It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The "Buffet Rule" hoax revealed: Produces only $31B over 10 years; costs Billions more!

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   
As many people have noted in the discussion of increased taxes on the "wealthy," and despite the demagoguery of its advocates, the net result of such proposals are less than the cost of thousands of individual federal give-aways.


President Barack Obama's plan for a "Buffett rule" tax on the wealthy would rake in just $31 billion over the next 11 years, according to an estimate by Congress' official tax analysts obtained by The Associated Press.

That figure would be a drop in the bucket of the over $7 trillion in federal budget deficits projected during that period. It is also minuscule compared to the many hundreds of billions it would cost to repeal the alternative minimum tax, which Obama's budget last month said he would replace with the Buffett rule tax.


Rep ort: Just $31B from Buffett rule tax on rich

Now that we have indepedent confirmation of what sensible analysis has shown since this was first proposed, the demagogues only rational basis for such plans are simple: Class Warfare.

Someone, anyone, please show how raising the taxes on the 1% will actually provide a meaningful fiscal benefit.

Do the numbers, instead of crying for "fairness," and the truth comes out.


Obama has proposed requiring that people earning at least $1 million annually pay at least 30 percent of their income in taxes, but has provided few details.

In an analysis provided to The AP on Tuesday, Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that a bill introduced last month by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., attempting to enshrine Obama's proposal into law would collect $31 billion through 2022.

"Now that we have this analysis, I hope the president will stop the class warfare and start leading by putting out real proposals to bring down our debt, get rid of the AMT and reform our broken tax code," Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said in a written statement.


Please cite me one "authority" Obama or the other whiners have cited as proof that the Buffet Rule, or any variant thereof, will actually make a difference in our multi-trillion-dollar spending spree, constituent pandering, and vote-buying.

Deny Ignorance

jw




posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Bingo! Thanks for posting. The debate is still never ending despite the facts that piling on the wealthy won't even make a dent in the budget or the deficit. Especially when spending continues to escalate and outpace revenues as the percentage of those with no federal tax liability continues to increase. We rapidly reaching the tipping point.

Simple stuff!!! It's all about politics, revenge, envy and justification. All bad stuff that will never solve any problems.

The 99% are ramping up for one hell of a season to fight the rich. Wish they'd protest to put an end to outrageous deficit spending.
edit on 20-3-2012 by jibeho because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 12:02 AM
link   
At least it is +$31B and not -$31B. To get this budget back into the realm of sanity you can either implement lots of little steps, or one big step and just kill the creditors.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 01:52 AM
link   
you have provided us some interesting information here



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 03:24 AM
link   
It is good to see that the OP admits that the Buffet rule will increase revenues to the treasury.

Unfortunately the OP fails to comprehend the point of the so called rule.

A secretary should not be paying a higher percentage of her income in taxes than one of the wealthiest men in the world.

Why is that such a hard concept to understand?

Why do people have a problem with that?



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Classified Info
 


The OP appears to me to be saying that the new tax is mearly window dressing and is derisory in value when compared with what they expect to receive from .gov.


A secretary should not be paying a higher percentage of her income in taxes than one of the wealthiest men in the world.


I think you will both agree on that.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Classified Info
It is good to see that the OP admits that the Buffet rule will increase revenues to the treasury.

Unfortunately the OP fails to comprehend the point of the so called rule.

A secretary should not be paying a higher percentage of her income in taxes than one of the wealthiest men in the world.

Why is that such a hard concept to understand?

Why do people have a problem with that?


The purpose of the Buffet rule: Solve nothing & Attack the capitalists.

$31 Billion is a drop in the bucket.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev
At least it is +$31B and not -$31B. To get this budget back into the realm of sanity you can either implement lots of little steps, or one big step and just kill the creditors.

The problem is that this is being sold as a replacement for the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). Swapping the two will cost hundreds of billions in lost revenue. That hardly offsets the $31B over 10 years.

jw



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Classified Info
It is good to see that the OP admits that the Buffet rule will increase revenues to the treasury.
Unfortunately the OP fails to comprehend the point of the so called rule.
A secretary should not be paying a higher percentage of her income in taxes than one of the wealthiest men in the world.
Why is that such a hard concept to understand?

Why do people have a problem with that?


What a bald-faced lie!

the problem with your logic, and that of the demagogues, is that presenting tax rates and ignoring tax receipts skews the picture.

25% of $0 adjusted income (which is what people pay taxes on) is a bit less than 10% of $150,000 (which is the AGI of many two-income families).

This line of argument is pathetically and patently facetious.

You can take any high-income taxpayer and compare effective rates against the bottom quintile, and the rates will not match, due to credits, itemizations, and offsets to income that do not matter to someone earning $15,000 per year, but make a big difference for those earning $150,000.

The bottom line is that the Buffet Rule will not make a positive difference in tax receipts.

Anyone who denies this is oblivious to the facts, or is intentionally misleading the reader.

deny ignorance
jw
edit on 21-3-2012 by jdub297 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ukWolf
reply to post by Classified Info
 

The OP appears to me to be saying that the new tax is mearly window dressing and is derisory in value when compared with what they expect to receive from .gov.

A secretary should not be paying a higher percentage of her income in taxes than one of the wealthiest men in the world.

I think you will both agree on that.


No! The presentation is based upon a false premise. The nominal rate of the lowest income "taxpayers" means nothing when you take into consideration the exemptions, credits and deductions available to them.

While their nominal rate may be 25%, the lowest 50% of wage earners actually pay $0 in income taxes.

Since when is a ZERO tax bill a travesty,compared to a $10,000 or $100,000 tax bill?
Anyone who buys into this line of thinking is either grossly misinformed, or purposely distorting reality to fit their agenda.

You need proof? Look at your own tax return! Don't be willingly ignorant.

Deny ignorance

jw



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 07:13 PM
link   
This isn't the first time this journalist fudged or distorted news reports:

alan fram misrepresents...



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Firstly, my sincere apologies to Classified Info for my mistaken comment.


Jdub - personally, I would tax the rich and Corporations till they bleed and not take 1p in payroll tax from lower income earners
As I obviously don't grasp what it is your trying to sell here, I'll move along.




posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Yeah!

The middle class should continue to not have any disposable income. The middle class must always make up for what the job creators shouldn't put in. It's only a drop in the bucket, and the middle class having disposable income would never have a positive impact on the economy.


Fox news at its finest



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297

Originally posted by kwakakev
At least it is +$31B and not -$31B. To get this budget back into the realm of sanity you can either implement lots of little steps, or one big step and just kill the creditors.

The problem is that this is being sold as a replacement for the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). Swapping the two will cost hundreds of billions in lost revenue. That hardly offsets the $31B over 10 years.


That is a problem if that is where the growing political double speak is going with this proposal.

At the core I see a big issue between the self interest directive of capitalism being reflected in the national direction. With such an outcome to any tax reform it just puts more pressure on the war machine to resolve the national debt.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ukWolf


Firstly, my sincere apologies to Classified Info for my mistaken comment.



Hey, you don't owe me any apologies. But thanks, it was a nice gesture nonetheless.




Jdub -
As I obviously don't grasp what it is your trying to sell here, I'll move along.




I don't either.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by spinalremain
Yeah!

The middle class should continue to not have any disposable income. The middle class must always make up for what the job creators shouldn't put in. It's only a drop in the bucket, and the middle class having disposable income would never have a positive impact on the economy.


Fox news at its finest


The solution is a flat tax like 9 - 9 - 9 popularized by Herman Cain.

It simple and easy to understand. The current tax code is a mess.

----------

BTW, Buffet is delusional. We are Taxed Enough Already.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Oh JUST 31 BILLION.
This is conservative talk trying to make big numbers seem small with how they emphasis.
I heart on fox news a guy try to downplay 10 billion (it's jusstin ten billion) when it was discussing taxing the rich. Then later on fox a woman trying to reason getting rid of National Public Radio she said "if we cut NPR that's a million dollars! A MILLION DOLLARS!"

Fox conservatives.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
Oh JUST 31 BILLION.
This is conservative talk trying to make big numbers seem small with how they emphasis.
I heart on fox news a guy try to downplay 10 billion (it's jusstin ten billion) when it was discussing taxing the rich. Then later on fox a woman trying to reason getting rid of National Public Radio she said "if we cut NPR that's a million dollars! A MILLION DOLLARS!"

Fox conservatives.


Instead of throwing $31 billion at that black hole called Washington DC, those exact

same billions will be used to start up new companies , buy new cars, buy new houses,

buy meals in restaurants and grow the economy.

--------
BTW, NPR will do just fine without taxpayer dollars.

George Soros will cut them a check no problem.



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join