GOP Senators filibuster the Buffett Rule

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Iron Wolf

Member
Jul 27, 2010
185
0
0
Nearly Half of U.S. Lives in Household Receiving Government Benefit

It was Ben Franklin who said, "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."


As hard as it is to believe, there was a point in our history when the government supported itself solely on tariffs and land sales. And when Grant left office in 1877, the economy and finances of the country were so stable that money was actually worth MORE in 1914, on the eve of WW1. As recently as 1998-2001, Clinton at least had a balanced budget and a budget surplus, if still a huge national debt.



Today we look at everything as a "right" and want the government to take care of us. I think the government needs to scale back drastically, and go back to the way things used to be in this country. The argument could also be made that it would help the moral climate, by encouraging people to rely on themselves, their spouses, and their extended families for support instead of the government, like it used to be.


It would be a shock and people would have to get used to it, but making drastic changes now would be better than waiting for a time of crisis, like we are seeing in Greece and the other PIGS nations, which has already caused social upheaval, and is about to result in the dissolution of the EU.
 

nextJin

Golden Member
Apr 16, 2009
1,848
0
0
That's like arguing that if you don't have an alternate form of transportation than walking toward a destination is pointless.

Good work kid.

Maybe not if that destination was a few miles from your house, but with the current deficit it would be akin to walking from your house to your car that is coasting down a road at 50 mph away from you when your already 30 miles behind it.
 

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
FactCheck.org has a good article on some of falsehoods and distrotions based around the "Buffet Rule".

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/04/obama-and-the-buffett-rule/

Obama and the ‘Buffett Rule’

In their zeal to pass the “Buffett Rule,” President Obama and Vice President Biden leave the false impression that many, if not most, millionaires (people who earn $1 million or more a year) are paying a lower tax rate than the middle class. The fact is that even without the Buffett Rule “more than 99 percent of millionaires will pay” a higher tax rate than those in the very middle of the income range in fiscal year 2015, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

The president and vice president have given a series of speeches in recent days to gather public support for the Buffett Rule. The proposal is named after billionaire investor Warren Buffett, who famously wrote that many of his office staff pay a higher tax rate than he does. It would require high-income taxpayers to pay an effective tax rate of at least 30 percent of their adjusted gross income. (The effective tax rate includes not just income taxes, but also the employee share of payroll taxes and other federal taxes.) The proposal is expected to come up for a Senate vote during the week of — yes, you guessed it — April 15.

But Obama and Biden have distorted the facts when explaining the proposal and its impact. In an April 10 speech, the president described the Buffett Rule this way: “[W]hat the rule says is you should pay the same percentage of your income in taxes as middle-class families do.” But that’s largely the case now. Two days later, Biden declared that Buffett is “not alone,” and there are “tens of thousands and several millions of people who are in that same situation.” It may be “tens of thousands,” but certainly not “several millions.” Warren Buffett is the exception, not the rule.

Obama, April 10: In the next few weeks, we’re going to vote on something called the Buffett Rule — very simple: If you make more than $1 million a year — now, I’m not saying you have a million dollars — right? I’m not saying you saved up all your money and you made smart investments and now you’ve got your nest egg and you’re preparing for retirement. I’m saying, you’re bringing in a million bucks or more a year. Then, what the rule says is you should pay the same percentage of your income in taxes as middle-class families do.

Biden, April 12: But the thing is [Buffett's] not alone. There are tens of thousands and several millions of people who are in that same situation that — making over a million dollars do the same exact thing.

The Tax Policy Center did an analysis of the Paying a Fair Share Act of 2012. Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the center who spent 22 years at the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, wrote that even without the Buffett Rule, only about 4,000 of those with $1-million-and-above incomes will pay less than the 15 percent effective federal tax rate that middle-income households will pay in fiscal year 2015.

Williams, Feb. 9: The Buffett rule sounds good in principle. High-income taxpayers should pay at least as large a share of their income in taxes as the rest of us. But most already do. On average, middle-income households will pay 2015 taxes totaling about 15 percent of their income (using the legislation’s definition). Without the Buffett rule, more than 99 percent of millionaires will pay more than that and only about 4,000 will pay less.

The legislation would raise taxes for a lot more individuals than those 4,000 “millionaires,” however. That’s because it would impose a minimum effective rate of 30 percent for those in the million-and-over income range — which is actually double the average rate for truly “middle-income” persons. Those are the individuals with incomes that fall in the middle 20 percent — earning between $39,862 and $69,074 in 2011, according to the Tax Policy Center’s analysis.

Under current law (which assumes the Bush tax cuts expire as scheduled at the end of this year), the Tax Policy Center estimates the Buffett Rule would raise taxes for 116,000 households (or about a quarter of the 438,000 households with adjusted gross income of $1 million or more minus charitable deductions).


Small Impact on Deficit

Furthermore, imposing the Buffett Rule wouldn’t raise as much money as you might think listening to the president and vice president. It would generate $20 billion a year in additional tax revenue — which is about 3 percent of the $609 billion deficit the White House projects for fiscal year 2015 (and only 1.5 percent of last year’s $1.3 trillion deficit).

Williams said the bottom line is that there is a “big difference” in income tax rates paid by the wealthy and the very wealthy. That’s because the very wealthy, like Buffett, accumulate wealth not through income but through investment profits, dividends and interest, which are taxed at the current capital gains tax rate of 15 percent, rather than the current top income tax rate of 35 percent. (The capital gains would return to 20 percent and the top income rate to 39.6 percent, if the Bush tax cuts expire, as explained by the Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of the president’s budget.)

“Some pay a lot of [income] taxes and some don’t pay a lot of taxes,” Williams said. “That was made very obvious by the fact that Mitt Romney paid just 13.9 percent [in 2010].”

The Obama campaign has a “Pass the Buffett Rule” calculator on its website that allows visitors to compare their tax rates with Romney’s. But that’s misleading, too.

Romney, like Buffett, isn’t your average rich guy. He reported earning $21.7 million in 2010 — mostly in dividends and investment income. His 13.9 percent tax rate was far lower than the 24.1 percent average for those earning more than $1 million. But visitors to the campaign site wouldn’t know that, and they wouldn’t know it listening to Obama and Biden, either.

– Eugene Kiely
 
Last edited:

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
The fact is that even without the Buffett Rule “more than 99 percent of millionaires will pay” a higher tax rate than those in the very middle of the income range in fiscal year 2015, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

So, with fewer than one percent of people making over a million a year affected, and that less than one percent simply paying the same rate as average people...

Why are the Republicans not only opposing the bill but fiilbustering it?

The answer to that, their filibuster here, says a lot about who they are and their agenda, which is to serve those very, very rich.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
So, with fewer than one percent of people making over a million a year affected, and that less than one percent simply paying the same rate as average people...

Why are the Republicans not only opposing the bill but fiilbustering it?

The answer to that, their filibuster here, says a lot about who they are and their agenda, which is to serve those very, very rich.
I support the not-affecting-Buffet-at-all Rule in principle, but my worry with it is that it will create the perception of "alright, jobs done y'all! time to stop caring about government spending and expand medicare again!"

when, in fact, it will do very little for the bottom line.

I don't see how anyone can seriously talk about taxes and spending without also addressing taxing capital gains, cutting defense spending, and reforming other entitlement programs.
 

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
I support the not-affecting-Buffet-at-all Rule in principle, but my worry with it is that it will create the perception of "alright, jobs done y'all! time to stop caring about government spending and expand medicare again!"

when, in fact, it will do very little for the bottom line.

I don't see how anyone can seriously talk about taxes and spending without also addressing taxing capital gains, cutting defense spending, and reforming other entitlement programs.

No one (not even Obama) is going to significantly touch capital gains and raise rates. Sorry not gonna happen because doing so would directly hamper the economy by discouraging investing which will in turn reduce any expansion/recovery of the economy itself. This is why Buffet has no problem calling for raises on earned income vs capital gains as he is insulated by this of method he uses to generate and accumulates his wealth as it is vitally related to the recovery and expansion of economy itself on a greater scale.
 
Last edited:

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
So, with fewer than one percent of people making over a million a year affected, and that less than one percent simply paying the same rate as average people...

Read that again. The actual effect would be greater then what is proposed and would effect a broader range of individuals who are not "Buffet Rich".


Why are the Republicans not only opposing the bill but fiilbustering it?

Because it will not have any meaningful real effect on our budget deficits.

The answer to that, their filibuster here, says a lot about who they are and their agenda, which is to serve those very, very rich.

And supporting this "Rule" says a lot about who Democrats are and their agenda (using flawed class warfare legislation to gain votes) .
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
I support the not-affecting-Buffet-at-all Rule in principle, but my worry with it is that it will create the perception of "alright, jobs done y'all! time to stop caring about government spending and expand medicare again!"

when, in fact, it will do very little for the bottom line.

I don't see how anyone can seriously talk about taxes and spending without also addressing taxing capital gains, cutting defense spending, and reforming other entitlement programs.

That's an example why ideology is so blinding. You are demanding we take the 'there's no problem so fight the small improvement' side to the point of supporting a filibuster.

Yes, voting DOWN the bill will obviously result in a national frenzy of everyone agreeing, 'that proves we need major reform!!!!' Good plan, Loki. Good plan.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
Read that again. The actual effect would be greater then what is proposed and would effect a broader range of individuals who are not "Buffet Rich".

No, you can explain it better if you want to make some point.

Because it will not have any meaningful real effect on our budget deficits.

Neither has any bill passed in the last 10 years, to they should filibuster every bill right?

And supporting this "Rule" says a lot about who Democrats are and their agenda (using flawed class warfare legislation to gain votes) .

The Democrats using the cause of opposing your class warfare is the least of your worries, and not a reason to filibuster much less oppose the bill.

If the Republicans put up a bill that's a legitimate reduction in government waste, should Democrats oppose it simply for being 'something the Republicans use to get votes'?

Oh, sorry.

I forget, you are the side that thinks that makes a lot of sense.

You made zero point, just hot air that you want both more and less of what the bill does.

Obviously, since you complain the bill doesn't raise ENOUGH revenue, it should raise MORE, yet you'll complain about that, too. Just hiding from the problem behind hot air.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,890
642
126
shackled.jpg
 

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
No, you can explain it better if you want to make some point.

Because it will not have any meaningful real effect on our budget deficits.

Neither has any bill passed in the last 10 years, to they should filibuster every bill right?

This is a flawed (2 wrongs make a right reasoning) point especially in context to what the actual proposed intentions are for this piece of legislation and how it will not even address those issues even in its full implementation but instead is being pushed for election cycle votes at the expense of demonizing those who oppose it because they realize it is a bad piece of legislation or worse will be effect by it directly.



The Democrats using the cause of opposing your class warfare is the least of your worries, and not a reason to filibuster much less oppose the bill.

If the Republicans put up a bill that's a legitimate reduction in government waste, should Democrats oppose it simply for being 'something the Republicans use to get votes'?

Oh, sorry.
I forget, you are the side that thinks that makes a lot of sense.

You made zero point, just hot air that you want both more and less of what the bill does.

Obviously, since you complain the bill doesn't raise ENOUGH revenue, it should raise MORE, yet you'll complain about that, too. Just hiding from the problem behind hot air.

/\
|| Speaking of hot air. What will this legislation actually accomplish?

Oh right nothing useful other then targeting successful people because they are successful and the so called budgetary returns at best will equal 1 miniscule drop in a very large bucket that keeps being replaced and increased in size every year. But keep on using the current language you've used in this thread because it abundantly clears up who is actually wielding the club of class warfare to push their flawed points which are not in line with reality.
 

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
LMAO Tax policy center is a Right wing think tank.

Cuzz any organization that explores the effects of tax policy on US citizens and private businesses in addition to the economy as a whole must have right wing leanings, amrite?

Or is it because they are presenting verified and studied factual points which disagree with your stance on the topic at hand?
 
Last edited:

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
This is a flawed (2 wrongs make a right reasoning) point especially in context to what the actual proposed intentions are for this piece of legislation and how it will not even address those issues even in its full implementation but instead is being pushed for election cycle votes at the expense of demonizing those who oppose it because they realize it is a bad piece of legislation or worse will be effect by it directly.





/\
|| Speaking of hot air. What will this legislation actually accomplish?

Oh right nothing useful other then targeting successful people because they are successful and the so called budgetary returns at best will equal 1 miniscule drop in a very large bucket that keeps being replaced and increased in size every year. But keep on using the current language you've used in this thread because it abundantly clears up who is actually wielding the club of class warfare to push their flawed points which are not in line with reality.

There's zero point in any discussion to someone who can't discuss any idea of fair taxation because the richest people, no matter how much they take, are only to be praised.

When the Revolutionary War happens, about the same number of colonists supported independence as supported the Royals. It's clear who you would have sided with.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
The reason the buffet rule is stupid is the same reason that the balance budget amendment is stupid. It is confusing goals with implementation.

If you want to raise taxes on the rich then increase marginal rates or repeal some tax breaks. If you repealed tax breaks it would have the added benefit of simplifying the tax code. But of course it is a lot easier (and makes a better campaign soundbite) to pass a "Screw the rich" rule.
 

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
There's zero point in any discussion to someone who can't discuss any idea of fair taxation because the richest people, no matter how much they take, are only to be praised.


LOL "Fair" taxation according to whom? You? Oh please.

When the Revolutionary War happens, about the same number of colonists supported independence as supported the Royals. It's clear who you would have sided with.

This is a pretty funny joke of a response.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
It's amusing to hear ppl talk of cutting govt spending. I guess they don't realize how much govt borrows and spends making up a huge portion of GDP these days and would send us into tailspin if you cut it.Why do you think Republicans are all hat and no cattle when it comes to cutting and usually grow debt while they are in? I'll tell you why. How much of walmart profit are via cashing SS and UE checks for example? How many will they have to lay off? That's just one of millions of employers that rely on govt cheese. tens of millions of employees rely on it.

Y'all don't get it we are in debt death spiral that can only end in one way. Wiemar.

Or we could have a jubilee and start over but the rich and powerful won't allow that. You owe them 60 trillion for their tbills, local, state, business & your personal debt. They think we are chained for life to paying them off but it won't work either as money becomes worthless.

Enjoy your life in the meantime, nothing you can do about it other than prepare.
 
Last edited:

Ninjahedge

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2005
4,149
1
91
Ignoring the fact that gas tax supposed to pay for the sustainment of our roads?

Yes.

That would be a consolidation of taxation. Why do we need to tax so many different things, because we like employing all the people to collect and keep track of it?

IMO I've always been for a tax on wants rather than needs to pay for the basics. No tax on food, water, property (home), medical, and clothing. Leave everything else up to the states to decide what they need and let the federal government get it's income from other means such as tariffs.

NJ is like that. Supermarket food is not taxed, and neither is (cheaper) clothing.

But property taxes are astronomical!

If the government abolished the income tax we would have roughly as much revenue as we did in 2000, so I see no reason why we couldn't get rid of it all together.

Where did you get that number from?

It would certainly provide a net positive to the economy. Well, other than all of the income tax filing companies that would go under.

No, we need income tax, but we need to find a way to make it less convoluted. Having a tax code that requires several sherpas to carry it is a sign that there are too many ins and outs to make it practical.
 

Ninjahedge

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2005
4,149
1
91
40% was actually the number I came up with as well. Seems a "fair share" for everyone to participate in. KISS indeed., 999 was a good basic idea, obviously with some tweaking.

I think that is what a lot of European countries have.
 

Ninjahedge

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2005
4,149
1
91
The rule should always be seen as "Tax those that have" and not "Tax the rich".

The first make sense. You do not tax people that have nothing to tax. The second looks like people are "targeting" the rich. Which is an unfair appellation.

The problem now is simple. The Have-Not's do not have anything to take, and removing what they are given risks returning to the 1970's Detroit and NYC in many areas. The Have's are now starting to WRITE the rules, and are giving themselves breaks left and right.

That was OK for the first 10 years or so, we had a good solid middle class. But after 30 years of this continuing, and getting worse, AND the housing bubble that pretty much consolidated the wealth to the ones that sold out first, the middle class is severely weakened and will be pushed under if the taxation trend continues as such.

The grants and funds need to be accounted for, and the "rich" need to pay up. This is not an either-or. The thing that bothers me is that people will not do both, and refuse to pas any of the "either"s. So what we are left with is a car that is riding on its rims and a bunch of people claiming the wiper blades need replacement.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
That's an example why ideology is so blinding. You are demanding we take the 'there's no problem so fight the small improvement' side to the point of supporting a filibuster.

Yes, voting DOWN the bill will obviously result in a national frenzy of everyone agreeing, 'that proves we need major reform!!!!' Good plan, Loki. Good plan.
clearly, I'm the one blinded by my ideology o_O

there was an oped in the Washington Post today that I think summed up my thoughts on it...

...this is pure political stunt. Not wrong or harmful, just irrelevant. It won’t pass. And even if that happened, it would have a negligible impact on the exploding debt — $4.7 billion a year, or less than four-tenths of 1 percent of this year’s deficit — and take a tiny nibble out of income inequality.

Meanwhile, at what cost? If the Buffett Rule were magically to pass, raising taxes on millionaires alone risks making it harder, not easier, to hit others later. Leading voters to believe that the biggest problem in the tax code is the inequitable treatment of millionaires seems less likely to pave the way for a larger solution than to reinforce the conviction that debt reduction can be achieved pain-free, by taxing the other guy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...buffett-rule/2012/04/17/gIQAaYT0OT_story.html
 

nextJin

Golden Member
Apr 16, 2009
1,848
0
0
Where did you get that number from?

No, we need income tax, but we need to find a way to make it less convoluted. Having a tax code that requires several sherpas to carry it is a sign that there are too many ins and outs to make it practical.

I got it from http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com. It's not an exact figure but it's fairly close, it would easily be doable if we go back to 1995 spending.

My question is if we go back to our spending levels during the Clinton administration why should we need an income tax if everything would already be paid for? There is not an absolute need for the income tax.

I agree that the tax code should be overhauled.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,055
48,054
136
I got it from http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com. It's not an exact figure but it's fairly close, it would easily be doable if we go back to 1995 spending.

My question is if we go back to our spending levels during the Clinton administration why should we need an income tax if everything would already be paid for? There is not an absolute need for the income tax.

I agree that the tax code should be overhauled.

So wait, you want to go back to spending levels from when the US population was about 25% smaller, not accounting for inflation?

For what earthly reason would you want to do so?
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,414
8,356
126
It was Ben Franklin who said, "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."

that's a mis-attributed paraphrase of alexis de tocqueville.