Forbes: Hiking capital gains tax punishes rich
Steve Forbes, the chairman and editor in chief of Forbes Media and former Republican presidential candidate, dismissed President Obama's call for raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans - the plan dubbed the "Buffett tax," after billionaire Warren Buffett, who has suggested the rich don't deserve to pay lower tax rates than their employees.
"Well, if Warren Buffett wants to pay the same tax as the people who work for him, then he should pay himself the same net salary that people who work for him [get]," Forbes said on CBS' "The Early Show."
Buffett had written in a recent New York Times op-ed titled "Stop Coddling the Super-Rich," that he and others among the 0.3 percent wealthiest Americans pay substantially lower tax rates than other Americans, thanks to tax laws and loopholes written by Congress.
Buffett noted that his federal taxes last year amounted to 17.4 percent of his taxable income - a lower rate than that paid by any of his employees, whose tax rates ranged from 33 to 41 percent .
Buffett suggested there be "shared sacrifice," by raising rates on the money the "mega-rich" earn from their investments. (Income from such investments is taxed at 10-15 percent.)
Warren Buffett wants to pay higher taxes
Obama draws battle line over $1.5T in tax hikes
Forbes said the current tax code simply recognizes the risk investors take, and warned that raising rates on capital gains would "punish" the wealthy.
"Most of [Buffett's] income apparently comes from dividends and from capital gains. And if you raise the tax on capital gains and dividends, you're going to get less capital creation. We tried this in the 1970s. It led to a disastrous decade - one of the contributors to that," Forbes said.
"So instead of trying to punish people, why not try to create an environment the way Reagan did and ultimately Bill Clinton did, of having people put risk capital to work and create jobs?
"[Obama] is trying to say the rich are the problem - 'If we get rid of the rich and tax them more, everything will be well.' I think the American people know that's not going to work," Forbes said.
Referencing Buffett's call on behalf of billionaires, anchor Chris Wragge asked Forbes about the Treasury Department's program - Gifts to the U.S. - in which taxpayers can write a check to the government to help reduce the national debt.
"Would you prefer him writing a check rather than bringing you all into the fold?" Wragge asked.
"Well, I pay a lot of tax because I get a lot of earned income," Forbes said. "And if he wants to do extra, yes." He suggested Buffett could go the Treasury website and get the address "to send in his extra billions.
"But so far, he hasn't done it yet!"
Anchor Erica Hill asked about Forbes' advocacy for a flat tax.
"Let's make it very clear:" said Forbes. "If you earn income, you pay a 35 percent, 40 percent rate. If you get a capital gain, you get the 15percent rate. There is always the net differential because capital does not always get a return. We've learned that from the stock market in the last three years. It's putting money - getting a real risk."
"When it does get a return, you don't pay taxes on it?" asked Hill.
"No, you DO pay a tax on it! But the fact of the matter is, if you punish people who take risks - remember, most new ventures lose money. And if you get a hit, the government's going to take it away from you. People are going to do what they did in the '70s, and say, 'We're not going to put it at risk.'"
[Buffett, in his NYT op-ed, challenged the argument that raising tax rates on capital gains would quash investments. "I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone - not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 - shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain," he wrote. "People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what's happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation."]
Forbes suggested that, instead of raising rates for certain brackets, the government should introduced a single low rate, and get rid of all deductions. "Have generous exemptions for adults and for children so a family of four pays no federal income tax on their first $46,000 of income and only 17 percent above that - truly simplify the code," he said.
Foreseeing another "rancorous debate in Washington" over such a plan, anchor Chris Wragge asked Forbes if he believes simplifying the tax code can happen.
"Yes, after 2012. I think there'll be a mandate for it. Even the president is making noises about it, so the public is shifting in the right direction."
- Dad Punishes Daughter with Free Babysitter Ad Play Video
- How to stop junk mail - forever
- Most of Forbes' most powerful women are moms
- Online Scam Targets Pet Lovers Play Video
- Terms to Never Use in Your Resume
- Legit Work-from-Home Websites - and the Scams
- Lorena Bobbitt, 15 Years Later
- Dying teen leaves touching YouTube video














So, they use the federal, state and local public systems to every advantage they can, and then ***** about having to pay for it. Like I said, a larger group of spoiled whining brats never existed.
Guys like Forbes have NO CLUE about what it's like to be truly poor!
Otherwise, they wouldn't wage stupid arguments like this!
Let them experience going hungry, or long periods of joblessness, or, loosing their home and property...then they'd think twice before they whined about the rich being punished!
How ridiculous! And, selfish of him!
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. President Obama not only ignored what caused the huge economic recession during President Carter's administration (and I voted for President Carter), he ignored what President Reagan did to bring us out of that recession.
To those who continue to state that Reaganomics did not work, here are some figures:
Forbes 07/27/11: Louis Woodhill
"Whether in Greece or in the U.S., the impact of government policies shows up first and fastest in total employment. Judged by jobs, Reaganomics worked. During the first two years of the Reagan recovery, total employment increased by 7.2 million. Given that Obamunism is the exact opposite of Reaganomics, one might expect that it would produce a terrible jobs situation — and it has.
In terms of total employment, the U.S. lost 0.7 million jobs during the first 24 months of Obama's recovery. The nation has never before had an economic expansion where total employment after two years of recovery was lower than it was at the end of the recession. In June 2011, America had 2.9 million fewer people working than when Obama was inaugurated. (By the same point in Reagan's presidency, our total number of jobs had increased by 0.7 million, equivalent to 1.0 million jobs after adjustment for today's higher population.)"
Look at the job losses from January 2008 through December 2009 - you will see that almost all of them happen in the first four months of 2009. Let's see, President Obama took office around January 21, 2009. Obviously, all the jobs that were lost in Jan-April 2009 were caused by his policies (that were not even in place yet). Different time, different place, different technologies that lessen the need for more workers. OH... you might be interested to know that President Reagan doesn't rank at the top in job creation... not even second. But, he does rank first in the largest % increase in the federal deficit.
The rich have ruthlessly slanted the laws to enrich themselves. Time for the rest of us to stop buying the "we earned it" "we work harder" "we create jobs" "job creator" "you can too" and "not fair" lies.
No one has their hands in the public's pocket deeper than the rich.
The Millionaire's tax would aim to reverse a longer term trend, which has seen tax rates for the rich decline over the past decade, primarily due to the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. About 2/3 of the dollar value of those tax cuts went to the top 20 percent of income earners.
What if me and steve forbes trade the % of tax we pay? That would mean that I would pay less taxes and have more money to risk for capital gains. I don't mind that risk at all. If he has a problem with buying investments and paying taxes on the gains I can take that worry off of his mind. Trust me steve, I will help you just like you've helped the middle-class, no problem.
Typical Steve Forbes. The guy has never been anything but a pig (with apologies to pigs) and this is just another example of how this guy thinks, or doesn't. He's a dimwitted non-caring troll. Unfortunately, he has a lot of company in corporations and the Republican party.