I’m sick of Obama peddling the “Buffet rule”, which states that anyone making a million dollars will be taxed 30% due to that fact that Warren’s poor secretary paid a higher tax rate than he did. Duh. Warren Buffet get most of his income from his investments. His base salary is $100,000, while his secretary is earning between $200,000-500,000 dollars. Take into account the tax rates for capital gains and those based on salaried income, and you will get a discrepancy that shows his secretary pays more to the government. However, Obama paints this picture that Buffet is making tens of millions on salaried income, which he isn’t. In fact, Obama extended the Bush tax cuts that benefited Mr. Buffet back in December of 2010. It is disingenuous in the extreme, but luckily, independent voters aren’t buying into his doctrine of “tax fairness.”
Alexis Simendinger of Real Clear Politics penned a great article about how independents don’t really see raising taxes on the wealthy as vital to resuscitating this economy. They agree with the principle, but don’t see it as the re-energizing factor in this anemic recovery. In fact, according to Third Way, the centrist think tank Simendinger cited in her column, most independent voters “do not see the deck stacked against them and their definitions of tax fairness include levying a flat tax on everyone or taxing low-income earners who pay no taxes more than raising taxes on the wealthy.” Also, the survey showed 57 percent felt that America was a fair society and put income inequality near the bottom of their grievances. In all, the President’s agenda is the same tax and spend liberalism of the past with a “government can do no wrong” mindset that is ruthlessly pushing a dependency agenda. This doesn’t bode well with these voters who, as Simendinger said,”care about the size of government and debts and blame Congress more than Wall Street and special interests for gridlock and policy myopia.” All of which, of course, are byproducts of big government.
However, let’s say this new tax passes. How much revenue would it bring in for the federal government? The answer is a whopping $5 billion dollars, which is less that 0.5% of our $1.2 trillion dollar deficit this year. In a ten year projection, it will only represent 0.1% of the $45.43 trillion dollars the government is expected to spend. In fact, those are generous projections since Obama left a major loophole in the rule that allowed for charitable donations. Thus, the rich could effectively donate their money away to avoid taxation.
The policy is not a serious remedy to curb our debt and deficit, and it doesn’t take a genius to see that it’s naked catering to the Democrat base, which desperately needs a shot of enthusiasm. As Obama will undoubtedly continue this crusade of self-martydom, we will find out, like Allah Pundit of HotAir, that only 400 taxpayers will be targeted by this new rule. Talk about maximizing revenue. In addition, the Wall Street Journal stated that we already have “the Buffet Rule,” which is the Alternative Minimum Tax that was designed in 1969 to make sure the rich paid their “fair share” to the tune of a top rate of 28%.
If Obama wants to talk about tax fairness, he should focus on the 49.5% of Americans, which is a staggering 151.7 million people, who pay no federal income taxes and receive the majority of its benefits. Obama should consider, not trash, the budget Paul Ryan introduced that would close loopholes, lower the rates on everyone, and make way for the government to receive contributions from this rapidly increasing “free-lunch” demographic. However, this is a cornerstone of his base, so don’t expect rapid response on this front.
Photo Credit: terrellaftermath
- Top Tax Rates Could Exceed 100 Percent Under Obama’s Buffett Rule President Obama’s Buffett Rule looks so simple on paper: No…
- ABC Trumpets ‘Fairness’ Of Obama’s ‘Buffett Rule’ Tax Hike Quest “President Obama has declared it is time to take action…
Get Informed! Read More About this topic::
- Video: Obama’s Rule Of Lawlessness Are we a nation ruled by laws, or has our...