'Buffett Rule' would raise less than $5 billion in taxes a year

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The Buffett Rule won't do much for deficit reduction.

That's the verdict from the Joint Committee on Taxation, which provides the official Congressional analysis of tax legislation. In a report prepared at the request of Republican staff on the Senate Finance Committee, the JCT says requiring those who make more than $1 million a year to pay at least 30% of their income in taxes would generate $47 billion over the next decade, or an average of just $4.7 billion per year.

To put that in perspective, President Obama's budget forecasts a $901 billion deficit in 2013.

The Buffett Rule is named after billionaire investor Warren Buffett, who has repeatedly decried the fact that he pays a lower percentage of his income to the IRS than his secretary. The "Paying a Fair Share Act" would apply to anyone whose adjustable gross income exceeds $1 million. Those who itemize their deductions would get a credit equal to the value of their charitable contribution deductions, so as not to discourage charitable giving. To measure whether a millionaire is paying at least 30% of his or her income in taxes, the bill would take into account what the individual paid in federal income and payroll taxes, plus the new 3.8% Medicare surtax that goes into effect in 2013. In releasing their budget last month, the Obama Administration made clear that they are not pushing to implement the Buffett Rule now. Rather, it's a guiding principle for when -- or if -- Congress takes up tax reform. The White House has called for the Buffett Rule to replace the Alternative Minimum Tax, which would only exacerbate the government's deficit problem, Hatch said. The Alternative Minimum Tax is projected to raise roughly $2 trillion in revenue over 10 years.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/buffett-rule-raise-less-5-004300332.html

[luckytxn 2,264]

This is what I have been saying all along. Taxing the rich will not solve the problem. The only ones paying taxes besides the rich is us middle class. Now how are we going to pay for the Socialism?

[Ban Hammer 13,398]

maybe it won't do much, but it sure will help buy more hearts and minds of the weak.

[mawilson 2,133]

It's not that hard to evade taxes.

I can send all my earnings (save for $10k - just enough to qualify for Medicaid and food stamps - to a corporation in the Caymans (which has a zero corporate tax rate) and just keep it there until retirement.

Since that income is not earned by me, but by the corporation, it's not subject to the personal US tax rate, as long as it stays within the corporation.

[luckytxn 2,264]

maybe it won't do much, but it sure will help buy more hearts and minds of the weak.

Buying votes is an old American tradition. Guess we could call the Socialists old fashioned.

[dalegg 143]

maybe it won't do much, but it sure will help buy more hearts and minds of the weak.

No, the worst thing that could happen for Obama is for any of these tax hikes on just the wealthy to actually happen, and that's why they haven't.

Imagine if at the beginning of 2011 Obama would have pushed through his new proposed tax plan which kept all of the Bush tax breaks in place for all but the top 2%. What would have been the net affect?

Best case is that he adds about $60 Billion in income. The deficit for 2011 was 1.3 Trillion. So, assuming he doesn't get to spend this extra income on a jobs bill the deficit would have still been 1.24 Trillion dollars. So as the debt ceiling debate starts raging and debates about deficits continue, he no longer gets to blame the Bush tax cuts and he no longer gets to point his finger at the wealthy. He's pretty much out of excuses. So now he still has record deficits, higher than 8% unemployment, and a sluggish economy. The only thing he can do to back his argument is ask for even higher taxes on the wealthy and you can imagine where that would go.