Millionaires Do Not Pay Less Tas as Percent of Income Than Lower Earners

[red states rule]

Not that this will be reported in the liberal media or matter to the Obama drones, but the numbers from the IRS show Obama is a liar when it comes to his class warfare talking points


http://www.newsbusters.org/sites/default/files/main_photos/2011/September/IRS_0.jpg


Also, the IRS shows the "rich" pay a huge majority of the Federal Income taxes collected VS the free ride the "poor" are getting

http://cdn.financialsamurai.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/toptaxes.jpg

[red states rule]

and more pesky details the Obama lap dogs (that means you Virgil) will ignore




(1) Credit Reuters for identifying this gambit for what it is -- an unserious electoral ploy. As the story notes, a new AMT levied on the super rich and successful small businesses (many of which file as individuals) will not raise much money in revenues. You would think that raising substantial revenues should be the ostensible goal of deficit reduction programs. Remember, even if the federal government taxed every single family earning over $100,000 this year at one hundred percent -- total confiscation -- the resulting revenue would not come close (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/rep-scott-taxing-those-100000-and-100-will-not-get-us-out-year-s-deficit) to paying down this year's deficit. Imposing an additional parallel tax system on far fewer individuals and businesses will reap fractional revenue at best. It would also be perceived by many as another broadside against America's investors and job creators. We've heard over and over (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/feb/10/barack-obama/obama-says-companies-have-nearly-2-trillion-sittin/) that $2 Trillion in capital is currently sitting on the sidelines due to paralyzing economic uncertainty and pessimism about the US economy's prospects for growth. Spasms of class warfare will not encourage investors to risk their capital, nor will they spur small businesses to expand. Obama's populist adventure may temporarily satisfy some people's class envy, but it won't create jobs. It won't jump-start America's economic engine. And it won't bring in much revenue to pay off the debt -- even if that was what supposedly deficit-reducing revenues actually did, which they don't (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/showdown-encourages-citizens-to-give-gifts-to-reduce-debt/2011/07/21/gIQAfjZQXI_story.html?hpid=z1). Then again, this president subordinates the priorities of revenue generation and fiscal soundness to his overarching goal of redistributive "fairness."

(2) The White House Communications Director likens the "Buffett Tax" to the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). What was the AMT again, and why is it such a headache today? Economist Veronique de Rugy reminds us (http://www.american.com/archive/2011/april/slay-this-tax-monster):


Congress created the AMT in 1969 to prevent 155 wealthy taxpayers from using deductions and credits to avoid paying any federal income taxes. Here’s how it works. Taxpayers subject to the AMT must calculate their tax liability twice: once under regular income tax rules and again under AMT rules. If liability under the AMT proves higher, taxpayers pay the difference as an add-on to the regular tax. The difference paid is their AMT.
When the regular income tax was indexed for inflation in 1981, however, Congress failed to index (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1753192) the AMT. So the AMT’s reach has expanded over time to hit middle-income people it was never intended to tax. As a result, the AMT affects a growing share of the population. And it could get worse.

The piece goes on to demonstrate that without Congress' annual "patches" to paper-over the mistake made in 1981, the AMT -- which was originally designed as a let's-make-the-super-rich-pay-their-fair-share measure -- would effect tens of millions of taxpayers today. Once taxpayers are subject to the AMT (the non-inflation adjusted trigger threshold is $175,000 for individuals and married couples), many end up facing an increased tax burden and are denied popular tax deductions. The $175K sum may have been huge bucks in 1969 or 1981, but it's not a boatload of cash anymore, especially in high-cost locales (http://reason.com/archives/2011/06/10/the-facts-about-the-alternativ/1) like New York, Massachusetts, and California. So the AMT was set up in such a way that, absent the cumbersome yearly corrections, it would punish millions of middle class families -- households it was never intended to affect. In other words, the AMT debacle is an example of soak-the-rich, "fairness"-seeking tax policy run amok. It's a monument to federal incompetence, unintended consequences, and tax "bracket-creep." And now the White House is citing it as a basis for Obama's new soak-the-rich "fairness"-seeking tax policy. Terrific.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2011/09/19/obamas_buffett_tax_sham

[red states rule]

Seems the liberal media is ignoring this story as well. I wonder if anyone will ask Jay Carney about this at the press briefing? Will Virgil comment? Will I hit the Lotto this weekend?





Let’s hope that Warren Buffet is better at managing funds than he is at tax policy. After Buffett complained that his secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does, Barack Obama decided to call his new class-warfare taxes “the Buffett Rule” and emphasize that he wants to make taxes more “fair.” But was Buffett right? According to an AP fact check — and just about every ounce of common sense that exists outside of the class-warfare fever swamps of the White House these days — not at all (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iP3lhS4ZQ-UhyUvFfUgdPCiu-jJA?docId=47a565563a294b2bad96544a7f0ddc1b):

“Middle-class families shouldn’t pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires,” Obama said Monday. “That’s pretty straightforward. It’s hard to argue against that.”
The data tell a different story. On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.
There may be individual millionaires who pay taxes at rates lower than middle-income workers. In 2009, 1,470 households filed tax returns with incomes above $1 million yet paid no federal income tax, according to the Internal Revenue Service. That, however, was less than 1 percent of the nearly 237,000 returns with incomes above $1 million.
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/09/20/ap-fact-check-secretaries-dont-pay-more-taxes-than-their-bosses/

[Monkeybone]

they are not ignoring it, you just have to actually look at all veiw points instead of your own

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44592106/ns/politics-white_house/

[Kathianne]

they are not ignoring it, you just have to actually look at all veiw points instead of your own

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44592106/ns/politics-white_house/

Same as the other. AP, not MSNBC, no different view point.

[Monkeybone]

Same as the other. AP, not MSNBC, no different view point. I didn't mean that there was more than one, just that if you only go to one side leaning websites, of course you won't think that they are reporting on it, or at least linking to it.

or it just went right over my head.... I need to be learneded.

[red states rule]

they are not ignoring it, you just have to actually look at all veiw points instead of your own

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44592106/ns/politics-white_house/

Even though I am working alot of OT thanks to the Obama economy, I have yet to see this mentioned on MSNBC or CNN sir

I am glad AP finally got aorund to reproting these facts, but a majority of the liberal media (and the WH press pool) are still for the most part ignoring it

[SassyLady]

Dick Morris said today, on O'Reilly, that the top 2% are responsible for 33% of the spending. Haven't looked for data to support this....but an interesting tidbit if true.

[red states rule]

Dick Morris said today, on O'Reilly, that the top 2% are responsible for 33% of the spending. Haven't looked for data to support this....but an interesting tidbit if true.

SL, thanks to the Obama economy the number of "rich" people are falling. It is clear taxing the "rich" will not work. There are not enough of them for Obama to rape with his "jobs" plan

[SassyLady]

SL, thanks to the Obama economy the number of "rich" people are falling. It is clear taxing the "rich" will not work. There are not enough of them for Obama to rape with his "jobs" plan

Did you see where Soros is one of the top 10 billionaires in America now? I don't want to just raise taxes on the wealthy ... I want a flat tax on everyone ... that way the saying "everyone pays their fair share" will include EVERYONE ... not just the wealthy.

[red states rule]

Did you see where Soros is one of the top 10 billionaires in America now? I don't want to just raise taxes on the wealthy ... I want a flat tax on everyone ... that way the saying "everyone pays their fair share" will include EVERYONE ... not just the wealthy.

When I hear a liberal talk about "shared sacrifice" I want to hear them say the 50% of workers who pay ZERO taxes are now going to pay SOMETHING

But as usual they are talking about the 1% of earners who are currently paying 40% of federal income taxes need to pay more

The dirty secret about Buffett is most of his money comes from capital gains which is taxed at a lower rate then noraml income. The liberal media ignoires that fact

So if Buffett and others feel they are undertaxed why don't they send a check to DC and leave the rest of us alone?

[logroller]

When I hear a liberal talk about "shared sacrifice" I want to hear them say the 50% of workers who pay ZERO taxes are now going to pay SOMETHING

But as usual they are talking about the 1% of earners who are currently paying 40% of federal income taxes need to pay more

The dirty secret about Buffett is most of his money comes from capital gains which is taxed at a lower rate then noraml income. The liberal media ignoires that fact

So if Buffett and others feel they are undertaxed why don't they send a check to DC and leave the rest of us alone?

Because that would take his leverage away. Say if in baseball, you could scuff up the ball, spit on it, whatever-- you'd have to do so to remain competitive.

[red states rule]

Because that would take his leverage away. Say if in baseball, you could scuff up the ball, spit on it, whatever-- you'd have to do so to remain competitive.

and Buffett could also pay the back taxes his company owes

This is another example of liberals calling for higher taxes on others but not paying the taxes they owe

[logroller]

and Buffett could also pay the back taxes his company owes

This is another example of liberals calling for higher taxes on others but not paying the taxes they owe

I know you feel strongly about this, I do too; and we agree on much more than we don't; but let's try to be objective.

I know Berkshire Hathaway, (BH), has outstanding tax liability. But why doesn't he pay when he's able. To simply excuse this as liberal would be disingenuous. When it comes to finances, he's conservative; politics are just a means to end. Buffett aint out to save the poor, he's out to increase his bottom line. He's fighting with the man, the same as any other megabillion $ company would when policies affect their bottom line. Can you really doubt that, the fact he spoke out against these tax policies in '03 has nothing to with the fact those tax returns would be audited? They're thousands of pages long red. I'd bet if he'd just laid low, any indiscretions would have been passed over. But he spoke out against them. Saying they favored short-term growth by decreasing tax-liabilities for executive compensations and, consequently, long-term investment would suffer. Why does he feel this way? Obviously because his investment strategy favors long-term growth, not because he's liberal.

As far as tax sectors, guys like buffet, BH, they aren't the 1%, they're the <.1%. To analyze the tax policy effects on these earners should be discussed within the top 1 to 5%. They're elite, so far above par the tax effects don't equate to those below 90%, and probably the lower 99%.

[red states rule]

I know you feel strongly about this, I do too; and we agree on much more than we don't; but let's try to be objective.

I know Berkshire Hathaway, (BH), has outstanding tax liability. But why doesn't he pay when he's able. To simply excuse this as liberal would be disingenuous. When it comes to finances, he's conservative; politics are just a means to end. Buffett aint out to save the poor, he's out to increase his bottom line. He's fighting with the man, the same as any other megabillion $ company would when policies affect their bottom line. Can you really doubt that, the fact he spoke out against these tax policies in '03 has nothing to with the fact those tax returns would be audited? They're thousands of pages long red. I'd bet if he'd just laid low, any indiscretions would have been passed over. But he spoke out against them. Saying they favored short-term growth by decreasing tax-liabilities for executive compensations and, consequently, long-term investment would suffer. Why does he feel this way? Obviously because his investment strategy favors long-term growth, not because he's liberal.

As far as tax sectors, guys like buffet, BH, they aren't the 1%, they're the <.1%. To analyze the tax policy effects on these earners should be discussed within the top 1 to 5%. They're elite, so far above par the tax effects don't equate to those below 90%, and probably the lower 99%.


Buffett is a liberal LR. He bankrolls much of the liberal sites, and gives millions to Dems. Buffett has made money betting against America and more power to him. Obama is too damn stupid to see he is being used

If Buffett had billions to invest in BOA, why not cut a chek for a few billion to the IRS?

[red states rule]

Same as the other. AP, not MSNBC, no different view point.

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/payn110921_cmyk20110921014342.jpg

[logroller]

Buffett is a liberal LR. He bankrolls much of the liberal sites, and gives millions to Dems. Buffett has made money betting against America and more power to him. Obama is too damn stupid to see he is being used

If Buffett had billions to invest in BOA, why not cut a chek for a few billion to the IRS?


Was that rhetorical RSR, Money in the bank vs money in the govt coffers--- what would you do?

Look. I'm not trying to argue who's right and who's left. Fine his a great big flaming lib. Now can we talk about the actual policy here on debatePOLICY, not bashlibs.com. All I'm trying to convey is there are different strategies of growth, and tax policies need to provide an environment which plays no favor to one over another. Leave the markets be, govt has this innate ability to screw it up--Buffett said this in 2003, 5 years later we had big meltdown, and what does govt do? Interfere more. Obama noticed that didn't work,so he interferes more. Now he says interfere more. Uhhhh, maybe we should leave well enough alone and quit playing to those who've benefited immensely from these downturns...and that includes Buffett. I'm not saying do what's good for him, just quit playing favorites to the wealthy because they have more means of production. It'll be slow, but i trust the markets to do what's right more than I trust the politicians and the wealthy.

[fj1200]

Buffett has made money betting against America and more power to him.

When has Buffett bet against America?