forget $31b, its now $48B for Buffett tax

dogtowner

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 24, 2009
Messages
17,849
Location
Wandering around
a whoops-a-doodle made it seem worse than now

oh and thats over 10 years

and assuming these rich guys do nothing different as a result.

in other words, its feelgood nonsense.

well I don't feel very good about $17b errors

but what we had best be paying attention to is Congress forgetting about putting to death the alternative minimum tax thats about to hit us for a trillion


The Joint Committee on Taxation, a nonpartisan body that estimates tax changes for lawmakers, on Tuesday updated an earlier report forecasting that the tax would raise $31 billion over the period, citing economic modeling errors.

Either way, the revenue is far less than the $1 trillion or more that would be lost from scrapping the alternative minimum tax. The AMT also is meant to be a minimum tax on the wealthy. Democrats have said the Buffett tax could replace the AMT.
 
Werbung:
Charles K. pretty much summarizes the idiotic Buffett Rule here:

"Let's do the math. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates this new ['Buffett Rule'] tax would yield between $4 billion and $5 billion a year. If we collect the Buffett tax for the next 250 years -- a span longer than the life of this republic -- it would not cover the Obama deficit for 2011 alone. As an approach to our mountain of debt, the Buffett Rule is a farce. And yet Obama repeated the ridiculous claim again this week. 'It will help us close our deficit.' Does he really think we're that stupid? Hence the fallback: The Buffett Rule is a first step in tax reform. On the contrary. It's a substitute for tax reform, an evasion of tax reform. In three years, Obama hasn't touched tax (or, for that matter, entitlement) reform, and clearly has no intention to. The Buffett Rule is nothing but a form of redistributionism that has vanishingly little to do with debt reduction and everything to do with re-election. ... For Obama, fairness is the supreme social value. And fairness is what he is running on -- although he is not prepared to come clean on its price. Or even acknowledge that there is a price. Instead, Obama throws in a free economic lunch for all. 'This is not just about fairness,' he insisted on Wednesday. 'This is also about growth.' ... Three years ago, Obama promised universal health care that saves money. Today, he offers a capital gains tax hike that spurs economic growth. This is free-lunch egalitarianism." --columnist Charles Krauthammer

So, once again the Skinny Socialist and his cabal of leftists are proposing something that will NOT fix anything, but it is good class warfare politics and generates more revenue his inefficient and omnipresent government.

Can anyone outline BO's policies for fixing the economy? Has he offered any proposals for his second term, should he God forbid get re-elected?
 
And the 900lb gorilla in this room is the assumption that people who would have found themselves impacted would do nothing to improve their tax liability. And the most obvious place to take your money is elsewhere leaving a huge deficit. Even funnier is that Obama has already admitted that he knows this will happen.

Its past time we got past screwing around and start addressing the massive problems 50 years of socialism has caused. We're at the point where the pain of fixing it is getting disproportionally worse.

The jig is up.
 
And the 900lb gorilla in this room is the assumption that people who would have found themselves impacted would do nothing to improve their tax liability. And the most obvious place to take your money is elsewhere leaving a huge deficit. Even funnier is that Obama has already admitted that he knows this will happen.

Its past time we got past screwing around and start addressing the massive problems 50 years of socialism has caused. We're at the point where the pain of fixing it is getting disproportionally worse.

The jig is up.

Agreed, but few on the left believe this. They actually believe the lies BO spouts. They believe if the rich "pay their fair share" all will be fine. Never mind that the rich already pay the majority of income taxes...facts....those stubborn things...mean nothing to the left.

As you say, raising taxes on the rich often fails to generate additional revenue particularly in bad economic times...the rich have lots of options and they will use them to avoid higher taxes....for example, John F-ing Kerry (who served in Vietnam, then committed treason, and then married wealthy heiresses) moved his yacht out of state to avoid MA taxes.
 
ramirez-041612_TOON2.jpg.cms
 
Agreed, but few on the left believe this. They actually believe the lies BO spouts. They believe if the rich "pay their fair share" all will be fine. Never mind that the rich already pay the majority of income taxes...facts....those stubborn things...mean nothing to the left.

As you say, raising taxes on the rich often fails to generate additional revenue particularly in bad economic times...the rich have lots of options and they will use them to avoid higher taxes....for example, John F-ing Kerry (who served in Vietnam, then committed treason, and then married wealthy heiresses) moved his yacht out of state to avoid MA taxes.

Ergo the try at branding it "fairness" which was even sillier on multiple layers. All its good for is class warfare and even one dem was honest enough to admit it in the wake of yesterday's vote.

I'm really not sure raising taxes ever gets you a gain. They're usually packaged with something to offset so only those not programmed to get evened out pay more (thats generally the middle class of course). Revenues exploded under Clinton but they would have exploded regardless given the Dot Com boom. The track record fr tax increases producing revenue is terrible. And yes, rich people wrote the tax code so you cant act surprised when they're minimally impacted.
 
Werbung:
This short article completely exposes the fraud being perpetrated on Americans by BO and left.

The Left believes Reagan's tax reforms ONLY benefited the rich. How can they be so ignorant when the facts are clearly available for all to see?

Many on the Left are incapable of understanding the facts about taxation...or could be they do understand, but only care about imposing their tyrannical will by forcing us all to accept Socialism?


It doesn’t take a tax genius; any rich person can make a phone call or hit a few computer keys and shift his or her investments to tax-free municipal bonds. It’s not good for the economy when capital gets diverted to help finance the excess spending of Detroit or California, but it’s an effective way of stiff-arming the IRS.
Or the rich can play the green-energy scam, getting all sorts of credits to offset their tax liabilities. That’s one way General Electric made lots of money and kept it all for shareholders.
Statists often will respond by arguing that we should reform the tax code. But instead of a flat tax, which would rid us of loopholes and would lower tax rates, they just want to end the loopholes and keep tax rates high — or raise them even higher.
Even if lawmakers abolished the various tax-code distortions, they might still be disappointed. The one sure way for rich people to lower their tax bills is by generating less income.
Here’s a quick economics lesson for the class-warfare crowd: When the government taxes income, it raises the price of work compared to leisure. And because the tax code penalizes capital gains with higher rates, it also raises the price of saving and investment compared to consumption.
Yet work, production, saving and investment are how we generate national income, so it doesn’t make sense to discourage taxable income with higher tax rates.
This isn’t some sort of modern-day revelation. Andrew Mellon, a Treasury secretary during the 1920s, noted that “the history of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business.”
Unlike the rest of us, the rich have a great ability to alter the timing, amount and composition of their income. That’s because, according to IRS data, those with more than $1 million of adjusted gross income get only 33 percent of it from wages and salaries. The super-rich (those with income above $10 million) rely on wages and salaries for only 19 percent of their income.
In 1980, when the top tax rate was 70 percent, rich people (those with incomes of more than $200,000) reported about $36 billion of income; the IRS collected about $19 billion of that amount. So what happened when President Ronald Reagan lowered the top tax rate to 28 percent by 1988? Did revenue fall proportionately, to about $8 billion?
Folks on the left thought that would happen, complaining that Reagan’s “tax cuts for the rich” would starve the government of revenue and give upper-income taxpayers a free ride.
But if we look at the 1988 IRS data, rich people paid more than $99 billion to Uncle Sam. That is, because rich taxpayers were willing to earn and report much more income, the government collected five times as much revenue with a lower rate.
To be sure, many other factors helped account for the explosion of taxable income, including inflation, population growth and other pro-growth policies. So we don’t know whether the lower tax rates on the rich caused revenues to merely double, triple or quadruple.
But we do know that the rich paid much more when the tax rate was much lower.
Now Obama wants to run the experiment in reverse. He hasn’t proposed to push the top tax rate up to 70 percent, thank goodness, but the combined effect of his class-warfare policies would mean a big increase in marginal tax rates.
That might be good for workers in China, India or Ireland, because American jobs and investment would migrate to those places. But it’s not the right policy for the United States.
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-high-taxes-will-never-soak-rich
 
Back
Top