Buffet Rule & Other Rules

catboxer

Posts: 12,298

Today the Senate will decide whether to let the Buffett Rule legislation proceed to the floor of that chamber for a vote. And I can tell you in advance it ain't gonna happen.

The Buffett Rule proposes that middle-class taxpayers pay federal income tax at a lower rate than rich ones. It would raise taxes for the wealthy, and lower them for working people. Currently, Mr. Buffett's secretary pays the tax at a rate nearly double that paid by her billionaire boss, so the fairness of this legislation is intuitively obvious. But not to the millionaires in the US Senate.

According to the Senate rules, moving the measure to the floor for debate requires 61 votes, and there are only 54 Democrats. They would need seven Republicans to cross over to get it to the floor, and they probably won't get one. So then they'll shrug and say "We tried."

No more of this nonsense. The Democrats have had a majority in the Senate for years now, and it's within their power to force a rules change. They don't, because they like the rules the way they are now. They can blame the Republicans for everything, and get plausible deniability at the same time.

The fact is, most of our Democratic senators don't want the Buffett Rule any more than their Republican opponents. Don't be taken in by the show, as this absolutely vital and necessary tax plan goes down to a 54-46 "defeat."

Adepto vestri stercore simul.

aarroottoonn

Posts: 3,128

Our agreement begins and ends with this isn't going anywhere. It has no chance in the House and Obama proposed it knowing it had no chance. This is typical political gamesmanship, that both parties engage in.

That said, this legislation is neither needed nor necessary. Buffet is an extreme example, as almost all of his income is from capital gains, which are correctly taxed at a lower rate for many reasons. The tax rate is irrelevant. Buffet pays multiple times in taxes as his secretary does. Enact the Ryan plan and lower the rate, while eliminating most tax breaks and we would all benefit.

My personal choice would be to make the highest rate 25% for all income taxes, both personal and corporate, and capital gains at that level as well. That would make it easy for all to compute their tax, saving billions of dollars a year for businesses and individuals in compliance costs.

catboxer

Posts: 12,298

The tax rate is irrelevant...

Enact the Ryan plan and lower the rate...

My personal choice would be to make the highest rate 25% for all income...

Aarroottoonn, I'm not going to bother to contradict you, since you seem to be doing a pretty good job of that already.

Also, there's Buffet pays multiple times in taxes as his secretary does.

Reminds me of my uncle's farm. He had a lot of cows, and the black-and-white ones always ate a lot more than the brown-and-white ones. Of course, he had about three times as many black-and-white ones.

Adepto vestri stercore simul.

catboxer

Posts: 12,298

Anyway, my purpose here was not to debate the Buffett Rule, whose essential fairness is so obvious it requires blinkers and fingers in the ears to oppose it.

What I really wanted to find out is how many people are still fooled by the Democrats and their posture of deep sympathy and no relief for working people.

That, and the need to change the Senate's procedures so as to put an end to minority rule.

Adepto vestri stercore simul.

TENAC

Posts: 20,618

The thing about it is that it is so phony no lefty on the board will acknowledge it.

Over ten years, TEN YEARS, the "Buffet Rule" will bring in $47 billion to the treasury.

obama's budget will add $6 Trillion to the debt over that same ten years.

Soooooo.......

the dent in the deficit obama claims to be managing with this fart in the wind tax reform amounts to a .0007%.

And you wonder why I detest the man and his politics.

It makes ME wonder why you do not.

Any man can count the seeds in an apple....
.......but only God can count the apples in the seeds.

catboxer

Posts: 12,298

I can't speak to the projected size of the defecit, or the Obama budget's impact on it. I really don't know about them.

From all accounts, the $47 billion figure is accurate. I don't think anybody ever said that the Buffett rule alone would solve all our budget problems, but it would provide a small portion of what we need right now -- increased revenue, combined with reduced expenditure.

However, the main purpose of the Buffett rule would be to re-establish fairness in the tax code. It is patently and obviously unfair and wrong for billionaires to pay taxes on their income at lower rates than working people, as is happening now.

I've been told that "rates don't matter." To anyone who thinks that, I'd suggest voluntarily paying twice the interest rate on your mortgage for a while, then tell me rates don't matter.

We need a progressive income tax, which means wealthy people paying at a higher rate than ordinary wage earners, for both an adequate revenue stream. As for reduced expenditure, what the hell are we doing in Afghanistan?

No use debating such things, though, as long as both halves of our one-party system favor the status quo, and we have minority rule in the Senate.

Adepto vestri stercore simul.

catboxer

Posts: 12,298

When an interviewer for New York magazine asked him if there are any structural changes that need to happen in American government, retiring Democratic congressman Barney Frank replied, "Get rid of the filibuster in the Senate."

The interviewer followed up with "Is that the only one," and Frank answered "That's the only one."

Barney Frank is certainly right that changes in the rules governing the Senate filibuster are necessary to restore democracy in the U.S.

susiemadrak.com/2012/04/17/conversation/

Whether such a reform, which would deliver the Senate from the tyranny of minority rule, would be sufficient to restore democracy is another question.

I would like to know how Barney Frank, and every other sitting Democratic congressperson and senator would react to a proposal for a constitutional amendment banning private money from our public politics. I want to know whether they would consider such a measure "structural change," and whether they would favor or oppose such a proposal.

Adepto vestri stercore simul.

aarroottoonn

Posts: 3,128

Apr 16, 2012 -- 7:04PM, catboxer wrote:

The tax rate is irrelevant...

Enact the Ryan plan and lower the rate...

My personal choice would be to make the highest rate 25% for all income...

Aarroottoonn, I'm not going to bother to contradict you, since you seem to be doing a pretty good job of that already.

Also, there's Buffet pays multiple times in taxes as his secretary does.

Reminds me of my uncle's farm. He had a lot of cows, and the black-and-white ones always ate a lot more than the brown-and-white ones. Of course, he had about three times as many black-and-white ones.

I should have been more clear. The percentage one pays is irrelevant when the govt doesn't pay for anything with a rate, but with cash.

I won't say I understand your story, unless you are attempting to talk about the poor as the black and white cows, and the super rich as the brown ones. Except in the US the brown ones are .01% (or even 1%) and the black and white ones are 47%

arielg

Posts: 8,206

I would like to know how Barney Frank, and every other sitting Democratic congressperson and senator would react to a proposal for a constitutional amendment banning private money from our public politics. I want to know whether they would consider such a measure "structural change," and whether they would favor or oppose such a proposal.

I don't know what good it would do to indulge in this sort of fantasy. Money is power. Power is politics. Governments are made up of the rich to defend their wealth.

Only after violent revolutions things change temporarily. After a while, everything returns back to how it has always been.

Political ideologies are intellectual creations that applied to reality are never what they were on paper.

MMarcoe

Posts: 11,444

Apr 16, 2012 -- 7:15PM, catboxer wrote:

What I really wanted to find out is how many people are still fooled by the Democrats and their posture of deep sympathy and no relief for working people.

Only Democrats are still fooled by the Democrats. Republicans, independents, and far-lefters have known all along that the posture of deep sympathy is just an underhanded form of manipulation and a way to keep people dependent on them.

There are three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth.

God is just a personification of reality, of pure objectivity.

Beliefnet On Facebook

What's Hot