U.S. weighs 30 percent "Buffett Rule" tax on millionaires

If Buffett likes this rule, he is welcome to start paying extra taxes now.. If he does not know how, I would be happy to show this small box and a line on the IRS forms that allows to pay much more in federal income tax.. The same applies to other "domesticated" millionaires, including Bill Gates, Bill Clinton, Pritzker family, Comrade Obama, etc.

since Obama has no record to stand on, his state of the union speech was a campaign pitch to pit Americans against each other via class warfare and envy. that's all he's got. a perfect example is the left leaning media's frenzy about Romney's taxes. this is the same media that gives a pass to known tax cheats like Rangel and Geithner.

The National Review did a great job of explaining the myth and giving the facts:

'Romney Pays a 14 Percent Tax Rate

The fact that Romney’s tax returns indicated an expected tax rate of just 14 percent in 2011 doesn’t reflect the actual federal tax burden he bears, which, with corporate taxes included, is probably more like 30 percent.

The capital gains he earns on various investments and carried interest from Bain is subject to double taxation: The 15 percent capital-gains rate is paid after the earnings have already been taxed at a 35 percent corporate rate.

What one can’t do, however, is merely calculate — as many eager apologists have — that income taxed first at 35 percent and then at 15 percent is subject to a roughly 45 percent tax burden, since not all of the corporate-tax burden falls on shareholders. Conservatives often point out that tax burdens are almost always shared — it doesn’t really matter, for instance, whether an employer or an employee pays a payroll tax; the burden will fall on both of them regardless.

This question of who pays a tax, known as tax incidence, is particularly complicated in the realm of corporate taxation, but the accepted reality is essentially that a corporation’s shareholders, the providers of capital, bear most of the burden. This is because the tax doesn’t fall on all the corporation’s revenue but on its gross income — not its profits but, roughly, its revenues less most expenses. This number, obviously, is relevant to the valuation of a company, and how much it can pay in dividends, and therefore the tax will fall mostly on the owners of a company.

Tax incidence is subject to significant academic debate, but perhaps the clearest answer here is that the CBO estimates that the top .01 percent of Americans pay an effective federal tax rate, corporate taxes included, of 31 percent, so we might reasonably assume Romney’s effective tax rate is something like 30 percent. The average effective corporate-income-tax rate for a member of the top .01 percent is 17 percent, and Romney received almost all of his income from sources subject to the corporate tax, presumably more than even some members of the .01 percent.'

Axel Rodam wrote:

If Buffett likes this rule, he is welcome to start paying extra taxes now.. If he does not know how, I would be happy to show this small box and a line on the IRS forms that allows to pay much more in federal income tax.. The same applies to other "domesticated" millionaires, including Bill Gates, Bill Clinton, Pritzker family, Comrade Obama, etc.

....so you support redistribution of wealth?

I think the government should just take 100% from everyone then dole it out as they see fit.

Jane Says wrote:

since Obama has no record to stand on, his state of the union speech was a campaign pitch to pit Americans against each other via class warfare and envy. that's all he's got. a perfect example is the left leaning media's frenzy about Romney's taxes. this is the same media that gives a pass to known tax cheats like Rangel and Geithner.....

Repeating Reich-wing BULLSH!T! And only a true ignoramus would attempt to clain that the media gave a pass to Rangel and Geithner. there were literally 100's (if not 100's of articles about their tax problems.

Ask poor dumb lazy twits who pay zero to at least pay 5%!!! They always have money for their booze, cigs, pumping out kids and big screen tv's!!

Check out new ad,“Every Level”, and tell Obama we need jobs, not more insider deals:

http://t.co/PopgtfL7

Raising taxes on investments in stocks will only further hinder the crippled economy.

We need jobs, not more crony spending by Obama in the "guise" of assisting common folk.

Federal Deficit For 2012 Closer to $4 Trillion Rather Than Official Estimate of $1.1 Trillion

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_conten...

Wednesday, February 01, 2012

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) yesterday reported that the federal budget deficit is projected to reach $1.1 trillion in 2012. That number is troubling enough but the reality is much worse. The United States will actually go about $4 trillion further in debt during the year.

PLEASE PASS AROUND TO AS MANY AS POSSIBLE AND ASK THEM TO DO SAME.

"A"ny "B"ut Imposter "O"bama, for your town's sake!

Jane Says wrote:

since Obama has no record to stand on, his state of the union speech was a campaign pitch to pit Americans against each other via class warfare and envy. that's all he's got. a perfect example is the left leaning media's frenzy about Romney's taxes. this is the same media that gives a pass to known tax cheats like Rangel and Geithner.
The National Review did a great job of explaining the myth and giving the facts:
'Romney Pays a 14 Percent Tax Rate
The fact that Romney’s tax returns indicated an expected tax rate of just 14 percent in 2011 doesn’t reflect the actual federal tax burden he bears, which, with corporate taxes included, is probably more like 30 percent.
The capital gains he earns on various investments and carried interest from Bain is subject to double taxation: The 15 percent capital-gains rate is paid after the earnings have already been taxed at a 35 percent corporate rate.
What one can’t do, however, is merely calculate — as many eager apologists have — that income taxed first at 35 percent and then at 15 percent is subject to a roughly 45 percent tax burden, since not all of the corporate-tax burden falls on shareholders. Conservatives often point out that tax burdens are almost always shared — it doesn’t really matter, for instance, whether an employer or an employee pays a payroll tax; the burden will fall on both of them regardless.
This question of who pays a tax, known as tax incidence, is particularly complicated in the realm of corporate taxation, but the accepted reality is essentially that a corporation’s shareholders, the providers of capital, bear most of the burden. This is because the tax doesn’t fall on all the corporation’s revenue but on its gross income — not its profits but, roughly, its revenues less most expenses. This number, obviously, is relevant to the valuation of a company, and how much it can pay in dividends, and therefore the tax will fall mostly on the owners of a company.
Tax incidence is subject to significant academic debate, but perhaps the clearest answer here is that the CBO estimates that the top .01 percent of Americans pay an effective federal tax rate, corporate taxes included, of 31 percent, so we might reasonably assume Romney’s effective tax rate is something like 30 percent. The average effective corporate-income-tax rate for a member of the top .01 percent is 17 percent, and Romney received almost all of his income from sources subject to the corporate tax, presumably more than even some members of the .01 percent.'

This argument is based solely on bad logic and tortured reasoning.

If I own a small shop or restaurant, I pay taxes on my business' profits, and then pay a full income tax rate. Why should passive investors get perks I don't?

Chicago Guy wrote:

<quoted text>
This argument is based solely on bad logic and tortured reasoning.
If I own a small shop or restaurant, I pay taxes on my business' profits, and then pay a full income tax rate. Why should passive investors get perks I don't?

Without the perks (15% tax rate) of the passive investor, the money available to loan to small shops or restaurants would dry up.

As the saying goes, "it takes money to make money".

Where would that money come from if not from the passive investor?

Think of George Bailey from "It's a Wonderful Life". People 'saved' their money in his bank, so he could 'loan' it to people who wanted to buy homes or start a business.

Axel Rodam wrote:

If Buffett likes this rule, he is welcome to start paying extra taxes now.. If he does not know how, I would be happy to show this small box and a line on the IRS forms that allows to pay much more in federal income tax.. The same applies to other "domesticated" millionaires, including Bill Gates, Bill Clinton, Pritzker family, Comrade Obama, etc.

It's not about what you LIKE. It's about the LAW. The law now allows Mittens to pay less than Middle Class Americans and that is legal, but WRONG. We want to change the law to make it more equitable.

So your talking points are useless. For example, if you wanted two stupid wars, YOU should have paid for them, not Buffet and the rest of us. WE DIDN'T GET A CHOICE. You are lucky that you aren't paying for what you wanted and moreover you are lucky that you and Mittens aren't paying the marginal rate that was in effect when Eisenhower was president, 91%!!!!

So just STFU, you unpatriotic SOB.

Eleanor wrote:

<quoted text>
Without the perks (15% tax rate) of the passive investor, the money available to loan to small shops or restaurants would dry up.
As the saying goes, "it takes money to make money".
Where would that money come from if not from the passive investor?
Think of George Bailey from "It's a Wonderful Life". People 'saved' their money in his bank, so he could 'loan' it to people who wanted to buy homes or start a business.

Listen, you SOB, Romney didn't loan his money to anyone. He did like all the banksters who are making record profits with our bailout money, he hid it in secret overseas bank accounts where it's probably being used for nefarious unChristian purposes.

Doesn't Romney have money invested in planned parenthood? Who knows what else? God tells us to be weary of those who hide in the dark.

PlacitasRoy wrote:

<quoted text>
Repeating Reich-wing BULLSH!T! And only a true ignoramus would attempt to clain that the media gave a pass to Rangel and Geithner. there were literally 100's (if not 100's of articles about their tax problems.

LOL Well let's face it. Bush is not responsible for any of our problems, but we should credit Bush for Obama killing Bin Laden.

Makes sense wrote:

<quoted text>
Listen, you SOB, Romney didn't loan his money to anyone. He did like all the banksters who are making record profits with our bailout money, he hid it in secret overseas bank accounts where it's probably being used for nefarious unChristian purposes.
Doesn't Romney have money invested in planned parenthood? Who knows what else? God tells us to be weary of those who hide in the dark.

you listen,you stupid fucktard,not really your business what Romney does with his money,its his.

scooter wrote:

<quoted text>
you listen,you stupid fucktard,not really your business what Romney does with his money,its his.

actually...as a voter it may not be his/her business. but it is something of interest. only an idiot goes into the voting booth blind.

Eleanor wrote:

<quoted text>
Without the perks (15% tax rate) of the passive investor, the money available to loan to small shops or restaurants would dry up.
As the saying goes, "it takes money to make money".
Where would that money come from if not from the passive investor?
Think of George Bailey from "It's a Wonderful Life". People 'saved' their money in his bank, so he could 'loan' it to people who wanted to buy homes or start a business.

This is just a Republican talking point, but devoid of truth.

You think that VC's and big-money investors like Romney are supporting local start-up businesses??

The VAST MAJORITY-- be they coffee shops, barber shops, pet stores, restaurants, etc. etc. etc.-- are funded by the owner's themselves, either through personal savings, or through loans they take from the local bank.

In that sense, you're partly right-- banks can make a big difference in their communities. But Romney's investments have nothing to do with that... unless he owns stock in the bank itself.

I believe we should enact the buffett rule and raise taxes on the very wealthy. It is not fair and almost immoral to charge more for working people who make less money.

Chicago Guy wrote:

<quoted text>
This argument is based solely on bad logic and tortured reasoning.
If I own a small shop or restaurant, I pay taxes on my business' profits, and then pay a full income tax rate. Why should passive investors get perks I don't?

Wow.

A passive investor who invests in your business does not have control over the success of your business but he does carry risk of losing his money. Hopefully he chooses his investments wisely and nets out more wins than losses.

You are wrong to assume that capital gains is an exclusive territory of the rich. You confuse investors like Buffett who make up .0001% with the 1% crowd which consist mostly of households making gross $300K. They pay 53% of the taxes collected already. Obama lies to you about increasing taxes to 30%. He doesn't want to tax millionaires like himself who don't invest in stocks. He wants to tax investments. The majority of investors are middle Americans trying to save up for their retirement because government SS is not a safe haven.

Obama wants to take away both SS and our ability to protect our income against inflation and save up for old age. Stop listening to the imposter. He isn't for anyone but himself and his .0001% cronies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-chec...

Most wealthy people pay a higher tax rate than most less-wealthy Americans, but there are always going to be some exceptions. The Congressional Research Service found that among millionaires, the average tax rate is almost 30 percent. But some 94, 500 millionaires —one quarter — do face a tax rate that is lower than 10.4 million moderate-income tax payers.

YOU REALLY NEED TO STOP ABSORBING RHETORIC FROM THIS LIAR AND THINK FIRST WHAT IT REALLY MEANS.

Majority of investors are middle income earners and a dividend or capital gains tax hurts them MORE than the rich. Why do you listen to hypocrites like Buffett and the super rich like Gates? You do know that Buffett, who does not need the investment income profits largely off the little investors by manipulating the prices of his stocks through sheer buying and selling power. You know that right? What makes you think that Buffet and Obama cares about the little guys the way they claim? What proof? Because they SAY SO?

Cut defense and military budgets to the very minimum. Cut at the very least another $500 billion. Eliminate all foreign aide.
Those that want a large defense and military can donate and write a check to the government for them. Those that want foreign aide can donate and write a check to the government for it.

yes, govt employees make too much money, and there are too many of them...it takes 3 govt workers to do the work of one real person...the first govt worker is always off on vacation, sick leave, time off, one of the 27 govt holidays, personal leave, etc...the 2nd govt worker does the work...wrong, and the 3rd govt worker has to fix it. Fire the first two, and tell the third one that he gets 2 weeks a year vacation, and if thats not acceptable, he can and will be replaced.

Makes sense wrote:

<quoted text>
It's not about what you LIKE. It's about the LAW. The law now allows Mittens to pay less than Middle Class Americans and that is legal, but WRONG. We want to change the law to make it more equitable.
So your talking points are useless. For example, if you wanted two stupid wars, YOU should have paid for them, not Buffet and the rest of us. WE DIDN'T GET A CHOICE. You are lucky that you aren't paying for what you wanted and moreover you are lucky that you and Mittens aren't paying the marginal rate that was in effect when Eisenhower was president, 91%!!!!
So just STFU, you unpatriotic SOB.

If Buffet, the second richest man after Gates, who made $62 billion off little investors in 2010, REALLY WANTS, HE CAN GO RIGHT AHEAD AND DONATE THE MONEY TO GOVERNMENT TO HELP "OBAMA'S" NEEDY AND POOR, ANY TIME, ANY DAY. THE NEEDY NEED IT TODAY - NOT YESTERDAY WHEN THEY ARE DEAD. The joke is Buffet and the liberal millionaire types who support Obama claim they will not pay more taxes to help the needy until taxes are "equalized". It's like Mother Theresa refusing to help until there is equality of time spent on volunteer work. Meantime she cheats on taxes while orphans are suffering. But you BUY INTO THE BUNK.

There are few equals to Gates and Buffet in wealth. Mitt Romney is NOWHERE near these two in income. Yet Gates and Buffet Clowns challenge lessers to meet their donation. It's a laugh. Someone with an income of 300K giving away 30% of their income has a greater sacrefice than Gates and Buffet who make in excess of $63 billion annually giving away 30% of their income. Gates is fighting the IRS on back taxes.

The Buffet Rule is a shameful misnomer after an investment thief who is a market maker stealing from far lesser empty nest eggers.