Posted on 04/14/2012 7:03:59 AM PDT by lbryce
President Obama used his weekly address to continue pressuring lawmakers to pass his "Buffett Rule” proposal, saying the measure would make the tax code more fair and help fund needed investments to grow the economy.
"As many Americans rush to file their taxes this weekend, it’s worth pointing out that we’ve got a tax system that doesn’t always uphold the principle of everyone doing their part," Obama said in the address posted online Saturday.
"This is not just about fairness, this is also about growth,” he added. “It’s about being able to make the investments we need to strengthen our economy and create jobs. And it’s about whether we as a country are willing to pay for those investments.
The address is the latest effort in a public relations push from the White House to pressure Republicans to adopt the measure, named after billionaire investor Warren Buffet, which would raise taxes on the wealthiest of Americans.
The Senate is expected to vote on the proposal Monday, but the bill faces strong opposition from the GOP.
Obama said the plan had broad support from most voters. “It’s pretty sensible. Most Americans support this idea. One survey found that two-thirds of millionaires do, too. So do nearly half of all Republicans.”
“We just need some Republican politicians to get on board with where the country is,” he said.
Democrats have pushed the proposal for months, but last week the administration intensified efforts to build support for the bill with Obama traveling to Florida to deliver an address hitting the GOP for their resistance.
Republicans, including presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney, say the proposal would do little to create jobs and is intended to distract voters from the administration’s failed policies.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
How can you tell when Obama's lying? His lips are moving.
GOP:The Buffet Tax:Politics Not Math
April 10, 2012
Posted by: Research
The Buffett Tax Is A Distraction, Not A Solution To Paying For Obama’s Binge Spending
“Obama Will Make The Proposed Buffett Rule A Central Part Of A Speech Tuesday At Florida Atlantic University In Boca Raton, Said A White House Announcement.” (David Jackson, “Obama, Democrats To Promote ‘Buffett Rule’,” USA Today, 4/7/12)
CONTRARY TO OBAMA’S RHETORIC, THE BUFFETT TAX WOULD RAISE AN INSIGNIFICANT AMOUNT RELATIVE TO HIS BINGE SPENDING
OBAMA’S CLAIM: President Obama Claimed That The Buffett Rule Would “Stabilize Our Debt And Deficits For The Next Decade.” OBAMA: “What I’ve said is this is a very simple principle that everybody should understand: Warren Buffett’s secretary shouldn’t pay a lower [sic] tax rate than Warren Buffett. A teacher making $50,000 a year, or a firefighter making $50,000 a year or $60,000, shouldn’t be paying a higher tax rate than somebody making $50 million a year. And that basic principle of fairness, if applied to our tax code, could raise enough money that not only do we pay for our jobs bill, but we also stabilize our debt and deficits for the next decade. And as I said when I made the announcement, this is not politics; this is math.” (President Barack Obama, Remarks By The President At DNC Event, San Diego, CA, 9/26/11)
THE FACTS: The Buffett Tax Would Only Raise $46.7 Billion Over The Next Ten Years. (“Revenue Estimate For S.2059,” Joint Committee On Taxation, 3/20/12)
“That Figure Would Be A Drop In The Bucket Of The More Than $7 Trillion In Federal Budget Deficits Projected During That Period.” “That figure would be a drop in the bucket of the more than $7 trillion in federal budget deficits projected during that period. It is minuscule compared with the many hundreds of billions of dollars it would cost to repeal the alternative minimum tax, which Obama's budget last month said he would replace with the Buffett-rule tax.” (“Report: 'Buffett Rule' Tax On Rich Would Do Little Against Deficits,” The Associated Press, 3/21/10)
The Wall Street Journal: “This Year, The Buffett Rule Would Increase Federal Revenues By All Of $1.1 Billion. That's Less Than One-Tenth Of One Percent Of The $1.2 Trillion Budget Deficit Mr. Obama Is Scheduled To Run This Year.” “Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D., R.I.) quickly drafted legislation to turn this re-election posturing into law. Joint Tax dutifully studied the bill and has delivered the official score: This year, the Buffett rule would increase federal revenues by all of $1.1 billion. That's less than one-tenth of one percent of the $1.2 trillion budget deficit Mr. Obama is scheduled to run this year. Through 2022 Joint Tax expects less than $47 billion in total new revenues from the Buffett rule while the government will be adding trillions of dollars to the national debt. Joint Tax even concedes, as it is rarely wont to do, that the rule will affect taxpayer behavior: By raising the effective tax rate on capital gains, the rule will encourage people to realize fewer capital gains.” (Editorial, “The Bottom 0.1%,” The Wall Street Journal, 3/21/12)
By Contrast, According To A CBO Report, Obama’s Policies Will Result In $6.4 Trillion In Deficits In The Next Ten Years. “The Congressional Budget Office said Friday that President Barack Obama’s tax and spending policies will yield $6.4 trillion in deficits over the next decade, more than double the shortfall in CBO’s own fiscal baseline — even after taking credit for reduced war costs.” (David Rogers, “CBO: Exploding Debt Under Obama,” Politico, 3/16/12)
The Buffett Tax Would Pay For Only 0.5 Percent Of Obama’s $9.59 Trillion Debt Over The Next Decade. (Office Of Management And Budget, “Budget Of The United States Government, Fiscal Year 2013,” The White House, 2/13/12; “Revenue Estimate For S.2059,” Joint Committee On Taxation, 3/20/12)
The Buffett Tax Would Pay For Only 0.1 Percent Of The $45.43 Trillion That Obama Plans To Spend Over The Next Decade. (“An Analysis Of The President’s 2013 Budget,” Congressional Budget Office, 3/16/12)
Over The Next Decade, The Buffett Tax Would Only Raise Enough Money To Pay 20 Percent Of The Record $229 Billion Deficit Obama Amassed In February 2012. (“Monthly Budget Review: February 2012,” Congressional Budget Office, 3/7/12; “Revenue Estimate For S.2059,” Joint Committee On Taxation, 3/20/12) In 2014, The Buffett Tax Would Actually Raise $6.1 Billion Less Than The Present Tax Code. (“Revenue Estimate For S.2059,” Joint Committee On Taxation, 3/20/12)
OBAMA’S CLAIM: Obama’s Budget Contends That The Buffett Rule Could Replace The Alternative Minimum Tax. “And he is proposing that the Buffett rule should replace the Alternative Minimum Tax, which now burdens middle-class Americans rather than stopping the richest Americans from paying too little as was originally intended.” (Office Of Management And Budget, “Cutting Waste, Reducing The Deficit, And Asking All To Pay Their Fair Share,” The White House, 2/13/12)
THE FACTS: Analysis By The Tax Policy Center Shows That The Buffett Tax Would Fall Nearly $1.1 Trillion Short Of Replacing The Revenue From The Alternative Minimum Tax. (“T12-0074 - Replace AMT With Fair Share Tax: Impact On Individual Income Tax Revenue (Billions Of Current Dollars), 2012-22,” Tax Policy Center, 3/15/12)
“So Until Someone Figures Out How To Clone Rich Taxpayers, It's Unlikely The Revenue Generated By The Buffett Rule Could Match [The AMT].” “In his budget, Obama does call for the Buffett Rule to replace the Alternative Minimum Tax entirely. That would be simpler than adding it on top of the AMT. But it almost certainly would create a new revenue problem. That's because the AMT is projected to raise a ton of revenue -- roughly $2 trillion over 10 years, give or take a few billion. So until someone figures out how to clone rich taxpayers, it's unlikely the revenue generated by the Buffett Rule could match it.” (Jeanne Sahadi, “Buffett Rule: Not Ready For Prime Time,” CNN Money, 2/15/12)
THE BUFFETT TAX AS ACTUAL POLICY “LEAVES MUCH TO BE DESIRED”
“The Buffett Rule Makes For Great Stump Speeches In An Election Year. But As Tax Policy It Leaves Much To Be Desired.” (Jeanne Sahadi, “Buffett Rule: Not Ready For Prime Time,” CNN Money, 2/15/12)
“Even Without A Buffett Rule In Place In 2015, Nearly All Millionaires Would Already Be Paying More In Taxes As A Percentage Of Their Income Than Those In The Middle Class …” “But here's the thing: Even without a Buffett Rule in place in 2015, nearly all millionaires would already be paying more in taxes as a percentage of their income than those in the middle class, Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center, noted in a TaxVox blog post. He estimates that middle-income households on average would pay 15% of their income in taxes, using the bill's parameters, while 99% of millionaires would pay more than that. And that vast majority of that 99% would pay an effective tax rate of 20% or higher.” (Jeanne Sahadi, “Buffett Rule: Not Ready For Prime Time,” CNN Money, 2/15/12)
“Tax Experts Say Creating A New Alternative Minimum Tax For The Wealthy Might Make For Good Political Argument, But It Is Less Compelling As Policy.” (Annie Lowrey, “The Buffett Tax Rule Is Really More Of A Guideline,” The New York Times, 2/16/12)
Leonard Burman, Tax Expert And Syracuse University Professor: The Buffett Tax “Doesn’t Make Any Sense” And “Undermines The Tax Code.” “‘It just doesn’t make any sense to have one set of rules that applies to some people and one set of rules that applies to everyone else,’ said Leonard E. Burman, a tax expert and professor at Syracuse University. ‘It’s really complicated,’ Professor Burman said. ‘I’m very sympathetic to taxing capital gains like ordinary income; that’s the issue this proposal is ostensibly addressing. But the idea that we have different sets of rules for different people? It undermines the tax code.’” (Annie Lowrey, “The Buffett Tax Rule Is Really More Of A Guideline,” The New York Times, 2/16/12) Member Of Obama’s Fiscal Commission, Economist Alice Rivlin Said Of The “Buffet Rule” That “The Way To Fix The Tax Code Is To Fix The Tax Code, Not To Add Another Complication At The Margin.” ALICE RIVLIN: “I'm very fond of Warren Buffett. I think his basic observation that he pays too little taxes is right. But the way to fix the tax code is to fix the tax code, not to add another complication at the margin.” (CNN’s “State Of The Union,” 9/18/11) Roberton Williams Of The Tax Policy Center Estimated That Taxing All Millionaires At 50 Percent, “A Tax Rate That’s So High It Probably Would Never Happen”, Would Only Solve 10 Percent Of The Deficit Problem. “But Williams points out that more heavily taxing CEOs, celebrities, sports stars and hedge fund managers isn't the answer to the nation's deficit woes — not even close. He put together an estimate based on a tax rate that's so high it probably would never happen — 50 percent — and says that if you taxed all income above $1 million at that rate, you'd only get 10 percent of what most experts say is needed to tackle the nation's deficit.” (Tamara Keith, “Does Buffett Rule Add Up For Obama Deficit Plan?” NPR, 9/19/11)
Los Angeles Times: “The Proposed Buffett Rule Is More A Political Statement Than A Deficit-Reduction Tool, Given How Little Money It Would Raise.” “The proposed Buffett rule is more a political statement than a deficit-reduction tool, given how little money it may raise. In that sense, it's like Obama's oft-repeated call to eliminate tax breaks for corporate jets.” (Editorial, “The ‘Buffett Rule,’ And More,” Los Angeles Times, 9/20/11)
OBAMA HAS TO RAISE TAXES TO PAY FOR HIS FAILED POLICIES AND WASTEFUL SPENDING
$347.1 Billion: Total Cost Of The Interest On The Money Borrowed To Pay For The Stimulus Over The Next Decade. (Douglas Elmendorf, Letter To Rep. Paul Ryan, Congressional Budget Office, 1/27/09)
$34.7 Billion: Loans Handed Out To Companies Like Solyndra Through The Department Of Energy 1705 Loan Program. (“The Financing Behind America’s Clean Energy Environment,” Department Of Energy, Accessed 4/9/12)
$24 Billion: Stimulus Contracts And Grants Awarded To Over 3,700 Recipients That Were Delinquent On Their Federal Taxes. (“Thousands Of Recovery Act Contract And Grant Recipients Owe Hundreds Of Millions In Federal Taxes,” Government Accountability Office, 4/28/11)
$4.75 Billion: Stimulus Funds Awarded Through The Weatherization Assistance Program. (“Progress And Challenges In Spending Weatherization Funds,” Government Accountability Office, 12/16/11)
$4.3 Billion: Stimulus Funds For California’s High-Speed “Train To Nowhere.” (Daisy Nguyen, “Critics Pan Proposed High-Speed Rail Segment,” The Associated Press, 12/1/10)
“The Buffet Rule is estimated to generate $46.7 Billion.”
Hells bells; that’s not even enough to fund one of his “green energy” scam companies. Lying S-O-S-in-Chief!
When you take money from the people who do the hiring they will have less funds to hire others with. but if people really believe Obama-—give it a shot and see how it tuns out. He has done so well so far./s/
I agree comletely. With only 53% paying income tax we have a lot of people not doing their part. Or aren't those the people Obama is talking about.
“As many Americans rush to file their taxes this weekend, it’s worth pointing out that we’ve got a tax system that doesn’t always uphold the principle of everyone doing their part,” Obama said in the address posted online Saturday.
This is funny. Because it is actually a true statement coming from a lying sack of crap. Why it is funny is because obama means “rich people are not paying enough. What is true about the statement is that millions of citizens pay NO TAXES but still get money back from the government.
They indeed are not doing their part!
When this illegal was born in Kenya, he must have been dropped on the point of his little Marxist head. Of course, he defines growth and investment as only possible by government action.
growth.....of kickbacks via Solyndra-type dole-outs at Zero’s direction.
Like the caller to Rush said yesterday: The Buffett rule is you apparently get ten years to pay your taxes (He has owed a billion dollars in taxes for the last ten years).
That’s now probably over $1 billion by now, I’m guessing.
“and help fund needed investments”
Translation: I have many more friends whom I want to help me spend and play with your money.
I had an argument with a ‘Progressive’ after Obama’s election. A few of my small business associates decided to go ‘Galt’ after the country turned socialist.
My ‘Progressive’ acquaintance said that the ‘Galt’ move would simply open up more opportunities for others.
Well, the downtown store fronts are STILL empty.
Anyone who knows history or human nature understands you do not punish productivity. People will NOT work harder for less.
There’s something not right about Buffet, mentally.
If he wanted to give more to the government, then where’s his check? Why hasn’t he quietly turned over his entire fortune and moved into a classic 3/2 ranch like the rest of us? Or maybe, just maybe, is it the publicity that he’s really after.
Two rules one must know about government spending and taxation.
When they are spending they under estimate 2 to 1.
When it comes to new taxation they over estimate 2 to 1.
And since when did Obama need tax money to grow government?
His dumb-a**ed idea has nothing to do with recovery. 46 billion really isn't that much in nation-wide terms. If anything it will hurt - taking still more money out of the private sector and funnelling it through the federal government, the most inefficient organization in the history of mankind. As others have pointed out, this is 100% politics, he's playing to his liberal/socialist/fascist/communist base.
O’Reilly fits that bill;
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/2011/09/19/bill-oreilly-what-presidents-obama-and-carter-do-not-understand
Bill O’Reilly “When President Obama took office, I knew he was an income redistribution guy. In fact, I challenged him on that in our first interview during the 2008 campaign. But once elected I decided to give the president a chance to see if his economic vision, big government management of the economy, could turn things around.”
I would like to see politicians get some juevos and throw out the whole tax code. Flat tax on everyone whether you make $1 or $1billion. That in itself is a progressive tax and everyone has skin in the game, as they say.
I know.....dream on. sigh
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.