Time to Talk About the Buffett Rule

[LDAHL]

Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen.

Of course, this paradigm requires an adequate ratio of ability to need to be sustainable.

[mtnlaurel]

Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen.

To save anyone else the Google-time, first hit from Wikipedia...
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs) is a slogan popularised by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program.^[1]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_ea...ng_to_his_need

[Gregg]

Of course, this paradigm requires an adequate ratio of ability to need to be sustainable.

And if I'm not mistaken the need typically grows at roughly the same rate at which the ability shrinks quickly destroying the delicate balance.

"While I see many hoof marks going in, I see none coming out. It is easier to get into the enemy's toils than out again."

Aesop - Just for something a little less...communistic.



ETA: And a personal favorite of mine...

"The more one considers the matter, the clearer it becomes that redistribution is in effect far less a redistribution of free income from the richer to the poorer, as we imagined, than a redistribution of power from the individual to the State."

Bertrand de Jouvenel

[loosechickens]

I find myself amused that a discussion regarding whether or not immensely rich people, those with taxable incomes after all deductions of over a million dollars per year should pay at least as much of a percentage of their income as ordinary, middle-class working Americans. Especially when that 30% tax level would be far lower than the top tax bracket for ordinary wage earners in this country, and wouldn't even be affecting highly paid attorneys, doctors, etc., but only those really, really, really rich people who have the ability to arrange their investment income into everything from Swiss bank accounts, to Cayman Island corporations, to utilization of every possible tax avoidance loophole that could have been shoehorned into the tax code by politicians anxious for that next big campaign donation from the sugar daddies.........

Somehow goes almost immediately to..........."oh my God, the sky is falling in, the next thing you know, Karl Marx is coming......."

It's laughable, folks......and what is most laughable is that even the richest of us, (even bae, since he's indicated that he's given away a good part of his hundreds of millions), would even breathe the air with these people, who wouldn't even NOTICE that 30% bite of income taxes, when many middle-class and upper middle- class familes trying to put kids through college, etc., pay that much of a percentage of their income in Federal income taxes every year.

You'd think there would be a revolt among pretty well paid folks, who ARE paying these kinds of rates, as they watch folks with hugely larger incomes walking away paying far, far less of a percentage of their income than them. If I were a really well paid professional, say, pulling down four or five hundred thousand dollars a year working my butt off for that income, it would p*ss the heck out of me that Mitt Romney, with twenty or thirty MILLION dollars of income after all deductions, that just rolls in, was paying less than half the percentage of Federal income tax on that income, as me.

Ya gotta chuckle.....because one thing the Republican very, very rich are really good at is marketing. And they market their story very well.......anybody who thinks they should pay as much as a salaried person making a fraction of their income is a socialist, communist, admirer of Karl Marx, who just wants to take away from the "hard working" and give to the "freeloaders", and they manage to even get the people who ARE paying that 30% because they are actually out working and EARNING that money, rather than just sitting on the pile they have, not to mention all the ordinary people who pay through the nose themselves and struggle every day, to support these fat cat greed machines in their plans... (Sorry, but anyone who is immensely wealthy yet not willing to even pay a percentage in taxes as people with far, far, less income is greedy in my book)....Amazing......

[ApatheticNoMore]

Really marginal taxes are beyond 30% for most working people now, take the 25% bracket and then you add on Social Security and Medicare taxes and you are well over 30 there, which I'd be ok with if Social Security and Medicare taxes were just funding that I suppose (and not the federal budget in general).

[Alan]

I find myself amused that a discussion regarding whether or not immensely rich people, those with taxable incomes after all deductions of over a million dollars per year should pay at least as much of a percentage of their income as ordinary, middle-class working Americans. Especially when that 30% tax level would be far lower than the top tax bracket for ordinary wage earners in this country, and wouldn't even be affecting highly paid attorneys, doctors, etc., but only those really, really, really rich people who have the ability to arrange their investment income into everything from Swiss bank accounts, to Cayman Island corporations, to utilization of every possible tax avoidance loophole that could have been shoehorned into the tax code by politicians anxious for that next big campaign donation from the sugar daddies.........

I guess the point that no one seems to want to acknowledge is that those "immensely rich people" already are paying more than the 15% rate through the vehicle of double taxation at the source, which may equal as much as 50%. How much more should a gain on investment cost them?

Somehow goes almost immediately to..........."oh my God, the sky is falling in, the next thing you know, Karl Marx is coming......."

Because the shared principle between the two is the same. If you base your argument for higher taxation on the "richest of us.......... who wouldn't even NOTICE that 30% bite of income taxes", you're simply re-stating the Marxist Creed using populist hyperbole.

(Sorry, but anyone who is immensely wealthy yet not willing to even pay a percentage in taxes as people with far, far, less income is greedy in my book)....Amazing......

Didn't you regale us recently with the fact that your portfolio is steadily increasing in value, to the point that you could never spend all of it given your lifestyle, and that you still paid no federal income taxes this past year? Personally, I wouldn't call that greedy, but you may certainly disagree.

[ApatheticNoMore]

Because the shared principle between the two is the same. If you base your argument for higher taxation on the "richest of us.......... who wouldn't even NOTICE that 30% bite of income taxes", you're simply re-stating the Marxist Creed.

I don't think Marx would have said anything like that.

Didn't you regale us recently with the fact that your portfolio is steadily increasing in value, to the point that you could never spend all of it given your lifestyle, and that you still paid no federal income taxes this past year? Personally, I wouldn't call that greedy, but you may disagree

I'd mostly call it horribly horribly unfair (the no taxes) - everything seems to depend on how expert the tax evasion advice you get is. If you have some great tax expert advising you, you don't pay taxes, and if not you get screwed in ways you didn't even know were possible. But the average middle class person tends not to have the divining rod or expertise to choose grand all knowing magical tax poobah wizard.

[Midwest]

Ordinary wage earners pay don't pay anything near a 30% federal tax rate even if you include social security.

Family of 4, standard deduction, kids over 17, $60,000 gross income would pay $4,014 in federal tax. Federal tax of $4,014 based on taxable income after the standard deduction of $12,750 and their exemptions of $14,800. Effective tax rate 6.7%. If you add employee payroll taxes, you are 12%.

Same family with $30,000 in gross income pays 244 in federal tax (assuming they don't qualify for the earned income credit). If they qualify for the EIC, tax rate is negative. Without the benefit of the EIC, they pay 1% of their income in federal tax. Add the employee payroll tax, and their effective rate is 6.5%.

Those are the worst case scenarios for those families tax wise. If they itemize, qualify for various credits, etc, their tax rates will be even lower. None of these requires a magical tax accountant to achieve. Its just a fact that families under $60k pay very little in federal income tax.

[ApatheticNoMore]

I usually end up paying around 25% of my overall income in taxes (marginally it's DEFINITELY over 40%) - but the 25% is overall (after the standard deduction and the exemption for myself) not marginal taxes - of course it does include state taxes which are not low here - so maybe only like 20% is going to the Feds. Single, no deductions beyond the standard. So tell me again how absolutely outrageous 30% is for the super rich?

[LDAHL]

I don't think Marx would have said anything like that.

You're right. He would never have settled for 30%.

The Wall Street Journal has an interesting Karl (Rove, not Marx) piece today on the various arguments the president has made for the Buffet Rule over time:

1) We need the extra revenue to make "investments" that will create jobs.

2) We need the extra revenue to reduce the deficit.

3) Making rich people pay a greater percentage of thier income is "fair".

I could see how you might argue the first two propositions, although my understanding was that the total impact would be fairly marginal. I don't see how you could ever use the tax code to enforce fairness in the redistributionist sense. Government will never be able to resist adding complexity that can be exploited by people looking to minimize their tax liability.