Senate Blocks Buffett Rule With 51-45 Vote

While some of us are still fretting about filing our taxes before the deadline, the Senate voted today to put a kibosh on the so-called Buffett Rule, a proposed tax reform intended to guarantee that those earning more than $2 million annually would pay a federal tax rate of at least 30%.

Only last week, the Obama administration was making a very public push for support on the measure, calling it the “most simple, common sense reform” to make sure that the nation’s wealthiest individuals don’t pay a smaller share than those who earn smaller incomes.

Opponents of the Buffett Rule argued that it penalizes those wealthy individuals whose worth is heavily tied to investments, and by doing so, would also stunt economic growth and job creation.

While 51 Senators voted in favor of the reform, the mere majority was nine votes short of the 60 required for it to inch closer to reality.

Republican Susan Collins of Maine was the one member of that party to vote for the bill, while Mark Pryor of Arkansas was the sole Democrat Senator to issue a thumbs-down. Of the four Senators absent from the voting, there was one Democrat, two Republicans and one independent.

Following the vote, President Obama released a statement expressing his displeasure:

At a time when we have significant deficits to close and serious investments to make to strengthen our economy, we simply cannot afford to keep spending money on tax cuts that the wealthiest Americans don’t need and didn’t ask for.

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. Bsamm09 says:

    Would this affect muni bonds?

    • Matthew PK says:

      It will, as I read it.

      I am amazed that people don’t seem to understand how this will affect muni bond yields….

  2. oldwiz65 says:

    The Republicans represent the 1%, not the 99%, so there’s no reason for them to vote for such a measure. If their 1% owners had to pay more taxes, how would they pay their bribes to the Congressmen? They want to keep the goodwill so they can continue to profit from bribes.

    • spamtasticus says:

      Wow. You really think that the “Republicans represent the 1%”? Based on this statement I’m guessing you are under the impression that the democrats represent the 99%. Take a look at the largest contributors to Democratic President and Presidential Candidate Obama:

      http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638

      Now for “Mainstream Media Republican Darling” Romney:

      http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00000286

      Now for the only man not owned by wall street, Ron Paul:

      http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00005906

      It is much better to speak after you have researched than before.

      • Alliance to Restore the Republic of the United States of America says:

        It’s simplistic to say that all Republicans are the 1% and all Democrats are the 99%. No one thinks that. The two party system is nothing but smoke and mirrors to keep the populace divided and confused. Both Dems and Reps are guilty of perpetuating this fallacy.

        The real lines are 99% vs 1%. The ultra rich, politicians and corporations vs. the rest of us they lie to, exploit, economically enslave, politically oppress, criminally ignore and erode the civil liberties of.

        If you continue to think in the Rep v Dem paradigm then you’ve been had along with the rest of them.

        • MonkeyMonk says:

          Ding ding ding … we have a winner.

          +1

        • Worstdaysinceyesterday says:

          Ron Paul 2012

        • Bsamm09 says:

          Sort of like the way you do?

        • Baritonium says:

          I agree with you, but there’s something that I can’t quite figure out: whenever an issue comes up that is pretty clearly divided by lines of class and wealth, Republicans overwhelmingly vote in the favor of the rich, and Democrats overwhelmingly vote in favor of the lower/middle classes.

          I’m sure Democrats get money from rich people/corporations to vote in their interests, but I can’t reconcile that with how the two parties vote.

    • TasteyCat says:

      If the Republicans only represented 1% of the population, while their competing party represented 99% of the population, we would live in a 1 party system. I for one am not in the 1%, but don’t lump me in with Occupy Wall Street either.

      • Leksi Wit says:

        We do have a 1-party system. Open your eyes. It’s about a very few privileged people with loads of money and power vs. the rest of society.

    • nonzenze says:

      (1) The 1% mark for income is ~$150k a year.
      (2) In the 2008 election, voters making $200k or more broke for Obama by a 56:42 (!) margin.
      Obama outperformed McCain among the very wealthy by a large (56:42!) margin.

      But don’t let actual demographic facts get in the way of what was a perfectly good argument.

      http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1
      http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2008/11/05/why-the-wealthy-voted-for-obama/
      http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15471.html
      http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2008/12/how_the_rich_are_different_from_you_and_me.html

      • Naked-Gord-Program says:

        If the Republicans aren’t representing the interests of the 1% then why don’t they STFU and let this bill pass.

        Under the logic presented here that Obama reps the 1% by getting more of their votes *and* as a result of being elected by them he’s raising their taxes it should be exactly what they wanted.

        • KyBash says:

          They didn’t pass it because it’s only purpose was to promote Obama’s image.

          It would have raised nearly nothing, it would have penalized the people who invest in new business, and it would have added to the already bloated and indecipherable tax code.

          It was a political stunt by the White House — anyone who thinks it was anything else is naive.

          • Alliance to Restore the Republic of the United States of America says:

            No, it was a brilliant way to paint Congressional Republicans for what they really are: rich people protecting other rich peoples’ money. This forced those in Congress who think rich people should pay lower taxes to identify themselves in black and white.

            Now we all know which of our elected leaders think the 1% should continue holding the majority of wealth, influence and power in this nation. Now we as the proletariat know which politicians believe they are the masters of economic slavery. Now the mid and lower classes have a defined enemy to eliminate on election day.

            • wade says:

              Like KyBash said, anyone who thinks it is anything other than a political stunt by the White House is naive.

              Unfortunately, butt ponies like you are too distracted playing this game of class warfare to realize that rather than asking “who is gonna pay for it,” we need to be asking the question, “can it ever be paid for?” (of course, the “it” being our deficit spending, our debt, etc.)

              So yes. Pass the Buffet Rule. Enjoy that $50 billion it makes over ten years. That’ll make a huge dent in the $10 trillion in deficits we run during that time.

            • wade says:

              Like KyBash said, anyone who thinks it is anything other than a political stunt by the White House is naive.

              Unfortunately, butt ponies like you are too distracted playing this game of class warfare to realize that rather than asking “who is gonna pay for it,” we need to be asking the question, “can it ever be paid for?” (of course, the “it” being our deficit spending, our debt, etc.)

              So yes. Pass the Buffet Rule. Enjoy that $50 billion it makes over ten years. That’ll make a huge dent in the $10 trillion in deficits we run during that time.

              • Alliance to Restore the Republic of the United States of America says:

                “Class warfare” is an okay term with me. The 1% declared it on me and mine decades ago and I’m nothing if not a realist.

                Was the Buffet Rule political? Yes. Was it theater? No. It served a purpose, which was to clearly identify the enemies of the people to those people who will be in the voting booth come November.

              • Jevia says:

                Hey, a dent in the deficit is better than nothing at all. Its a start, and a start we can afford a heck of a lot better than cutting food and medicine to children, elderly and sick people.

              • loggg says:

                If you don’t like the Buffet rule, what do you suggest we do instead? Cynicism and criticism is easy. Think your ideas, if you have any, will be hot stuff?

      • coffeeplease says:

        Um no, in 2009 low end for the top 1% was $343K – not 150K. And with the rich only getting richer I would suspect that $343K has only shot higher. Do your homework.

        http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/20/news/economy/occupy_wall_street_income/index.htm

      • Alliance to Restore the Republic of the United States of America says:

        “1%” is a convenient name for the ultra rich. Replace the OP’s statement with .01% and it’ll probably be more accurate.

        Still doesn’t change the sentiment of the remark, which is saying that a privileged few enjoy the majority of wealth and power in the nation at the expense of the mid and lower classes.

        Something that will change, one way or the other, if it keeps going the way it is. Economic slavery is only tolerated by a populace for so long before said populace takes steps to change their condition.

      • Maltboy wanders aimlessly through the Uncanny Valley says:

        Yeah, because there’s no such thing as a rich Democrat, or a poor Republican.

  3. Professor59 says:

    Welcome to Greece 2.

    • rmorin says:

      This makes so little sense, I don’t know where to start. Instead please outline how the Greece financial crisis and the US situations are the same? Because they are a very, very, different.

      • PSUSkier says:

        I believe that post was more illustrative than literal. The fact of the matter is we have a pretty massive deficit that needs to be closed through whatever means necessary. These jerkoffs in Congress and the Oval Office (both Democrat and Republican) have no idea what’s going on. Sure Obama is calling for this to pass, and while I agree with anything that increases revenue, he also passed a crapload of legislature that spent ungodly sums of money.

        • rmorin says:

          But American Deficit != Greece Deficit. Neither in amount, nor cause.

          Listen I am not saying we are a-okay as an economy, but to compare us with Greece is just bizarre and ill informed.

          • PunditGuy says:

            The politics of distraction and sound bite. Greece is shorthand for “economy bad; debt burns.” It takes considerably longer to explain how they got where they got, why austerity isn’t helping, and how the U.S. situation isn’t comparable. We have the same problem with Germany on the other side. It’s a major economic engine, and it’s managed to be that despite high labor costs, strong unions, a health insurance mandate… and the whole being in Europe thing.

          • longfeltwant says:

            Your are either being disingenuous or are ignorant of hyperbole or are unable to detect a measured and contextually appropriate use of hyperbole. Which of those is right?

    • PhiTauBill says:

      Michelle Pfeiffer’s major motion pitcture acting debut… sweet.

  4. gman863 says:

    Tax rates for the rich were off the charts in the ’50s and ’60s compared to today.

    Interestingly, this was also when the US economy was at its best.

    So raising the tax rate on the filthy rich is a bad idea….how?

    • The Twilight Clone says:

      Because they’re the “job creators,” that’s how. Don’t you ever doubt the job creators. Don’t disparage them. They create your fucking jobs. Notice all these jobs they’re creating? So thank them and kiss their feet, filthy peasant.

      • rmorin says:

        But you agree that they are greedy right? So if they make X salary and supply Y jobs, then the government wants to increase taxes so they make X-new taxes, what would stop them from then saying screw it, I still want to make X, instead i’m only going to supply Y jobs – new taxes?

        I know that this does not take into account that production decreases with less workers, but again, if they are a greedy and don’t care, why not just stretch their workers thinner?

        It is a pessimistic way to look at for sure, but I don’t think it is that crazy either.

        • Lt. Coke says:

          They’ve already been doing that for years. At some point you start losing money from not having enough workers. They only care about money, so the ‘but higher taxes will keep companies from making jobs!’ is bullshit. You know what keeps companies from hiring people? 1. Economic Uncertainty (Holy balls does a multi-trillion dollar deficit make things look uncertain) 2. The fact that they don’t need to hire people (if there’s not enough demand to make up the cost of hiring employees, there are 0 reasons why you would do it anyway)

          Taxes don’t factor in when they are such a small amount of your total cost. Why in the world would you base your need of employees on how much in taxes you owe?! Why would that take priority over your actual need of employees?

          I’ve been waiting for fucking YEARS for someone to say this to some Republican Senator. I sincerely want to know what their response would be.

          • Consumed says:

            +1

          • crispyduck13 says:

            Senators don’t know how to run businesses, their main talent is making decisions in the best interest of their donors. So if someone did explain this simple logic to one of them, they’d sit there and sputter about freedom and personal responsibility and class warfare, etc.

            • Lt. Coke says:

              Any business I ran would spontaneously combust before the first quarter; my credentials essentially consist of ‘being really good at the google’ – how can my senators be less qualified than me on this issue?

      • Leksi Wit says:

        LOL, Twilight — you made me laugh so hard. I love you for that comment. Bless your heart. I am so tired of people defending the rich based on that argument. It is refreshing to see more folks have had their eyes opened to reality and common sense.

    • Auron says:

      Because if you listen to the right wingers, if the richest Americans are forced to pay more taxes, they won’t create more jobs. Which we all know is bs. Remember the whole Reaganomics thing back in the 80s? Supply-side (aka trickle-down) economics. Didn’t work then, isn’t working now. In case you weren’t around, the theory holds that the more money the richest people have, some of it will trickle down to the poorest, thereby making their lives better. But when corporations are only responsible to shareholders and making sure the company is profitable for the shareholders, this theory doesn’t hold water.

      • tooluser says:

        The government has plenty of money and does not require higher taxes in any form.

        Cut 1% a year until the budget is balanced.

        I don’t particularly care what is cut, but it would be nice to start with extravagant parties, prostitutes, off-the-books holidays and time off for government employees, congressional pork projects, and government benefits for people who do not require them.

    • Alliance to Restore the Republic of the United States of America says:

      +1

    • fs2k2isfun says:

      Correlation does not imply causation.

      Logic fail.

      • Bladerunner says:

        It’s not at all a logic fail. The argument for lowering taxes on the rich has consistently been that it will improve the economy; if our economy is worse than it was when the taxes were higher, then the original argument for lowering those taxes is a “logic fail”.

        • longfeltwant says:

          Moreover, there is a strong correlation between HIGH taxes and HIGH growth. Therefore, it is definitely DEFINITELY wrong to say that lowering taxes increases growth, but it MIGHT be right to say that raising taxes increases growth. It is DEFINITELY wrong to say that increasing taxes reduces growth, at least the kinds of increases to income taxes we’ve had in American history.

          • tooluser says:

            The MORE you use CAPS, the LESS I pay attention to YOU.

            Add in EXCLAMATION MARKS!!! and I might see what all the fuss is ABOUT!!!!!!

            Top ‘o the muffin, TO YA!!!

      • Lyn Torden says:

        It is NOT a causation thing here. It IS an observable FACT that a high tax rate (it was around 70% in the 50′s and 60′s) does NOT cause the economy to be bad, as R’s are currently trying to claim (without any real example or logic to back it up). The real goings on is that the R’s are holding back until they get an R president who will sign laws that let them gouge consumers for profit.

    • wade says:

      Yes. Also interesting is that most of Europe and significant portions of Asia had been reduced to rubble in the 40′s, and so the US had a stranglehold on productivity.

      Hmmm. . .

  5. Me - now with more humidity says:

    No investor stops investing because of a tax rate increase. They simply find ways to make more money. They’re not going to hold their breath and threaten to not make any money until taxes go down.

    Investors invest. It’s what they do.

    • Matthew PK says:

      Risks are considered with the rewards considered. Reducing rewards inherently reduces risk taking with their own money.

      The problem is dual-sided. This government (R and D alike) has sought to insulate certain investors from the consequences of their actions (just look at F&F) and this results an a higher risk tolerance… now they want to reduce potential rewards…

      This notion that minimum tax should be 30% is absurd. I agree that cap gains should be somewhat progressive and somewhat higher… but making them equivalent to income is a stupid idea.
      President Clinton certainly didn’t feel this way! Cap gains rates had always been lower than income rates because they entail a vastly different risk/reward profile.

      • MrEvil says:

        The thing is right now, investors are too safe. With their tax rates low they have little incentive to take risk because it costs very little for them to play it safe. There’s always an equillibrium point, you gotta make playing it safe cost just enough to prompt some risk taking.

  6. Abradax says:

    “At a time when we have significant deficits to close and serious investments to make to strengthen our economy, we simply cannot afford to keep spending money on tax cuts that the wealthiest Americans don’t need and didn’t ask for.”

    This Buffett rule was expected to bring in 46 billion over 10 years. With current budget projections projecting 6 trillion in new debt over the same time period, that means the Buffett rule would take care of approximately .0076% of this. What we can’t afford is the government to continue spending like a drunken sailor.

    • LanMan04 says:

      Learn to do math:

      46 000 000 000 / 6 000 000 000 000 = 0.00766666667

      aka 0.77%, as in more than three-quarters of 1 percent.

      You multiply by 100 to get a percentage. Back to 4th grade with you!

      • Abradax says:

        Oops, forgot to multiply.

        and .7% percent is significant to you? The slight bump doesn’t change my point that we are less than 1 percent, yet somehow THIS is what is going to save us from bankruptcy.

        • shaqfu says:

          It’s not going to save us from bankruptcy, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it. It’s just a part of the solution to a bigger problem. If we fail to make this small step, how are we supposed to make the much harder steps needed down the road?

        • Duke_Newcombe-Making children and adults as fat as pigs says:

          Your absolutely right.

          To continue this line of logic, we should let murderers go free, because, hey…jailing or electrocuting them won’t bring the victim back to life, so what’s the point, amirite!!!111

          Or we could, you know, have people pay their fair share because, it’s…well…fair.

    • Markitect says:

      “We could say they spend like drunken sailors, but that would be unfair to drunken sailors, because the sailors are spending their own money.” – Ronald Reagan

    • Duke_Newcombe-Making children and adults as fat as pigs says:

      You’re absolutely right.

      To continue this line of logic, we should let murderers go free, because, hey…jailing or electrocuting them won’t bring the victim back to life, so what’s the point, amirite!!!111

      Or we could, you know, have people pay their fair share because, it’s…well…fair.

      • TuxthePenguin says:

        You miss the point. For all the print and speeches being wasted on the “Buffet rule”, we could instead be debating the finer points of a wholesale change to the tax code so that everyone pays their fair share, removing all these loopholes one side or the other get frustrated about, simplify it, etc.

        The “Buffet rule” is a political ploy – and everyone knows it. The real question, the cause of the problem, not the symptom, is that we have a complicated tax code that was designed to encourage certain activities. The last overhaul was in 1986. Seems to me that a tax code originally drafted nearly 20 years ago might not be the best fit.

        A better analogy to your murder is that we want to increase the sentence of anyone convicted of murdering a child by 2 months. Would it actually do anything to reduce murders? Most likely not. So why are we arguing over it?

        • longfeltwant says:

          You can call it a ploy of you want to, but I think it’s good politics to point out that your opponents are asshats, and to force them to vote on it. It’s how people decide who to vote for.

          • Nobody can say "Teehee" with a straight face says:

            It’s very depressing that you think that way. You think it’s a good sign of political leadership to waste weeks of time on a pointless change when the country is suffering? It’s people like you that are sustaining this polarized environment where nothing is getting done. Until people like you go away, these pointless political ploys will never go away either.

            This isn’t just a Democrat or Republican issue, either. Both sides do this stupid shit.

            • Bladerunner says:

              The point is, is it valid? The majority of Americans agree that it is. The Republicans don’t. Don’t blame the Dems for politically grandstanding to point out that the Rs don’t want something that most of America wants. A waste of time considering the benefits if it had passed? Perhaps. But then, it should have passed with very little debate; if Rs weren’t douches, they’d have agreed immediately and this would have been a one-day dealie, which wouldn’t have been a “waste”. Instead, they dug in to protect the rich, which only shows where their priorities are, which was longfeltwant’s point.

              • Nobody can say "Teehee" with a straight face says:

                Proof again that this pointless political quibbling works on some people. Kind of depressing, but there you go. EVERYONE already knew what the outcome was going to be. The Republicans already said when it was first brought up what would happen. If everyone knew what was going to happen, why did they spend two months wasting time on it? Just to prove a point? It served no purpose, and did nothing to help anything.

                The day when politicans stop posturing and start actually doing something will be a glorious one indeed. But until that stops working on the voters, I guess it’s a long way off…

                • Bladerunner says:

                  Well, to be fair, it was during Recess, so it’s not as though they could REALLY pass anything else, right?

                  And while you’re right, everyone knew the outcome, by forcing the Rs to actually do it, it proves the point. When Ds say “well, we didn’t bother because we knew the Rs would just get in the way” , the Rs act offended. Now there is no question whose fault this is, is there?

      • Fineous K. Douchenstein says:

        The murderers can stay in jail. Spending has always needed to be reduced, but in places where the money is being simply wasted, which is in quite a lot of various places. The politicians who want to cut spending always look to cut programs, while shoveling equal amounts of money hand-over-fist to pet projects that achieve no results.

  7. LanMan04 says:

    If Republicans keep threatening a filibuster, can’t we just call them on it? Let them filibuster until they run out of steam?

    60 votes is NOT supposed to be the threshold to get any legislation passed.

    • Abradax says:

      Because it works both ways. When republicans control the senate, it takes 60 votes to be able to do anything.

      It would require changing the cloture rules, and neither side is willing to give up that kind of power.

      • LanMan04 says:

        It would require changing the cloture rules, and neither side is willing to give up that kind of power.
        ———–
        I seem to remember something called the “Nuclear Option” that the Republicans were considering back in 2005 or so. Funny who things change….

        • George4478 says:

          In 2005, Bill Frist threatened to use the nuclear option to halt the filibustering of judicial nominees due to the specific Constitutional requirements of voting on judges. That led to the Gang of 14 and a compromise on judicial nominee filibusters. The issue was focused one one specific type of filibuster.

          The use of filibusters/nuclear option in other situations was not an issue in 2005, so today’s situation has nothing to do with it.

    • McRib wants to know if you've been saved by the Holy Clown says:

      We could but we no longer do. The has become a motion and not an actual action.

      Which is retarded beyond imagining and well beyond the founders intent on just how the senate was supposed to function. :/

  8. Happy Tinfoil Cat says:

    Flat tax, no exemptions, it’s only fair.

    • The Twilight Clone says:

      1996 was a long time ago, Mr Forbes.

    • drjayphd says:

      It’s only fair… to the wealthy, who won’t be disproportionately clobbered by such a tax. Nice try.

      • Audiyoda28 says:

        Care to explain that?

        We all pay a flat-tax now when we pay sales tax, right? How is it unfair? Or do you not understand the basic concepts of math?

        So let’s take a closer look at the Buffett Rule, shall we? It would increase tax revenue by approximately $50 Billion over the next ten years (according to the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation: http://goo.gl/ziRhO) or about $5 billion/year. Last fiscal year our government’s deficit (revenue minus expenditures) was $1.56 Trillion. So the Buffett Rule would reduce that deficit by less than 1% each year – The actual number is .320%.

        Where as a flat tax in the neighborhood of 17% is roughly what most Americans pay anyway. So what was your point again? Oh yeah, that a flat tax in disproportionately unfair in some haphazard way you seem to have heard at a moveon.org rally.

        Thanks for playing – try again.

        • [redacted] says:

          He may mean that a flat tax would severely hurt poor people. Especially those with children if that tax credit was removed.

          Just think if all of a sudden your tax breaks were taken away and you had even more taken out of an already low wage. If you make 30,000 a year and have children, bumping up to 17 percent would be a significant change for the worse. With a flat tax, the lower you make, the more burdensome it becomes because it begins to encroach on your cost of living expenses.

          I know this probably wouldn’t work, but I think that the government should be unable to take taxes out of your estimated cost of living. After that is when taxes should be taken. Living below your cost of living expenses because of taxes would suck.

          • rework says:

            No one really expects even a flat tax to start at dollar one. There will still be some form of deduction per dependant. That protects the truly poor.
            What does need to go, however, are all the “refundable” tax credits. In no way should anyone ever get a “refund” of money they never paid. That’s just a way of trying to bypass welfare reform.

      • TasteyCat says:

        I’m being disproportionately clobbered by our current system. I get no loopholes, no deductions, no way to mooch off the system. Meanwhile, 47% of the population pays nothing, but despite that take more than their fair share in government services.

        • ARP says:

          Doesn’t pay INCOME TAX. They pay sales tax, real estate tax, state taxes, FICA, etc. in addition to all the local and state fees that are charged because both sides are too afraid to raise taxes. Instead, they have regressive fees.

          Oh, and how much money are they making to skate by in life so easily? You should look into that.

        • longfeltwant says:

          Boo hoo hoo! I have a bunch of money (because I am middle class) and I’m whining about the fact that hobos don’t pay for their own food stamps! Boo hoo hoo! Being vastly richer than kings and sultans were even one century ago isn’t good enough for me, so I’m going to bellyache about how people who don’t have money, don’t have money! I want the poor to stop being poor!

          Come on, man. Taking money away from you and me and giving it to the poor (basically) is something we do because it makes the world better, not only for the poor but for you and me too. Now we don’t have to step over the carcasses of emaciated babies on the way to work, which is a nice luxury not enjoyed by some in this world. We also get to deny the moral excuse of committing crimes out of bodily necessity: if America feeds every single person, and we do, then nobody has the Jean Valjean excuse. America is a sweetass place to live BECAUSE of big government and high taxes, not despite it. Just look around at all the low-tax places to live, and tell me which one you want to live in: Somalia, Antarctica, Afghanistan…

      • Happy Tinfoil Cat says:

        I’ve been dirt poor, I’ve been wealthy. I have actually seen the tax code, in print. It was ginormous! The vast majority of the tax code is loopholes put there by lobbied congress critters. This is why the average effective tax rate paid by the wealthiest Americans is far lower than the middle class. If we all paid the same 15% it would be much better for us. If the wealthiest (who effectively control the country) had to pay the same as you and me, Congress would have an incentive to streamline.

        To make things sweeter, I’ll add in a $15K per person as the only deduction.

    • longfeltwant says:

      I would be willing to support a flat tax if the flat-tax proponents are willing to eliminate the one deduction which NOBODY seems willing to eliminate:

      THE BUSINESS EXPENSE DEDUCTION

      Rich people don’t pay taxes on almost any of their money, because almost all of their money is shuttled around as “business” money. If I buy a yacht, then I have to pay tax on that; but when Mitt Romney’s investment firm buys him a yacht, that’s a business expense so no taxes.

      This country has apparently decided (long since) that corporations are people, and therefore I demand that they be taxed the same as people: on GROSS income, with the SAME tax brackets. Did you gross more than $55,000 as a business? Great, you owe whatever an individual would pay on that $55,000. This would instantly change the entire tax code, obviously, because an enormous amount of untaxed money would suddenly become taxed, which would mean we would have much lower overall rates. It would be a gigantic tax on the rich.

      And if you won’t take away Richie Rich’s best deduction, then no, you can’t have the meager and pathetic deductions I enjoy.

      • crispyduck13 says:

        Have to stop you right there. Grossing 55k on a small business is nothing. Especially when you’re paying for things like new equipment, advertising, website, etc. If my husband was taxed on that 55k as pure income he’d close within a year.

        To be clear I don’t know what the solution is, but go after the huge companies that actually are hiding income as “business expenses” or write-offs, small business that gross under 150k a year are not strong enough to see 30% of that money go to the taxman.

  9. Shadowfire says:

    If we’re not increasing taxes on the rich because they’re job creators, how about they create some fucking jobs?

    • Auron says:

      Because as I pointed out above, the “job creators” have no responsibility to create jobs. Their sole purpose is to increase profits for their company, thereby increasing profits for shareholders. Spending money to pay people has the opposite effect.

      • BK88 says:

        Basically President Obama admitted that the Buffet Rule is a gimmick and it won’t raise enough money to make a dent in anything. And to Auron, I guess you believe the government knows better how to spend our money than we do. I respectfully disagree.

        • ARP says:

          Defunding Planned Parenthood ring any bells? Or Bobby Jindal’s counter to the state of union about Volcano Monitoring, etc. That was only a few million dollars, so why did he say it?

          After a while, those billions start to add up.

        • Alliance to Restore the Republic of the United States of America says:

          It’s not a gimmick. It’s making everyone pay their fair share of taxes. There’s absolutely no reason why everyone shouldn’t be paying a fair tax. There’s even less reason why rich people should be paying more as the costs of goods and services impact them less due to their higher income.

  10. Markitect says:

    Obama: “At a time when we have significant deficits to close and serious investments to make to strengthen our economy, we simply cannot afford to keep spending money on tax cuts that the wealthiest Americans don’t need and didn’t ask for.”

    What a farce. The Buffet Rule would hardly put a scratch in the deficit, something like half a percent. Higher tax rates cannot possibly balance the budget. Even if you taxed the rich at 100%, it would only raise about $365 billion per year. But in the first six months of this fiscal year, the deficit was $777 billion. The ONLY way to bring down the deficit and bolster the economy is to reduce spending. People need top stop fixating on the rich (envy and class warfare) and start demanding politicians make deep spending cuts to balance the budget.

    • Kimchi says:

      The farce is that you think spending cuts is the ONLY way to tackle the deficit. It’s not. We need to cut spending AND raise taxes. And there is a good reason to focus on the rich. Between 1979-2007, after-tax income for the top fifth increased by 10%, most of that going to the top 1%. Whereas all the other groups saw a decrease. Those figures come from the CBO.

      • TasteyCat says:

        Tax increases can be a part of the solution. A very small part of the solution. Getting reckless spending under control is the vast majority of it. Either people will accept that we can’t keep going like this forever now, or they’ll accept it in a decade when the situation in Greece looks like a stroll through Candy Land.

        • ARP says:

          You mean like a 10 to 1 spending cuts to tax increases?

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASQNITVweLo

          Or when Obama offered up 3 to 1 on spending cuts and tax increases?

          • Sengfall says:

            How about the 99.3% to the .7% that the buffet rule would have taken care of. 10 to 1 or 3 to 1 is still waaaaaay too little.

            • ARP says:

              Nice try at a redirect. One was a real event where trillions in savings were offered up and one was a hypothetical on Republicans willingness to compromise. So, your focus on the Buffet Rule only, rings hollow. Of course if you combined the Buffet rule, allowing the tax cuts for the wealthy to expire, and put in the public option for HCR, you start having significant savings.

      • Markitect says:

        When substantial spending cuts can be approved, then I’d be willing to listen to ideas on increasing revenue. We have to address the elephant in the room first. We have to learn to live within our means.

        • ARP says:

          Obama offered around 3 to 1 cuts to taxes as part of the grand bargain to significantly reduce spending. In the Republican debates, all the candidates turned town 10 to 1 cuts to taxes in order to get the debt/deficit under control.

    • Auron says:

      The 1% don’t stay the 1% by spending more money than they have to. SO that pushes the burden of revenue onto the middle and lower classes. So the middle and lower classes, the people who actually spend money, now have less money to spend. Why shouldn’t those making millions (and sometimes billions) of dollars every year pay as much (or even a little bit more) as a percentage of their income than the middle and lower classes? Oh that’s right – they worked hard to get where they are and therefore should be rewarded by paying a smaller percentage of their income into taxes than “regular folk”. At least that’s the argument a lot of them will use. After all, making several million a year (plus having to pay taxes) isn’t enough to afford multiple homes, multiple vehicles, AND sending the kids to the elitist of the elitist private schools.

      • Sengfall says:

        I think the point is that if the government STOPPED SPENDING THE MONEY, then the burden would disappear anyway…

        • longfeltwant says:

          “spending the money” describes *literally* every single thing done by every single government. Can you maybe be a little more specific? Is it Social Security you want to stop spending money on? or the military? stop paying interest on our debt?

    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

      The fact it doesn’t solve the deficit issue all by itself is not a reason to not enact it. Even half a percent is something.

      Or, should we tell all AIDS patients that they can’t have AZT any more? After all, it doesn’t cure AIDS, so what’s the point?

  11. BeyondtheTech says:

    What’s next? Lunch, then golf, obviously.

  12. Extended-Warranty says:

    Since this money won’t fix all of our problems, we are against it?

    Let’s roll this out, close more loopholes, and ensure some of that 40% of households paying no tax start paying. Combine that with some budget cuts, and we have progress.

    There is no 1 or 17 fixes that will fix this economy. We need to start making progress and stop screwing the middle class.

    • ARP says:

      We can start by defining the problem. Those people don’t pay Income Taxes, they pay all other other types of taxes and even pay FICA, etc.

      BTW- Good luck getting money out of those who are not working because they are elderly or retired (1/3) or earn less than $20K per year (over 1/2). You’re left with around 15% (no, the percentages are not exact), that should probably pay more.

    • coffeeplease says:

      Or we could simply roll back the Bush tax cuts which would solve about 75% of our deficit issues over the next 5 years. Getting out of these idiotic wars would work out the remainder. Also see: Clinton years.

      • PunditGuy says:

        I think the tax cuts are closer to a third of the issue. Add in the wars and I think you’re getting up to about half. (That’s from some chart I saw a few months back.)

  13. smo0 says:

    Trickle down economics and giving rich people more money to create jobs – only works when they do just that – create jobs.

    However, most people make their money with little or from no involvement of other employees, they suck the economy of it’s finances and resources and outsource jobs for pennies.

    Greed is winning, guys.

  14. thomwithanh says:

    It will NEVER pass until the Dems control both the House and Senate with fillibuster-proof majorities

    • prizgrizbiz says:

      You had me at ‘never’.

    • SavijMuhdrox says:

      I get the feeling the Democrats would have shot this down if the roles were reversed. It was a political game of chicken and the Republicans took the bait and made sure to protect their arses and shoot it down. Everyone in Congress would have been hit by this ‘rule’.

      I’m Middle Class and my butt hurts, sick of the government not even buying me dinner after they screw me.

  15. B2BigAl says:

    The Buffett rule is a complete joke. It’s nothing but political theatre to make the republicans look bad, it doesn’t solve any problems or raise any substantial amount of revenue. The repubs have backed themselves into a corner with their silly “no tax increases, no matter what” stance, and Obama is simply exploiting it to back his class warfare reelection campaign.

    But as usual, all the partisan cheerleaders will parrot their talking points “republicans hate poor people, evil 1%ers!”, “They’re the job creators, we can’t tax them!”. This county is so screwed.

    • ARP says:

      Sorry, this is a false equivalency. Obama offered 3 to 1 spending cuts to tax increases during the budget debate and the Republicans turns them down. During the Republican debates, all the candidates turned down 10 to 1 Spending cuts to tax increases. And if we want to name gimmick budget debate items, what about planned parenthood, etc.

    • eirrom says:

      I guess if the bill doesn’t solve the deficit problem, then why bother.

      /sarc

    • Jevia says:

      Well, I believe the majority of republicans did sign a pledge not to raise taxes. So its not exactly a “talking point” but more of the mandate of one person with a lot of power controlling our Congress (and that person isn’t the President). When will King Norquist allow us peasants a bit of food?

  16. B2BigAl says:

    The Buffett rule is a complete joke. It’s nothing but political theatre to make the republicans look bad, it doesn’t solve any problems or raise any substantial amount of revenue. The repubs have backed themselves into a corner with their silly “no tax increases, no matter what” stance, and Obama is simply exploiting it to back his class warfare reelection campaign.

    But as usual, all the partisan cheerleaders will parrot their talking points “republicans hate poor people, evil 1%ers!”, “They’re the job creators, we can’t tax them!”. This county is so screwed.

    • SPOON - now with Forkin attitude says:

      seems fairly succssful at that stated goal.

    • Alliance to Restore the Republic of the United States of America says:

      No, it was political theater to make Republicans look like what they are: political elitest rich people protecting the money of other political elitest rich people at the expense of the mid and lower classes.

      I for one think this bill did a great job.

  17. HogwartsProfessor says:

    Screw them anyway. I had to take an extra freelance job last year to make ends meet and now I have to pay taxes on that income. That’s fine, but it would have been easier if I didn’t lose my job because now the tax money has to pay my bills and I can’t do both. Plus my state is taxing me $116, up from like $18 last year. Probably because of all the tornadoes. Hellooooo I already donated $100 worth of stuff to Joplin.

  18. BazinFS says:

    Not raising taxes != tax cuts. Also, you cannot say we have “deficits to close” and then go on to talk about how we need the money for “investments to make to strengthen our economy”. The President is talking out of both sides of his mouth again.

    • PunditGuy says:

      Growth closes deficits better than austerity. Remember the last time we ran a surplus?

      • Matthew PK says:

        Does increasing taxes create more growth?

        Last time we had a theoretical surplus was a tremendous explosion of *private sector* innovation.
        Did higher tax rates cause this?

        I am not really a supply-sider…. but it seems like you’re advocating some sort of “reverse-supply-side”

  19. vicissitude says:

    I don’t mind playing the game when the rules apply equally to *everyone*. In this case ‘the game of taxes’ is unequal in every regard. Congress was never going to pass this, because the new corporate agenda is *no* taxes, eliminate programs by underfunding them, or just outright pulling the plug, so they can claim just how ineffective they are and continue tearing down the American infrastructure so many fought to build before us. For those of you who thinks this does not make a difference, that isn’t the point, the point is the pendulum has swung far too much in one direction and moving it even a little in the right direction is _at least_ something.

    Also for those who *think* your political salesperson (Presidential / Congressional candidate.) is talking about YOU when it comes to lowering, or eliminating taxes, guess again. That agenda is reserved for Corporate America and YOU are just not included. In other words, you don’t matter to congress and this action is absolute proof of it. So enjoy your tea!

    • proliance says:

      If the rules applied to everyone, then everyone would pay taxes. Only half the people in this country pay taxes.

      As far as corporate America getting the breaks, the US has the highest corporate tax rate in the world.

      • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

        Highest corporate tax rate with highest rate of exemptions.

        Some companies do, in fact, pay nothing in taxes, through loopholes and exemptions. While we may have the highest corporate tax rate, I doubt many corporations across the globe have the priviledge of paying no taxes.

      • crispyduck13 says:

        Yeah we need to come down harder on those assholes making less than $20k a year for not paying any taxes, it’s about time they stopped gaming the system. Nevermind those corporations who have EFFECTIVE tax rates of, like, zero. It’s fine because their STATED tax rate is super high.

        • tooluser says:

          Minimum $1 federal income tax per person each year. And it must be sent in as a check or cash.

          Everyone should feel the bite, and resent it. To do otherwise is to have surrendered your humanity.

          And I’m a monkey. No taxes for us! Tee hee hee!

  20. waicool says:

    if you tax the rich 100% of their income it would cover somewhere around 6% of the debt so what will they do next? glad you asked….they EXPAND the program …soon they will be dipping into the middle class income ranges to get their tax revenue fix. take a look at the ‘evolution’ of the alt. min tax. controlling spending is the only sustainable solution. buffett is a clown, the buffett rule is a joke if it ain ‘t class warfare.

    • Auron says:

      In case you haven’t noticed, the middle and lower classes are already paying more and more in taxes than the wealthiest. SO what should we do then? Eliminate any and all taxes on corporations (remember, corporations are teople poo!) and the wealthiest, thereby shifting the entire burden onto those who can least afford it? We pretty much already have a de facto aristocracy, so why not just keep reinforcing that?

    • Alliance to Restore the Republic of the United States of America says:

      By that rationale, the one where you say no amount of taxation will pay off the debt, then we should just abolish taxes altogether. That way everyone is equal in their not paying off the government’s debt. Right?

      Or is it rich people you think should pay no tax at all and the middle and low classes who should bear all the burden?

      If we’re all in this together in terms of the debt, why are the middle and low classes more in this than the upper class?

      How is it morally right that rich people pay less income taxes than anyone else?

    • longfeltwant says:

      Yep. That’s the idea: to match incomes and expenses. Congratulations, you now understand the proposed solution to the deficit: pay for the government we bought.

  21. waicool says:

    can we nominate the gubbermint as worst company? i smell poo, the buffett rule is the latest turd floating by

  22. skakh says:

    Is there any longer a question who the GOP represents? Really, why does anyone vote for anyone in the GOP? Is hatred (of gays,women, children, color, etc.) really a sufficient reason to vote for a Republican and destroy intelligence?

  23. Alliance to Restore the Republic of the United States of America says:

    This measure painted, in very simple terms, Congressional Republicans for what they are: rich people protecting other rich peoples’ money.

    A brilliant move. Now the American people have clearly identified and painted targets to vote out of office. It erases the party lines and draws them where they really are: 99% vs 1% lines.

    Make all the arguments you want, but it comes down to this: everyone should pay their fair share of taxes. Rich people should, at the very least, pay the same in taxes as everyone else. There’s no fair, equal or just argument against everyone paying their fair share. Period.

    • Cicadymn says:

      So they should pay the same amount as 47% of people paying nothing?

      If I believe all the kneejerk and appeals to emotion in these comments then it sounds like that’s exactly what they’re paying. So you should be thrilled.

      • Alliance to Restore the Republic of the United States of America says:

        That 47% barely can afford the goods and services to live in the first place. The rich buy those goods and services too but it takes a fraction of their wealth to do so. Of course they should pay more taxes.

  24. CharlesFarley says:

    The wealthy like Buffet get most of their income from either the conversation of assets into income (capital gains) or from dividends.

    1) In order to garner capital gains from an investment you have to first earn a buck and choose to invest it. If you earned it, you’ve paid taxes on it at least once – provided you are compliant.

    2) If you receive a dividend, the company that paid it to you has already been subject to a 35% corporate income tax – unless you are GE or a major tax avoider like Google. Then after corporate taxes have been paid, dividends declared and paid, then does the recipient pay another tax at the lower rate of 15%.

    To strictly look at tax from the perspective of the last person in the process flow misses a little bit.

    • Alliance to Restore the Republic of the United States of America says:

      All very true and astute. I applaud you for the factual way you present this.

      However, income is income, whether from capital gains or not. If it’s income it should be taxed just like everyone else’s income is taxed.

      • CharlesFarley says:

        The government wants investment to have a preference, thus the different rate. No different than the mortgage interest deduction. Loved by many and hard to remove.

        “Specifically because it’s only rich people who have the extra money to invest. “

        Patently wrong.

        • Bladerunner says:

          “The government wants investment to have a preference, thus the different rate. No different than the mortgage interest deduction. Loved by many and hard to remove.”

          – patently wrong.

          It is NOT a deduction, it is an entirely different rate, so the situations are not at all identical.

          And it’s not “patently wrong” that only the wealthy ahve enough extra money to invest. While many invest as part of their retirement, as I understand it that doesn’t really fall under the capital gains umbrella. The only people, and please correct me if I’m wrong, who are in danger of capital gains taxes are those who had the disposable income to invest in a way that, rather than getting money at their retirement, will get money now. If you posit that those people are NOT only the wealthy, I would ask, who are those people who are NOT wealthy who have enough disposable income to invest in ways that the capital gains taxes will be a major issue for them?

          And bear in mind, if you make 6 figures, you’re wealthy.

          • CharlesFarley says:

            “And it’s not “patently wrong” that only the wealthy ahve enough extra money to invest.”

            You work in the public sector and have a pension, guess what, it is invested. You work in the private sector and have a pension, 401k or 403b, guess what, it is invested. You have money in the bank, it is invested….poorly, but it is invested.

            Thank you for playing. Come again.

            • Bladerunner says:

              And you don’t pay taxes on the dividends from the bank’s investments, you get a flat interest which is not taxed at “capital gains”, it’s taxed as regular income, right? And you don’t pay income taxes on the money you put into your 401(k) (which is why there are big penalties if you withdraw early), so that’s money you never paid taxes on.

              So…again, gimme a good example (because, honestly, I do know that I’m neither a tax nor an investment guru) of a time when you might be affected by capital gains tax but not be wealthy.

    • Bladerunner says:

      That is a stupid, stupid argument.

      When I am paid my wage for working, I pay x taxes on it, despite the fact that the company pays taxes on it as income, and whoever gave the company the money presumably paid taxes on it.

      Yet if that money comes from an investment rather than a wage, it’s taxed less, even though the “already taxed” argument is exactly the same.

      Why?

      Specifically because it’s only rich people who have the extra money to invest. That is the most bass-ackwards logic ever, and to say it’s because “taxes have already been paid” is ludicrous. That original dollar you earned and got taxed on was spent, in exchange you received stock, a tangible asset, like if I buy a car. Except your tangible asset is a money tree, that provides occasional fruit, that you don’t want to have to pay an income tax on. If anything, it should be taxed exactly the same as lottery income, because it’s mostly the same (except that Lottery has generally lower odds, and a single payout rather than multiple).

      • CharlesFarley says:

        “That original dollar you earned and got taxed on was spent, in exchange you received stock, a tangible asset, like if I buy a car. Except your tangible asset is a money tree, that provides occasional fruit, that you don’t want to have to pay an income tax on”

        I never said I didn’t want to pay tax on my dividend income. If one looks at that dollar I have to spend after taxes have been figured during the current cycle (let’s use a calendar year)…it had to start out as $2 at the corporate level for me to have $1 at the investor level. 50% is more than enough tax to pay to have a $1 in your hand in a given year.

        • Bladerunner says:

          Your argument is that “the taxes have already been paid” and so therefore, the tax rate should be lower. I argue that you have not paid those taxes. The taxes were paid on the entire company, and then dividends came out. Generally, you’re right, that the taxes take a big dent out of what you get as a dividend. But they don’t tax the dividends before and after handout, they tax the company, then what’s left is dividend, which then you’re taxed on, which doesn’t seem to be different from my analogy.

          For what it’s worth, I agree with your other statement elsewhere that the tax code just needs to be simplified and flattened, with the removal of many little perks that have been inserted by politicians.

          • CharlesFarley says:

            “For what it’s worth, I agree with your other statement elsewhere that the tax code just needs to be simplified and flattened, with the removal of many little perks that have been inserted by politicians.”

            Thanks.

            If you simplify the tax code it can be made fair. CPAs may be looking for work, but then nobody wept for carriage manufacturers 100 years ago…

    • longfeltwant says:

      There is no last person. Money goes from person to person, and when it changes hands the government sometimes levies a tax. When I earn my paycheck, that money was earned by my company and taxes were paid on those sales. And those sales were made with income other people earned.

      Yeah, when a corporation makes a profit we tax them. When they transfer money to another party (you, me, stock owners) then we tax that. When those recipients spend the money in a store, we tax that. It’s called an economy. To say that money was “taxed twice” is nonsense, of course it was taxed twice, it is taxed an infinite number of times, each time the money is used for something else. To complain about that would be like complaining about “twice pissed water”. Yeah, guess what, your drinking water was beaver piss, and before that it was dinosaur piss.

      • CharlesFarley says:

        “When those recipients spend the money in a store, we tax that. It’s called an economy. To say that money was “taxed twice” is nonsense, of course it was taxed twice, it is taxed an infinite number of times, each time the money is used for something else.”

        View it from a finance and accounting perspective, you only count things once in a given period – in this case a fiscal or calendar year. If you want to view it from a transfer of ownership perspective, fine with me, we should institute a VAT then….that would simply things ;-)

  25. CharlesFarley says:

    The right answer is to simplify the tax code. Simplicity will offer clarity and a more level playing field. Too many politicians have embedded favors for individuals and companies in the hundreds of thousands of pages of tax law in this country.

  26. Bobster says:

    How about we do something novel in its simplicity ?

    Everyone pays taxes.

    From the uber rich all the way down to the very poor and all in between, this would raise for more $$ than trying to soak those who have.

    Close all the loopholes and simplify the tax code.

  27. Green Beer Day says:

    What is a fair share?

    • CharlesFarley says:

      “Fair Share” follows the same logic of George Carlin’s analysis of drivers….anyone driving slower than you is an idiot and anyone driving faster than you is a maniac.”

      Anyone earning more than you needs to pay more, anyone earning less than you is paying too much.

    • Cicadymn says:

      Fair Share means:

      Nothing for our friends
      Crippling for everyone else.

  28. proliance says:

    We have a $1.6 trillion deficit. Its not going to be made up by making a small group of people pay more in taxes.

    When the average American family wants to balance its budget it stops spending more money than it takes in. A novel idea, but it works.

  29. Sengfall says:

    Meh. It doesn’t do anything anyway. Let’s just stop spending so much freakin money…..

  30. Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

    And now Obama has fodder to support his re-election that the GOP just wants to keep fat cats rich. It was really a win-win for him.

  31. maxamus2 says:

    It always amazes me. I came from nothing, I worked very hard and very SMART to become financially independent, never got a handout or even help along the way.

    Why should I even be paying a penny more than someone say down the street? I don’t use the roads more, the schools more, the library, parks, municipalities, trash, etc… Actually, I could argue that the family of 8 (compared to my 2) has a much larger burden on my area, why don’t they pay MORE in taxes? Why should it be hinged on the money I make when I worked to get to where I am? Let alone why should I pay a higher RATE?

    And even when I pay those higher taxes I am still labeled the “bad guy”. For some reason, the “American Dream” is to become successful but the moment you do that you are now the enemy and you need to pay more to help support those that don’t work as hard or smart and even when you pay you are still the bad guy.

    The media wants to highlight the very few cases of some uber rich person, but in reality it is those of us who have made it on our own that pay the price. It also includes the hard working middle class people.

    But again, explain to me why I even pay a penny more than someone else? It’s not like I can vote more or that my vote counts more, or that I use more services, etc….

    • Alliance to Restore the Republic of the United States of America says:

      You pay more in taxes than rich people because they made the tax code.

      • AustinTXProgrammer says:

        He said financially independent. That implies at least modest wealth. I’m working to get there myself.

        It seems to me that people with no kids are taxed higher. With 2 children in 2010 I had an effective tax rate of 4% (just income tax, not FICA) on a gross income of 80k. In 2011 I had an effective tax rate of 18% on a gross of $215k.

        • Alliance to Restore the Republic of the United States of America says:

          I’m also more or less financially independent. I think the rich (>1M) should pay at least what I do in income taxes.

    • longfeltwant says:

      You “should have to” because you live in a democracy. The premise of democracy is that it gives legitimacy to policies. It is the policy of the people of the United States to have an income tax which is progressive with deductions. You “have to” pay that because you agree to continue living in a society with three hundred million other people who say you have to.

      You’re not allowed to pretend that paying taxes is a punishment or that people pay taxes because they are the “enemy”. You pay taxes because you enjoy living in this super-sweetass democratic society. You might have noticed that most Americans think America is the most super-sweetass place in the world to live, and it comes along with some rules. One of those rules is that you recognize the fact that this super-sweetass democratic society is super-sweetass BECAUSE of big government supported by high taxes, not DESPITE of it.

    • Kamaria says:

      Because it’s how the system works. The more the wealth concentrates upwards, the more control the wealthy have in general, and the less money the lower percentage can take advantage of. If nobody paid anything in taxes, you could say goodbye to all of those nice things that keep the country running in the first place. Even so called ‘entitlement’ programs like Medicare, Social Security, while you might not need them, others do.

      And if you want to argue that the poor don’t ‘deserve’ any assistance, they don’t necessarily deserve the situation they’re in, either. Does it really harm the rich if their billions are cut down, and they’re still left with billions? All the money in the world is meaningless to them, even if you took 99% of a billion that would still be ten million, enough for a very large group of people to live on over the course of a year, while the lower classes struggle to make ends meet from paycheck to paycheck. Wanting to keep what you make is nice, but if nobody ever shared, the world would be a pretty crappy place.

  32. Alliance to Restore the Republic of the United States of America says:

    The economy does better when taxes on the rich are high. Check this out:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/a-rich-guys-case-for-much-higher-taxes/2012/04/17/gIQA384rNT_blog.html

    It’s all there and indisputable.

  33. Lolotehe says:

    “Wealthiest Americans”

    You mean people in congress, right?

  34. bwcbwc says:

    “Opponents of the Buffett Rule argued that it penalizes those wealthy individuals whose worth is heavily tied to investments, and by doing so, would also stunt economic growth and job creation.”

    Of all the bogus arguments…If all these investors were investing in IPO/SPOs exclusively, that argument might hold water. But secondary trades on the open market represent over 90% of investment activity. These trades provide NO money at all for additional growth to the companies whose stock is being traded. When you buy a stock from a broker, the money goes to the broker and to the seller. It’s just a way of keeping score and providing a short-term evaluation of the financial performance of the companies.

    Maybe instead of taxing income, the government should tax the stock trades themselves. A buy and hold investor is better for the company and for the economy than someone who is doing short-term speculation.

  35. mopman64 says:

    Everyone that is blaming the Repubs for turning this down; last time I checked the senate was controlled by the dems. Look it up go ahead, I’ll wait.

    • Bladerunner says:

      I did look it up. Obviously you didn’t. Though the Democrats have a majority, they needed 60 votes to pass this, and they do not have a majority of 60, they have 51. One Dem crossed party lines, one Repub crossed party lines. Except for those two, the vote was on party lines; the Republicans blocked this from going forward.

  36. Alliance to Restore the Republic of the United States of America says:

    It was a justice of the Supreme Court, Louis Brandeis, who wrote in 1897, “we may have a democracy or we may have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both.”

  37. dush says:

    The $1 million base amount gets pushed up by CPI in $10,000 increments so after the first year someone making just over $2 million wouldn’t actually have to pay 30% anymore.

  38. Kamaria says:

    When did it become that a simple majority was not enough to pass legislation?

  39. Sengfall says:

    No, Obama, that’s incorrect. What we can’t afford is to pay for so much overseas military operation, foreign aid, subsidies, corporate bailouts, and bloated big brother bureaucracies devoted to undermining individual rights..