The Buffet Rule

One of the main things Obama is campaigning on is the Buffet Rule, named after Warren Buffet, who said that it's not fair how low his taxes are.

Right now, as a result of an incredibly low capital gains tax (basically the tax on income from investments instead of typical income) and various tax deductions, many rich investors pay a much lower percentage of their income in income taxes than a middle class family. Obama is proposing having people who make over $1 million yearly pay a minimum tax of 30% in order to make sure that they don't pay less than the middle class.

Honestly I don't see how anyone can argue that it's fair for the rich to pay a lower percentage of their income than the middle class (especially when we have the deficit to try to fix), so I support this.

However, the cynical side of me knows that Obama is only really pushing for this because he wants to rally the democratic party's base, which isn't very enthusiastic about his centrism.

[Curus]

Not the best of reasons, then, but the results should be something to support, so really I'd say it's a good thing overall. Especially since, to join in on the politics cynicism, you can't expect politicians to do the right thing for the right reasons. Or something. I'm not used to this brand of cynicism.

Not the best of reasons, then, but the results should be something to support, so really I'd say it's a good thing overall. Especially since, to join in on the politics cynicism, you can't expect politicians to do the right thing for the right reasons. Or something. I'm not used to this brand of cynicism.

Oh, I'm for it. It's just that it's not enough to make me vote for Obama in November.

Also, the Senate Republicans blocked it from getting a full debate. Even in the part of Congress with more Democrats, it was blocked, so in retrospect this never had a chance to pass.

The GOP has recently passed a bill in the Republican dominated House of Representatives, which is probably a Republican response to the Buffet Rule. That bill is to give a massive tax cut to small businesses, but it has almost no chance of getting through the Senate.

It seems both parties are creating these bills knowing the other party will block it so that they have something to campaign on, "We wanted to make things fair/support small businesses but those Republicans/Democrats blocked this common sense law".

[Sansato]

I like the Buffet rule. It seems reasonable to think that the wealthy shouldn't pay less in taxes than the rest of us, which is why one comment that Paul Ryan supposedly made about it being "Class Warfare" just boggles my mind.

How is this class warfare, exactly? Is it because it only affects the millionaires? If so, I understand the point, but it doesn't make good sense in regards to the federal cash flow. I know that the republicans love the millionaires to a detestable degree, but this whole thing about class warfare comes across as completely absurd to me.

I like the Buffet rule. It seems reasonable to think that the wealthy shouldn't pay less in taxes than the rest of us, which is why one comment that Paul Ryan supposedly made about it being "Class Warfare" just boggles my mind.

How is this class warfare, exactly? Is it because it only affects the millionaires? If so, I understand the point, but it doesn't make good sense in regards to the federal cash flow. I know that the republicans love the millionaires to a detestable degree, but this whole thing about class warfare comes across as completely absurd to me.

The Republicans are opposed to most things that would negatively affect rich people, even if it's a sensible thing like the Buffet Rule. They think that the better off the rich are, the better off everyone is because they think that the wealth of the rich will trickle down to the rest of us.

So to counter this and other pressures on the rich, the Republicans are trying to portray the Democrats as inciting a Marxist* war between the rich and poor. The Republicans want to portray the rich as hard working people who are vilified for no reason, because this allows them to continue to propose policies that benefit the rich at the expense of the middle class and poor.

*If you actually know anything about Marx then all this becomes even more bizarre.

[cyanide_]

The Republicans are opposed to most things that would negatively affect rich people, even if it's a sensible thing like the Buffet Rule. They think that the better off the rich are, the better off everyone is because they think that the wealth of the rich will trickle down to the rest of us.

Eh that's a nice way of viewing it, if you want to defend Republicans themselves I guess. Others just go by the just world theory and think that the rich obviously deserve what they get and poor people are just lazy, so why should rich people pay more because they work harder?

There is an element of that among Republicans, but I think the more pervasive idea is viewing the rich as "job-creators". That benefitting the rich makes them more likely to give people jobs.

[The Kirbinator]

Meanwhile, in Ontario, provincial NDP leader Andrea Horwath managed to persuade the governing Liberals under Premier Dalton McGuinty. Being an NDP supporter, I laud Horwath's proposal to implement a 2% surtax on those who make at least $500,000 annually, affecting the richest 30,000 or so Ontarians. This surtax would raise approximately $470 million in 2013-2014, which would be spent on health care, education, and disability support, as well as to alleviate the debt. Horwath said that this surtax is fair for all Ontarians, rich and poor alike. This manoeuvre also prevented an election.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/a...nt-an-election

I believe that the Buffet Rule should be implemented in a similar fashion to what was done in Ontario.

[SuperJedi224]

I recently got back from a trip to DC and I heard there that "Capital Gains" are taxed first as normal income and then are taxed as capital gains afterwards.

Plus, I've heard that if taxes are too high, the rich don't do anything with their money, so the government will probably make more money without this added rule.

I recently got back from a trip to DC and I heard there that "Capital Gains" are taxed first as normal income and then are taxed as capital gains afterwards.

Plus, I've heard that if taxes are too high, the rich don't do anything with their money, so the government will probably make more money without this added rule.

Wha?

Do you have a source on this double-taxation thing?

I'm also confused what you mean by the rich not doing anything with their money and the government making more money without it.

This isn't about taxing the rich "highly", this is about forcing them to pay at least the same tax that the middle class pays. Currently some rich people pay a dramatically lower rate than middle class families because of their income coming from capital gains.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital..._United_States

[cyanide_]

The first bit is just flat out wrong.

The second bit is just rich people propaganda.