greediness was gone. So, raising taxes gets us around 40 to 50 billion dollars a year extra. Problem is, that money will just get spread out across all the people sitting at home getting a fat check. What I think is going on, is that someone proposed getting rid of the Federal Pension, and now the politicians are getting worried, so they're trying to make up some money to keep it. I'm sorry, but I'm in the military and I have to serve my country for 20 years, risking my life along the way, and I don't get a full federal pension. Why should a politician be allowed to serve ONE term and get one? I'm not asking for a pension because I feel like I should work for my money, not get a check for free. If I'm not helping out, why should I get free money? No politician I don't care if you're the president should be getting a pension or any pay, unless they are in the position as long as a soldier would have to be to get 100% pension.
@ Kris Craig
@Four You're citing outdated economic theories that have long since been disproven. In fact, they have been disproven over and over and over and over again. What you're saying may look good on paper, but that's not how it pans out in reality.
In fact, the capital gains tax has been raised numerous times in the past and it has never caused a decline in job growth. Not once. Why? Because the tax applies on RETURNS of investment, not on the investment itself. That's why it's called the capital GAINS tax. As you said, it's Economics 101.
If anything, a higher capital gains tax would motivate investors to put more money into the market in order to offset the reduced returns. That, in turn, will lead to more jobs, not less. Nice try, though
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
You are now my Blog HERO.. Thank you for this post .. i get so so tied of Four and THE Same o'l everyday job creation BS .. If what she/he says is so tru then we would be swiming in JOBs by now.. due to all the CUTS the Bush era gave to the Rich and Super Rich.. But thanks for that post .. Luv it ..
I cannot believe many of the comments in this section. Too many folks have not done their homework on what has happened in the past to bring us to the point we are at now. Folks, this started during the Clinton Administration when NAFTA was signed into law. This law allows large companies to outsource the jobs you are referring to here. H. Ross Perot was against this, as he knew what the future of this law would bring to the USA in the near future. If Obama were truely the President he should be, and our Congress was truely the leaders they claim to be, this law would have been repealed when Obama became President. It did not get repealed because the Congressmen/women are too invested with their financial portfolios to really care about the people they are supposed represent. Now we are faced with jobs being outsourced to overseas contries where the labor is indeed cheaper, but so is the quality of their workmanship. Want proof? CNN just ran an article about Airline Companies outsourcing the maintenance of commercial aircraft to overseas shopping locations. These locations are out of jurisdiction of FAA Inspectors. Any wonder why so many of the commercial aircraft are having safety issues? When you pay for cheap labor, you get poor workmanship. This in turn relates to poor quality of service, and poor quality in general.
So ask yourselves this. Was NAFTA really worth it? Lastly, NAFTA was enacted by a Democrat Politician. The proof is in the signature from Bill Clinton!
Mitt Romney said he can fix the economy if elected POTUS! Well, just imagine Mitt Romney looking you straight in the eyes and telling you that he can do what a collective team of financial experts in America and Europe couldn't do and that is fix this global economic crisis overnight! Mitt Romney is either drinking or smoking something really really bad. Prior to passage of this administration's economic stimulus bill in 2009, the Obama administration had met with financial experts from around the country and the general consensus was that in order to stabilize the Americon economy and prevent it from slipping into a catastrophic depression and help Americans get back on their feet was to pass the economic recovery bill.
Furthermore, these financial experts didn't say that this crisis would end overnight and that 10 million Americans were going to get re-hired the next day. No, what they said was that the economy would improve gradually but jobs will eventually resurface and economic growth will materialize as investors and manifacturers re-gain confidence in the economic environment. But what Mitt Romney is trying to tell the American people is that he has a magic wan that can fix this global economic crisis and return 14 million Americans back to work tomorrow. And what is more outrageous about Mitt Romney's position here is if elected, he intends to do so with the very same ineffective, failed and misguided economic policies that led to our economic downfall in the first place. Mitt shame on you!
And the Republican/Tea Party House of Representatives? They don't seem to have a clue either because two plus years later they're yet to create one single American job. Shame shame shame!
Its unbelievable how many times people commenting on here have to remind others (republican minded ppl) how it doesn't apply to people making under 1 million and yet it's like talking to a wall. What's going on with your thought process is what I want to know. How much more simple do you want it? People are tired and degraded with brown nosing the rich, we want equal opportunities. Equal opportunity should outweigh an individuals greed any day especially with claims for love of this country. Take care of our country and this earth.
Why should the rich pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than skilled middle class workers?
"If I understand this correctly (I'm no financial expert by any means), it could broaden the gap between the rich and middle class. If I have it wrong, someone explain it to me please."
Gurgi, if both the middle class and the rich are investors in your scenario, then the gap stays the same, since both are taxed the same. If there is a surtax that kicks in only for higher earners, then the gap is reduced. I also don't understand why anyone would not invest solely based on tax rates. Historically, there have always been investors, even when the top rates neared 90%!
Two thirds of America wants this to pass! Guess who will be the main opposition? That's right, the party that cares only for the greedy, and not the needy.
The Dems always want to tax someone, I don;t think they can even spell "cut expenses."