The Buffet Rule

Submitted by: tk11 4 years ago

Are the top earners in the US really paying their fair share?
There are 61 comments:
Male 1
the real reason our country is so far in the red right now!
0
Reply
Male 68
Using his basic premise....400 people at $100 million a piece. Currently pay 18%, but now will pay 30%. That will net an extra....wait for it.....
5 billion in taxes.

WHO CARES!

You could take all of their money in taxes and it wouldnt make a dent in the budget. It wouldnt matter one bit.

The problem is never about taxes....its about payments....Entitlement programs will be the death of us.
0
Reply
Male 663
I hope this gets pushed through but I`m almost positive it never will
0
Reply
Male 1,421
The more wealthy you are, the more influence and impact you have on society and thus have more responsibilities too. Why would they get to eat the cake and keep it at the same time? The more you make, the more you have to give.
0
Reply
Male 559
Zuriel: The flat-tax model seems like it makes sense, since it is so simple. The problem with it is that those who are at the lowest income levels couldn`t afford a tax rate that high. Too great a percentage of their total income goes to basic essentials like food, shelter and clothing. What`s more, the current model is constructed to incent donations. I`ll be the first to admit that one of the reasons I donate at all is because I know that it lowers my effective tax rate.
0
Reply
Male 554
18% across the board remove ALL deductions and "tricks"..

... IS fair, but will never happen because the rich demand their entitlement to get richer.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
Flat taxes are absurdly unfair.
0
Reply
Male 881
If you were really concerned with fairness you`d be asking why the hardest working people make the least.
0
Reply
Male 881
Yeah, let`s all pay the same percentage. How about 15%. That way people who lazily work 2 jobs, doing the jobs you`d never do, make $20,000/year can pay $3,000. Those people will have no money left after they pay rent, food, health insurance, and clothing. They wont be able to save, invest, get an education, or be heard by the politicians. If they are lucky enough to never have a crisis, they can live every year with no chance to pursue happiness. They can basically slave away their lives making money for the rich.

Then the people who bust ass writing emails for 6 hours a day and make $1,000,000/year can be taxed $150,000. That would leave then a paltry $850,000 to live off of.

The whole reason people form countries is so that everyone benefits from the whole. That means the rich help the poor because it makes the country stronger and it is the right thing to do.
0
Reply
Male 2,436
Fair? What? How?
Everybody should pay the same percentage.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
CrakrJak: You`re completely twisting his words on this. He said he agrees that it alone won`t solve the problem. He didn`t say he agreed that it`s a gimmick.

Also, you`re right that Obama didn`t pay much. But unlike the Republicans, he says he should be paying more. The White House told Bloomberg News:

"The president`s secretary pays a slightly higher rate this year than the president on her substantially lower income which is exactly why we need to reform our tax code and ask the wealthiest to pay their fair share."

Source
0
Reply
Male 17,512
FoolsPrussia: He still agreed to the full sentiment of his previous sentence, that it is a gimmick.

It is a gimmick, it shouldn`t be done because it doesn`t even come close to solving the problem and will cause people to invest even less.

By the way Obama`s secretary pays more, as a percentage of income, than he does at around 20%.
How is that fair ?
0
Reply
Male 1
after all those years in colege, raising taxes is the only idea you have in the video? my grandpa could tell you that
0
Reply
Male 44
Oh boy! lets raise those taxes. Can`t wait.
0
Reply
Male 36,400
Welcome back @Oldfrt! You are a beacon of wisdom in a sea of... liberals (ick!).
0
Reply
Male 749
This seems like complaining that the ambulance that came to take you to the hospital isn`t the right color. Fairness is not to goal of taxes. The goal is to raise money to pay for government. If fairness was such an issue, why wouldn`t food prices be progressive too? How much for that cantaloupe? $1 for secretaries, $1.20 for teachers, $2 for doctors and $5 for millionaires. Yes, let`s make everything fair while we`re at it.

This video also ignores the the fact that most "income" for the Ubers is in capital gains, not wages. Up the tax on capital gains and then pensions funds all over have problems?
0
Reply
Male 3,445
CrakrJak: Again, the quote is cut off at "I agree." The full quote is "I agree, that`s not all we have to do to close the deficit. But the notion that it doesn`t solve the entire problem doesn`t mean that we shouldn`t do it at all."

Please admit you`re wrong for once.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
0
Reply
Male 314
@demoltrup

That`s not how taxes work in this country. The Buffett rule would be a marginal tax rate. Only income above $1 million would be at 30%. So going from $999,999 to $1,000,000 would increase your taxes by 30 cents.

He didn`t do a good job of explaining it in the video, bu please learn how taxes work before complaining.
0
Reply
Male 60
To see a rough estimate of what people pay with various assumptions, use this tool:
http://www.1040.com/tax-tools/tax-estimator/
0
Reply
Male 60
@dmoltrup: You couldn`t be more wrong. She wouldn`t qualify for EIC as her AGI is too high. She would pay approximately $5,000 in taxes putting her effective FEDERAL tax rate around 14% (this is assuming she has no adjustments to income and uses the standard deduction). This does not include social security (currently @ 4.2 %) and Medicare (@ 1.45%). In total, she pays roughly 22% of her income in taxes. I prepare taxes for high net worth individuals and they frequently pay much less than the average worker as their income is either LT gains (15%), passive investments (free of FICA taxes), or tax free (for federal income tax, not state) investments (Municipal bonds). The facts stated in this video are sound. Also, they would most likely implement a phase in whereby they would not jump to 30% for $1. They might implement a 1% increase for each additional 10,000 earned so they would cap @ 30% around 1,150,000 dollars.
0
Reply
Male 41
Teachers make more than Ive been led to believe.
0
Reply
Male 162
That`s a hell of a tax bracket.. Make $999,999 a year, and pay $180,000 in taxes. Make ONE DOLLAR MORE, and have to pay $300,000! You will suddenly see a LOT of people capping their own salaries.
0
Reply
Male 162
The first example is hogwash. A single mother making $49/year wouldn`t pay any taxes. Earned Income Credit would actually PAY HER, depending on the number of children she has.
0
Reply
Male 514
The argument is fundamentally flawed - no one should pay more than 10% taxes per year TOTAL.
0
Reply
Male 250
[quote]Those of you who argue against this make yourself out to be complete asses. But I may be wrong, and you JUST MIGHT be earning 1million+ a year. That`s the only logical reason anyone would disagree with this.[/quote]
It is just because we aren`t the targeted group?
What kind of logic is that?
0
Reply
Male 25,416
meh....
0
Reply
Male 546
Have all of us pay a flat 15% regardless of our income. The most fair of all.
0
Reply
Male 787
This made a good deal of sense, and seems extremely fair. It`s a rule of thumb with taxes, graduated income tax indeed.

Why should some people be exempt from that? Everyone will benefit from the extra money in the system.

Those of you who argue against this make yourself out to be complete asses. But I may be wrong, and you JUST MIGHT be earning 1million+ a year. That`s the only logical reason anyone would disagree with this.

Oh...I see. You don`t like it because it`s a "democratic" idea? Your labeling yourself and others?

Way to let the party system blind your eyes to progress yet again, 30+ age bracket. My generation is doomed to squalor from your poor choices.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
jacos27: I imagine he`s citing this opinion piece by Dana Milbank.

But Milbank cuts the quote off at "I agree." The full quote is ""I agree, that`s not all we have to do to close the deficit. But the notion that it doesn`t solve the entire problem doesn`t mean that we shouldn`t do it at all."
0
Reply
Male 246
@FoolsPrussia...

I still want to see where he got that from. I want to see who took advantage of Obama`s phrasing to cut his quote out of context. I`m not saying CrakrJak was right or wrong with my response, i want to see his evidence. I`m more criticizing his arguing technique.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
jacos27: He has none. Look at the link I provided. He took it out of context.
0
Reply
Male 246
@Crakrjak.....

proof?

.....
0
Reply
Male 3,445
CrakrJak: That is way, way out of context.

`The president took aim at critics who say, in his words, "This is just a gimmick, just taxing millionaires and billionaires, just imposing the Buffett Rule won`t do enough to close the deficit. "`

Source
0
Reply
Male 246
I also agree with Uthrax. If they earn x% more income, they shouldn`t pay <x% more in takes, they should pay x% more.
0
Reply
Male 10,440
Yeah uh, I agree but... 30% That`s kind of low. Round here` it`s between 40-50 depending on the province. Higher in Europe.

[quote] If anything the percentages should go DOWN. or at least stay the same. [/quote]
Troll or idiot? Maybe both! I`m going with both.
0
Reply
Male 246
@cman7721...ok, but what does that leave left in their pockets? that`s the whole reason why they need to pay more.

take 8g`s away from the single mother, that`s <42 grand a year that she can spend. she also had to pay for her living situation, groceries, monthly mills, etc. she`s left with hardly anything she can spend on leisure. In fact, I bet you (though i didn`t do the math on this one) that she probably has no disposable income.

now take the "UBER 400". take 17.6 mill away from the 110 mill. that`s 92.4 mill they have to pay around with. housing and bills still leave them with plenty of disposable income. In fact, I bet you that most of them probably have been able to pay off their home within a few years, if not, they probably pay their home in full.

THAT is what isn`t fair in this country. and since govt doesn`t have enough money, they definately could use more, so why not get it from the UBER? They obviously can afford it.
0
Reply
Male 77
@cman7721 so they(the uber-400) earn ~2200 times more than the median group, but pay only 360 times the taxes and they should have lower tax rates??
0
Reply
Male 440
This guy needs a bigger shovel...
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Obama has already admitted that this a `Gimmick`.
0
Reply
Male 371
This is a bait-and-switch. He is using tax figures for the 400 highest income earners to justify a tax that will hit millions of people. I don`t know anything about the top 400, but the Congressional Budget Office reports that the top 1% pay an average rate of 29.5%.
0
Reply
Male 1,239
[quote]And the average visitor to I am Bored who makes around $11,000, will pay no Federal Income Tax because their wages are all earned under the table, gargling balls.[/quote]

Now don`t go projecting your life on others.
0
Reply
Male 617
Are you kidding me? that`s not FAIRNESS. Not by any sense of the word.
at 16% taxes, the median group pays an average of just under $8000.
at the same rate, the "UBER 400" paid 17.6 MILLION DOLLARS. thats 360 TIMES MORE. Why should the percentage go up? If anything the percentages should go DOWN. or at least stay the same. DUMB.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
No McBoozerilla. The Buffet rule accounts for .001% of payback to the budget. Not worth it.
0
Reply
Male 3,431
And the average visitor to I am Bored who makes around $11,000, will pay no Federal Income Tax because their wages are all earned under the table, gargling balls.
0
Reply
Male 3,412
Notice how he doesn`t use hard numbers and uses percentages instead.
Even if Buffett earned $1million and only paid 10% in taxes, he would pay two times the salary of his secretary (assuming that 40some-k is correct) just in taxes. 100k > 48k.
Yet the speaker quotes Buffett in saying that Buffett pays less in taxes, besides Capital Gains, how does that even make sense?

And even if they raised the taxes of the rich, they would find some way to "hide" their money to get into a lower tax bracket.
0
Reply
Male 2,543
but what do you do with people that only make 1$...the founders of google. they get paid 1$ from google per year but are worth billions
0
Reply
Male 2,543
didnt warren buffet, bill gates and a bunch of other super wealthy people say they were giving away 99% of their wealth when they die? i`d rather see money go to charities then wasted by the government. but ya, he makes a good point
0
Reply
Male 646
The projected deficit for 2015 is NOT $1.2 trillion. It`s $600 billion and this tax will wipe out 3% of that, which is a good start.
0
Reply
Male 7
well, half of America doesn`t pay any income tax so how is that fare. a lot of people get more back than they put in with the earned income tax credit. FLAT TAX!!! then no one can cry about how unfair it is
0
Reply
Male 10,339
Warren Buffet pays what he pays, because he has no earned income.

His income is made up of capital gains. All of it.

Of course his income is only taxed @15%.

Also, look at my chart. He says his secretary pays 35%.

A secretary makes over $350k?!
0
Reply
Male 317
Funny how Liberals like to ignore the fact that "EARNINGS" vs. "Investments" on already taxed income are two different things, and the reason for the difference in the tax rate... lol - Wow, open a book and learn the topic before attempting to debate it.

Also interesting how Buffet spends millions of dollars to pay the minimum amount of tax possible, yet wants to spear-head a campaign such as this? Why? Because he`s not "earning" anything, his income is from investments, two different things folks...
0
Reply
Male 36,400
Correct @Gerry1: In the 60`s (on his chart) the rich paid a "higher rate" BUT there were so many loopholes they actaully paid LESS of the overall taxes than they do today!

So this guy is basically shilling for the Democrats, not one ounce of truth involved in his `lecture`.
0
Reply
Male 37,888

As in all things politica, it`s slanted.
The richer you are the more deductions, credits, and tax diversions you can use. Those options aren`t allowed to the lower incomes.

Middle Class guy, I pay 23-27 percent, depending on who`s in office. Warren Buffet says he pays 13%. Drop mine or raise his to the same level, that`s all I ask. Fair, flat taxes everyone pays.
0
Reply
Male 646
Unfortunately the House of Representatives is being held hostage by an extremist group called the Tea Party. Moderate Republicans should grow some balls.
0
Reply
Male 36,400
And all that "extra income" won`t pay for the massive Obama spending, not even close!

Look At This!
0
Reply
Male 10,339
Just as an FYI:

Obama made $800k last year.

He donated $200k to charity.



$600k taxable income should = a 35% tax rate right?

He paid 20% tax.

HYPOCRITE! He didn`t "pay his fair share".
0
Reply
Male 226
1. Why do the lower income families "work hard" but the higher income families don`t?

2. The issue is not with the tax rate, it`s with tax

3. Ignore the rate of the "uber" wealthy, and they both make and pay almost 1,000 times more. How isn`t that fair?

4. Flat Tax.
0
Reply
Male 1,229
Instead of raising taxes on the top earners, why not lower the tax rate on the rest of us?

Penalizing those who finance our economy through investment will not help us at all.

If you want fair like this guy suggests, we should all be paying the same rate regardless of what we make.
0
Reply
Male 1,284
Then some butthurt people will say that the richer pay 70% of usa taxes.
0
Reply
Female 2
Link: The Buffet Rule [Rate Link] - Are the top earners in the US really paying their fair share?
0
Reply