The Buffett Rule, Tax Fairness and the 2012 Presidential Race
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-04-12/buffett-rule-tax-fairness-and-2012-presidential-race
At the white house yesterday, President Obama continued his push for the “Buffet Rule.” That’s a proposal he says would require the very wealthy to pay the same tax rate as the middle class. The senate is slated to vote on the buffet rule next week. Everyone agrees it’s not likely to pass. The Obama campaign says tax fairness will be a central theme in the 2012 election. But congressional republicans call the measure a political gimmick. And advisers to GOP front-runner Mitt Romney say the president is just trying to divert attention from his economic record. As tax day approaches, a look at the fiscal impact and political implications of the debate over taxes.
Guests
Roberton Williams
principal research associate, the Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution.
Kevin Hassett
director, economic policy studies, American Enterprise Institute, economic policy advisor to the Mitt Romney campaign.
Michael Linden
Director for Tax and Budget Policy, Center for American Progress
Carol Lee
White House Correspondent, the Wall Street Journal
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
merrySunny, I have heard this in the news more than once. The Obamas pay a significantly higher tax rate than the 15% that Romney says he pays.
"...for 2010...The Obamas paid $453,770 in federal taxes, for an effective tax rate of just over 26 percent...The Obamas donated $245,075 — 14.2 percent of their income before tax deductions and exemptions — to 36 charities..."
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/18/obama-tax-return-shows-inc...
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/01/romney-faces-fresh-scrutiny-...
What about big business paying their fair share and leveling the playing field for all corporations - small, big, national, multinational, US based, foreign based? It is not the tax rate that matters, it is the loopholes. The biggest loophole is transfer pricing and separate arm's length accounting that allows US profits to be shifted to subsidiaries in foreign tax havens. The majority of states that tax corporate income have adopted combined reporting to negate profit shifting. Per Vermont's Statement of Intent in adopting combined reporting: Vermont's separate accounting system is inadequate to measure accurately the income of a corporation with non-Vermont affiliates and creates tax disadvantages for Vermont corporations which compete with multistate and multinational corporations doing business in Vermont." HOWEVER, Vermont's statute does an about face when it EXCLUDES overseas business organizations from the combined taxable group - RESTORING separate accounting for multinational corporations! Did GE or ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) "help" Vermont's lawmakers write this law?? The biggest winners are non-US/foreign based multinationals with US subsidiaries - the US profits that they shift overseas are NEVER coming back! The solution is worldwide combined reporting sanctioned by the US Supreme Court in their Barclays Bank decision.
I don't mind my level of taxes at all. in fact I would not rage against an increase IF....we used the money more wisely. The last Conservative foisted on us wanted a war from DAY 1 so badly they lied and fear mongered for it!! They felt it would make him look decisive and bold. NO MORE WARS with my tax money. and the Right wants to fool us again! GOP NEVER EVER AGAIN!!!
Mike Sergeant wrote:"The middle class are Net profiteers? Really !? Then we have nothing to worry about because we are all making gobs of cash from the government. Great let's raise the rate on them. Oh wait, we have."
Really !? don't get goofy on me Mike, have you heard of our current 1.3 trillion deficit and our 16 trillion debt.
libertarians r us,
Yes as a matter of fact I have. I'm not at all happy about the deficit or the debt, but unfortunately, the American electorate is more concerned with who Snooki is "dating". There are solutions out there but it is not CUT, CUT, CUT or REVENUE, REVENUE, REVENUE. The solution will probably look more like CUT, REVENUE, CUT, CUT, REVENUE, and until we, Left and Right, start having that discussion, this country will continue to be mired in feeble growth and weak job creation. We may not get all we want but we will get the compromise we need. Compromise IS what made this country great.
It`s a lie. The wealthy are not hurting or suffering. Every day we focus our attention on the whining investor class,who refuses to pay the tax on their BONANZA of higher profits,by moving U.S. jobs to China,is another day we ignore the plight of the American worker,whose jobs have been exported.
It`s sickening. Instead of lower taxes on the elite,they deserve a spell in those Communist gulags they fund and endorse.
None of your guests mentioned marginal tax rates!
I agree that most middle class Americans don't pay over 30% on all their income, but many pay that on their last dollar of income; this year's raise or bonus.
Investors don't!
EVERY time this subject comes up the experts ignore local taxes, state taxes, and sales taxes. I am middle class and my actual tax rate last year was 36% (I log all taxes for every purchase).
I've work for several wealthy people. They buy ALL their paper products under their company where it is a deduction, then take it home. They eat fancy dinners out at least twice a week, and talk business for 5 minutes and deduct it. They want a new sofa, the company buys it and it stays their for 2 months then comes home. They mis-log their personal mileage and deduct it from their business. They vacation in other countries, NOT in the US; which does not help our economy. They buy very expensive cars, but avoid the luxury tax.
The AVERAGE american doesn't get these perks. PLEASE quite comparing apples to steaks.
There are a lot of figures used in this debate. The use of municipal bonds to generate tax free income should be removed from the equation. The use of municipal bonds is for a public good. Generally the interest is lower than comparable taxable bonds. So theowner of a tax free bond accepts a lower rate and helps a community.
Some bonds are deemed to be a benefit to businesses within a community. The interest on these bonds is subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax.
The tax preference for dividends and capital gains provides an incentive to invest.
To compare apples to apples it would be better to talk about the marginal tax rate. The question then is not about the overall rate of tax on income, but on the rate of the next fully taxable dollar into adjusted gross income.
I agree
It's an outright lie for the commentators to say that Reagan would not support the buffett rule. Here is a link to a speech Reagan gave in 1985 in which he states the exact same set of circumstances and his support
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/09/1081924/-Ronald-Reagan-supporte...
Here is Reagan's quote from that speech about a letter he received from a millionaire:
"He wrote me in support of the tax plan, because he said, 'I am legally able to take advantage of the present tax code, nothing dishonest, doing what the law prescribes, and wind up paying a smaller […] tax than my secretary pays.' And he wrote me the letter to tell me he'd like to come to Washington and testify before Congress as to how that's possible for him to do and why it is wrong."
Thank you. Nice to know there are 4 of us who understand tax rate is not just the federal taxes we pay.
Lee Mcc
The topic as outlined by the "Buffett rule" is about federal income taxes.
Unfortunately, I listen to you at 2:00pm on my Maine Public
radio and cannot call in with a comment.
Every time I listen to one of these discussions it is always assumed that maximizing profits for investors is the goal and
if we don't the system will collapse. I would propose that there
are other models that do work. Would you please look at the
Scandinavian countries (Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland). They are doing better than most of other European
countries. I visited there a few years ago and was struck by
how all their citizens were valued. One member of our group
asked our Swedish tour guide about what would be said about
some driving a very expensive car. He replied, "Have they paid
their taxes?"
Perhaps our priorities a rather skewed, when we value how much money people can acquire and not whether our citizens can make a living wage, send their children to day care and have a decent education, take care of our elderly and disabled. I would propose that a society that does not
do that is one that will eventually fail!
"kathleen wrote:
The Obama administration and his Dept of Justice have not brought to justice or prosecuted any of the individuals responsible for the sub prime loan or foreclosure frauds that has brought the US economy to the brink ACCOUNTABLE
How do your guest think this failure to deliver will effect this upcoming election?
April 12, 2012 - 10:25 am"
Most likely, "the individuals responsible for the sub prime loan or foreclosure frauds that has brought the US economy to the brink", will be back in power again to finish the job!!!!!
For G_d's sake Kathleen, you gotta lay off the Democrats, you're killing what little Democracy we have left!!!
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
domedweller wrote: " I would propose that there
are other models that do work. Would you please look at the
Scandinavian countries (Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland). They are doing better than most of other European"
You are free to move there if you like it so much.
"I visited there a few years ago and was struck by
how all their citizens were valued. One member of our group
asked our Swedish tour guide about what would be said about
some driving a very expensive car. He replied, "Have they paid
their taxes?"
Sounds like what he was saying is that few can afford any luxuries in life because of high taxes! No Thanks.
mchaun wrote: "Most likely, "the individuals responsible for the sub prime loan or foreclosure frauds that has brought the US economy to the brink", will be back in power again to finish the job!!!!!"
Many of those democrats you speak of are still in Congress?
President Obama's tax rate was 20% according to the latest return released. Brought lower by large charitable contributions. Mitt says his rate is in the '"16% - 17% range" but he won't release his tax returns.
Source, NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/14/us/politics/obamas-release-tax-returns...
By the way, this issue is not about the amount of revenue raised. It's about tax code fairness. Period.
Mike Sergeant wrote:
"until we, Left and Right, start having that discussion, this country will continue to be mired in feeble growth and weak job creation. We may not get all we want but we will get the compromise we need. Compromise IS what made this country great."
Compromise.
Like, "we won the election, we write the bills".
When anyone on the left uses the word "compromise", I know the next thing I'm going to hear is, "you are entitled to my opinion".
Keepinitreal wrote:
"Mitt says his rate is in the '"16% - 17% range" but he won't release his tax returns."
Keepin' it real with what? Falsehoods? That statement is blatantly false. Your first mistake was believing what you read in the NYT! Romney HAS released his 2010 return and will release his 2011 return when it is ready AND when he is the nominee which has been common practise since his FATHER first released his! Now the Dems and the Administration are making the completely unreasonable DEMAND that Romney release 23 YEARS worth of tax returns! No problem. Does he get to take as long doing that as it took Obama to release his birth certificate?!