Time to Talk About the Buffett Rule

[Gregg]

From a piece on CNN:

"A minimum 30% tax on million-dollar incomes won't do much to eat away at the nation's debt, it won't create jobs, and no one expects it to get through the Democratic-controlled Senate, much less the Republican-majority House."

So what do you think? A good rule with no support? A misguided attempt by people who really don't understand the economy? Is it now just the President's turn to play some election year politics?

Personally, I think it started out as the second and moved to the third. 60% of Americans disagree with me (Gallop: 60% support it, 37% oppose).

[Alan]

I agree that it may have started out as the second and then became the third.

I also think that the 60% who support it have simply bought into the "fairness" mantra, not considering the fact that if it were 'fair', it would by definition be 'without bias'. Doesn't the government support Truth In Labeling laws?

By the way, do you know who else paid a lower effective tax rate than his secretary?

[peggy]

I paid a higher tax rate than Romney, and it's my privilege to be able to support multiple homes and elevators for cars for the super wealthy. I mean, do you know what a stable of horses costs these days?

A percentage of income is a percentage of income. All income. Just close the loopholes and tax ALL income at the same rate, including capital gains, then I'd be happy. It should be a sliding rate, cause, 10% of 1000 means a whole lot more than 10% of a million, to the individual. But even then, if you tax it all fairly, then the upper rate doesn't need to be 30%.
And that bull about them being 'job creators' is just that. BS Individual tax rates don't have squat to do with job creating except for the gardener and pool boy. Taxing Romney fairly wouldn't make him less of a business man. He'd still like firing people at the higher rate.

[Gregg]

A percentage of income is a percentage of income. All income. Just close the loopholes and tax ALL income at the same rate, including capital gains, then I'd be happy.

It's not perfect, but I'm still generally a fan of a flat tax. And yes, on all income sources. That means Warren Buffett's dividends, his secretary's salary or my 401k disbursements. I don't know the math exactly, but it seems like 15% should be enough to run the government on and doesn't sound like an unfair number.

[Gregg]

By the way, do you know who else paid a lower effective tax rate than his secretary?

Well, according to those pesky watchdogs at ABC News, HE did.

[ApatheticNoMore]

I think I'm looking at a higher tax rate than that on some income probably as well. Second year in a row I'm filing an extension because I just don't understand my taxes still. They actually got more confusing that before, income started appearing in weird places, noone knew where it was coming from and going to. Sigh, this too shall pass.

[txgran]

From a piece on CNN:

"A minimum 30% tax on million-dollar incomes won't do much to eat away at the nation's debt, it won't create jobs, and no one expects it to get through the Democratic-controlled Senate, much less the Republican-majority House."

So what do you think? A good rule with no support? A misguided attempt by people who really don't understand the economy? Is it now just the President's turn to play some election year politics?

Personally, I think it started out as the second and moved to the third. 60% of Americans disagree with me (Gallop: 60% support it, 37% oppose).

I'm with the 60%......the rich should pay their fair share.

[Tradd]

I think the first thing that needs to be done is closing a lot of the loopholes and maybe even doing away with a lot of deductions.

One deduction I wonder about is the charitable one. I never take it, because for me to itemize as a single with no dependents doesn't make financial sense. For you average income folks, does the charitable deduction make much of a difference for you tax-wise, or is this something that only really benefits higher income people?

[bae]

I'd think you'd want to take a step back, and talk about what "fair" means first...

[Gregg]

I'm with the 60%......the rich should pay their fair share.

Care to elaborate on what that might be?