The Bucknuts Hot Spot

You do realize tht the whole "willing to pay more" argument doesn't work? They can voluntarily elect to pay more. They chose not to.

I applaud the Obama's with the amount of charitable donations they make. I think it's fairly incredible that they donate that amount of money and the high percentage of their income that it is. I was simply pointing out that he paid less taxes than his secretary, who makes less than him. When someone like Romney does it, it's a crazy travesty. When the Democratic President does it, they are good people who donate a lot. See my point?

Do you know how much money Romney donated in the year 2011? Look that up then let's talk about donations.

This is my area of expertise. The Buffet Rule which essentially would establish a federal tax rate of 30% on capital gains would actually result in lower proceeds for the federal government because investors would monetize their investments by other means such and leveraging and gifting (the latter being a deduction). That is why Clinton lowered the rate from 28% to 20% in 1997. Bush went a step further down to 15%. Depending on the multiple of return and state taxes, the point of indifference is in this 15-20% Federal capital gains rate. If you get it too high, then people will actually derive proceeds from gifting which LOWERS FEDERAL TAX RECEIPTS. So a 30% tax rate is counterproductive to the wealthy paying more taxes. In substance it is a Stupid idea but a good populist message.
(Google Tax Policy Institute Capital Gains and Taxes paid on capital gains and you will see the pattern on the inverse effect of lower federal capital gains taxes and higher tax receipts summarized by the Brookings Institute and the Urban League-not right wing groups)
my bigger problem is that this fits a pattern of ignorance of economics by Obama. I am not sure whether he has a bad team or he just does not listen to them

Ok first lets put this in very simple terms. This to me is about morals. I dont give to craps about well it will only give us XYZ amount of money and in the grand scheme of things. I dont care about the grand scheme of things. My wife is in the military and I am in the video game industry and we paid a higher % tax than most of the richest people in our country. My boss who gave his son a 10,000 dollar watch for his birthday said himself..yeah this should pass its pretty messed up.So dont come in here and tell me about well it wouldn't be a big difference. Its a moral difference and that is what matters. In what damn country do we live in that even the people in this board have forgotten its not always about the money..its the values. If it made us a single dollar and it was morally fair. That is the issue. The tax code is jacked up this is a step to fix it. Anyone who would not support this type of bill man I just say shame on you....do on to others right? yeah..I have voted republican many of times and democrat. I vote for what is right and wrong. Maybe people should do that more often instead of worrying about what side of the isle something comes from. Just my thoughts on this entire mess.

Sounds great until you have to pay for something... The reality is that the government wasn't giving the rich a break. The rich found other means.

People should read MCM's post.

We need the rich and we need big business and we need most of all small businesses. So our policies have to consider how these things are impacted.

joshjoneswol, if your boss is paying less of a % than you, its not because of income tax. Because clearly he isn't W2'ing his income. He's taking in income in a completely different manner.

The issue is that when we increase taxes on investments or dividends or capital gains, then that impacts more than just the Rich. Hence, the reason why the administration proposed this bill.

I have no problem with how the rich bring in their income and at what tax rate. I'm more concerned about being smarter with my own money. I'm not concerned about what the other guy is getting that I'm not getting. If I was, then I would be more angry at all of the Americans that are tax nuetral or actually getting a premium. I'm much more of an individualist. I'm a Libertarian. I mind my own business. Just don't screw with my business.

Therefore, my stance is that the Fair Tax or some sort of flat tax will be the only solution.

Last, its hard to argue here with the overall logic. If Warren Buffett feels he isn't paying his fair share, what is stopping him from paying that difference to the government? Same thing for the Obama's and the Clinton's and the Kerry's and everyone. Sure, they make charitable contributions. So do most of the rich. America is one of (if not) the most charitable country in the world. As someone who was defending the Obama's illustrated, and by doing so made my point, his charitable donations and deductions reduced him to a lower tax bracket. They are called tax shelters. Its when the monetary gain from lowering the tax bracket benefits the overall loss in capital from the donation. Thats why the rich are so charitable including Obama. There is an economic benefit. How is that for "morals"? It helps when you can claim you donated to charity. But they are smiling when they look at their bottom line. It still changes nothing. Obama should pay another 10% to the government if he believes he should be taxed at 30%. If he doesn't want to do that because he made charitable contributions, then that should apply to the rich as well. But those on this board don't seem to want to do that.

The only other solution is to elminate charitable contributions as a tax deduction. Or better yet, eliminate all tax deductions. Once again, this will impact more than the rich. But will also be met with negative consequences.

The point is, there is no moral side to this. We can fabricate one, but thats just what it would be. A fabrication. There is an appearance of lack of morals and there is an appearance of inequity. But that is a ruse. There is far more going on behind the scenes. Otherwise, Buffett would have never made his statement in the first place.

The tax hike would have raised 50 Billion dollars. We hav a 9 Trillion dollar deficit! How would this help?

we need to get our spending under control!! That is the solution.

That's Obama's point - that he pays less than his secretary, he keeps saying so, but conservatives like to spin it. We don't know (and probably won't know) how much the Romneys donated to charity because he won't release his tax returns. We know Obama's because he released his. Quit spinning this, it is Romney who is not transparent.

I BTW am not indifferent to the massive federal deficit and unfunded "entitlements" that this country has. If I were king I would substantially increases taxes and lower spending because I think it is highly immoral to burden the next generation with the fiscal irresponsibilty of my "me" generation (both parties). No child voted for this "taxes without representation".

I would substantially reduce our military footprint, I would restructure social security so that it related to years of work not age (45 years of work for full benefits), I would lower medicare reimbursement for health providers (not the annual doctor fix), I would push educational and medicaid funding down to the states and I would aggressively seek to monetize our natural resources on federal lands with the requisite environment oversight.

On the tax front, I would cap the mortgage deduction on mortgages down to $200,000, I would make health insurance policies taxable to the extent they exceeded the national health insurance policy average, I would extend social security to all income (including municipal bonds interest income) but probably lower the rate slightly and I would tax all pension funds, foundations and endowments like individuals.

And if you want to tax the wealthy, then tax wealth not income. 1% tax on the assets at $1 billion going up to 10% for those with assets
of $40 billion and above. That way Mr. Buffet will pay $4 billion in taxes (Buffett rule's aggregate target is $4.7) and he will feel better about himself

I paid 35% or 42% if I don't include "income" that was taxed but left in an S corp to fund growth. I could've left more in the business if I didn't have to write a check to the govt for 40% tax on profits. That includes property taxes - so every dollar I brought home in 2011 I paid the govt .42 cents. I think I paid my fair share. With Obama's proposal my % would increase....why not increase on those paying under 30%? This is all about the Democrat Robin Hood strategy - take from the rich and give to the poor. Nothing more than buying votes with class warfare. This talk about "morals" is absurd and an obvious reason the class warfare strategy is successful in politics. Both parties play to the emotional vote rather than address the real problems. It's not popular and isn't going to get a vote if you tell the populace more personal responsibility is needed....starting with a huge reduction in spending.

Dem's or Repub's claiming moral high ground is just wack.

If we are going to fix the debt everybody has to pay more not just the rich. Where are the politicians that will tell us what really needs to be done?

How much did Joe Biden give to charity? I heard it was less than 2%.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/47076460 Someone who gets it!! IMO McConnel/Banner should have jumped on this with both feet.

For the past few weeks it seems all we hear from President Obama and his White House team involve taxes and the issue of "fairness." It’s all centered around the so-called Buffett Rule, which would impart a minimum federal tax of 30 percent on those making more than $1 million per year. On Monday, the Senate basically squashed the bill from moving forward. That was a mistake.

The president, his team and those on the left argue that higher taxes on the very top earners is the right and fair thing to do to help those less fortunate. The GOP and others on the right loudly counter that higher taxes on the millionaires will kill jobs and lessen our incentive to deploy capital in productive ways. It’s dominating nearly every press conference and political discussion since we’ve welcomed in the new year.

Both sides make fair points in their arguments. A few wealthy families will pay more and, yes, probably cut some spending. And though the total revenues would fund, at best, a few days of federal spending, at least it’s a little more than Uncle Sam had to begin with.

So who’s right?

Who cares.

The most destructive force of all the attention on the Buffett Rule isn’t in the merits of either argument but rather the argument itself. It is taking away the most valuable commodity of all: time. Time that Congress, the White House and American economic leaders could better use in working to solve the much larger problems we collectively face.

For example, while politicians and pundits spend countless hours discussing and debating a law that, at most, would raise tax revenues of less than 5 percent of our deficit, we’re ignoring:

1) How to pay for the $1 trillion-plus worth of annual deficits we’ll face even if the Buffett Rule is passed.
2) The creation of policies to actually grow the U.S. economy, stimulate job growth and get millions of people back to work, which would add hundreds of billions per year in added productivity, output and tax revenues as the economy improves.
3) How to solve our terrifying obesity epidemic, which is costing taxpayers and the economy hundreds of billions of dollars per year in direct medical costs and lost productivity.
4) How to keep more than 1 million high school kids from dropping out every year, which costs the economy hundreds of billions per year in economic and social costs.
5) How to solve the massive amount of health care fraud in America, which is costing taxpayers more than $100 billion per year in erroneous and fraudulent payments.
6) How to fix and pay for America’s crumbling transportation and energy infrastructure.

The list could go on, but it’s exhausting staring at these numbers. Add them up. Hundreds of billions, many times over. Instead of going after the big prey, politicians on both sides are setting mouse traps. Republicans in particular have fallen into a trap. Instead of pushing the president on the big issues, they’re letting him control the national political dialogue over a relatively small amount of total revenue. Cast as "millionaire defenders," the GOP has cut itself off at the knees with a huge chunk of America, many of whom may consider themselves conservative yet can understand the president’s position.

The GOP should work with Democrats, pass the bill and help America move forward.

Forget millionaires, billionaires and so-called no tax pledges. The real Buffett Rule bottom line is that all Americans are facing trillions of dollars in real problems while Congress dithers over petty cash.

I am all for lowering the tax rates for everyone, but I don't want bigger deficits and a national debt that will crush my children and their future children.

If you think it is moral to let people keep what they earn, then tell me now you propose we pay for defense? Roads? The President's salary? Anything else we use tax money for? Or is that all moral spending? At what point does it become immoral? I need to know the set point at which taxation crosses the line from being moral to being immoral.