White House pushes Buffett rule on taxes
UPDATED 7:41 a.m ET
(CBS News) -- A new report today from the White House argues that making America's richest pay at least 30 percent tax rate, is more "a basic issue of tax fairness" than a way to generate lots of new revenue for a debt-ridden government.
On a campaign fund-raising trip today to Florida, President Obama will make the tax fairness argument as part of his latest pitch for the "Buffett Rule."
The proposal is due for a vote next week in the Senate, and Mr. Obama has made it a key element of his plan for deficit reduction.
The issue also lends itself to Mr. Obama's re-election campaign. If Republicans block passage of the Buffett Rule, he can try to portray them as defenders of an unfair tax policy benefiting the nation's rich.
Buffett Rule: Policy prescription, or political opportunity?
Buffett Rule by the numbers
Just yesterday, White House officials conceded the Buffett Rule would only produce $47 billion over ten years in additional tax revenue for the government. That amounts to just 0.6 percent of the $7 trillion in spending projected for that period.
"We think it's a meaningful amount of money," said Jason Furman, principal deputy director of the National Economic Council at the White House. But more important to the administration, it addresses "a basic principle of tax fairness."
In fact, that's the title of a White House report released today meant to provide political ammunition to back up the president on the issue of the Buffett Rule and tax fairness.
"The situation is the result of decades of the tax system being tilted in favor of high-income households at the expense of the middle class," asserts the White House report.
Among the arguments in the report:
* the average tax rate paid by the very highest-income Americans has fallen to nearly the lowest rate in over 50 years.
* in 2009, 22,000 households making more than $1 million annually paid less that 15 percent of their income in taxes.
* many high-income Americans pay less in taxes than do middle class Americans. "This is fundamentally unfair," states the report.
The arguments likely sound familiar. Since his State of the Union, Mr. Obama has given 19 speeches in which he made his argument for the Buffett Rule. Ten of those speeches were campaign fundraisers.
The proposal is named for billionaire Warren Buffett, who said it was wrong that he paid a lower effective tax rate on his income, than did his secretary.
Many high-income earners pay a lower effective tax rate because their capital gains are taxed at a decidedly lower rate than earned income. And many rich people accumulate far more capital gains than in salary. Congress deliberately lowered the capital gains tax in order to encourage
America's wealthiest to invest in the economy and help create jobs. Now the White House portrays the rich as selfish and avoiding payment of their "fair share."
There's an Alternative Minimum Tax in place to make up the difference, but a White House official says the AMT has a number of loopholes and many millionaires are subject to it, but would be impacted by the Buffett Rule, if enacted.
Mr. Obama will deliver his Buffett Rule speech at Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton.
It's scheduled in between a re-election fund-raiser earlier in Palm Beach Gardens and two others later in the day in Hollywood, Fl., and Golden Beach.
By scheduling a policy address during a fundraising trip, the president reduces the cost of his political travel to his campaign victory fund.
Popular in Politics
- FBI: Surveillance info helped reveal subway, stock exchange bombings 169 Comments
- Jesse Jackson Jr. asks to serve jail sentence before wife
- Obama: "Very easy to slip-slide" into deeper Syrian involvement
- Obama on NSA programs: Americans "not getting the complete story" 245 Comments
- IRS scandal: Is partisanship overshadowing facts? 163 Comments
- Snowden: U.S. gov't destroyed my chance for fair trial 299 Comments
- Supreme Court strikes down Arizona voting law 912 Comments
- Former critic McCaskill pushes for Hillary Clinton 2016 bid
And spending he did, big time as well. Bush set the previous record of $3.4 trillion of deficits in eight years and Obama added $5 trillion in deficits in just four years. What do you call that, changing your mind, or Marxist overachiever... Start thinking Cuba...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2012/02/29/romneys-tax-plan-would-add-3t-to-deficit-over-a-decade/
Analysis: Romney tax plan would most benefit wealthy
WASHINGTON -- Mitt Romney's tax plan would cut taxes for fewer than half of American households, with the wealthy getting most of the benefits, according to an independent analysis released Thursday.
Some taxpayers at the lower end of the scale - those who make less than $40,000 a year - could face a tax increase under Romney's plan.
Under the presumption that the Bush-era tax reductions are extended - as Romney has proposed - nearly all Americans who make more than $1 million would get tax cuts that average $150,000.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/01/05/134968/analysis-romney-tax-plan-would.html
Romney Tax Plan Cuts Revenue $3.4 Trillion in Decade
Tax breaks in Mitt Romney's latest plan would cut government revenues by at least $3.4 trillion over the coming decade, potentially deepening federal budget deficits.
The two big changes in Mr. Romney's new plan include a 20% drop in rates from current levels, as well as a repeal of the Alternative Minimum Tax, which was originally intended to snare wealthy people who pay little tax, but now increasingly reaches middle-class households.
The AMT repeal would cost the government at least $670 billion over a decade, while the rate reduction would be about $2.75 trillion. (Mr. Romney also wants to extend all the current Bush-era tax cuts, which means another $5.4 trillion bite out of future government revenues, including more money for AMT relief.)
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/03/01/study-romney-tax-plan-cuts-revenue-3-4-trillion-in-decade/
ONLY Congress can enact legislation that would change the tax code or remove the AMT, but just like the "doc fix" on Medicare, our dysfunctional congresscritters keep kicking the can down the road.
Just like the WSJ article states, "the AMT repeal would cost the government at least $670 billion over a decade," so stop blaming our President in your highly-partisan way, and understand that the entire archaic tax code needs to be re-written, and we must increase revenue from the lowest point in post-WWII America!
Heavens no, but you're proving to be nothing but a fiscal liberal!
The major problem with willard romney/ryan's budget is that making the dumb bush tax cuts permanent would cost us $4 Trillion over the first decade and their extra tax cuts for the wealthy would cost us another $2 Trillion over the decade, so we'd already be in a $6 Trillion HOLE with their ignorant tax cuts for the wealthy, and there is just NO WAY to cut spending in that magnitude to balance the budget!!
We're totally screwed with republican "supply side economic insanity" and you fiscal liberals supporting that insanity, whereas increasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans that have been doing the best over the past decade along with the corporations, would DECREASE the budget deficits and be FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE for a change!!
This isn't just Paul Ryan's budget -- it's also Mitt Romney's platform:
Medicare, Social Security, health care to education, and cuts to the bone of some of the most basic government services - while not asking a cent more of the wealthiest Americans! Isn't it a destructive plan? Isn't a tale from the Trojan War?!!!
This isn't just Paul Ryan's budget -- it's also Mitt Romney's platform.
Here's just a few of the things that would happen to Americans with the budget the GOP is backing.
Medicare? They'd throw it out the window, and give seniors a voucher that would amount to the second-cheapest health care plan in their community. Education? This plan would lay off thousands of teachers nationwide, and drastically cut financial aid -- actually making college more expensive than it currently is. Investments in clean energy? Cut by a fifth.
Perhaps even more telling are the things they're fighting to protect: four billion annually in taxpayer-funded subsidies for giant oil companies that don't need it; increases in defense spending completely beyond what the Pentagon even asked for; and even more tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires.
So let's break it down. This budget isn't for the 98% of Americans making under $250,000 a year.
Who is it for? It's laden with special interest kickbacks and protections to keep the status quo going for those on top.
This is the BIG problem, and will haunt willard forever!
This isn't just Paul Ryan's budget -- it's also Mitt Romney's platform:
Medicare, Social Security, health care to education, and cuts to the bone of some of the most basic government services - while not asking a cent more of the wealthiest Americans! Isn't it a destructive plan? Isn't a tale from the Trojan War?!!!
This isn't just Paul Ryan's budget -- it's also Mitt Romney's platform.
Here's just a few of the things that would happen to Americans with the budget the GOP is backing.
Medicare? They'd throw it out the window, and give seniors a voucher that would amount to the second-cheapest health care plan in their community. Education? This plan would lay off thousands of teachers nationwide, and drastically cut financial aid -- actually making college more expensive than it currently is. Investments in clean energy? Cut by a fifth.
Perhaps even more telling are the things they're fighting to protect: four billion annually in taxpayer-funded subsidies for giant oil companies that don't need it; increases in defense spending completely beyond what the Pentagon even asked for; and even more tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires.
So let's break it down. This budget isn't for the 98% of Americans making under $250,000 a year.
Who is it for? It's laden with special interest kickbacks and protections to keep the status quo going for those on top.
Good nigh, friends
They can believe two opposed things and believe they are right. They can believe that the rich create jobs even while they are deleting them. They can believe that greedy, selfish people like Robmee stand for them. Unbelievable!
MORE OF THE SAME failed GOP "supply side economic lunacy" will only create jobs in Chindia by the wealthy making overseas investments with their willard romney dollars -- not here in America where jobs are needed.