The Buffett Rule being proposed by Obama, and scheduled to be voted on Monday by the Senate, isn't quite as complicated as some may think. But it isn't overly simple either when you consider all the factors involved in it.
First, it helps to take a look at why the current administration wants to have a "Buffet Rule" in the first place.
Four years ago, President Obama and Warren Buffet were doing as well financially as they are today. Both enjoyed a tax rate they never complained about, despite their secretaries paying more of a tax rate than they did.
So what made these two men suddenly care about the middle class and the poor among them... four years after Obama took office?
Altruistic behavior? A desire to help those less fortunate?
No, none of the above, as they could have done all that with their own money. What is motivating them to dig into taxpayers' pockets, however, is politics, pure and simple.
President Obama needs to appease a growing group of American voters that are growing more and more concerned about how much the country's debt has grown under his administration. His millionaire friend, Warren Buffett, wants to help him do that, since it always pays to have friends in high places.
Taxpayers should be very concerned when two millionaires get together and act as if they are going to attack other millionaires on their behalf.
The country is unable to make a dent in its debt at present, with American merely paying the interest on it right now. So the government must decrease, not increase. Programs like Medicare don't need the axe, but wasteful spending like that for the special GSA parties in Las Vegas—or GSA bonuses or Secret Service outings—sure do.
But Obama wants to grow America's debt by keeping all of the above, which his administration must take responsibility for underwriting, if for no other reason than letting it happen on his watch.
Republicans, on the other hand, want to end the unnecessary GSA spending and all the rest, except for programs like Medicare, of course.
So Obama and Warren Buffett came up with the Buffett Rule for the election year to try and help sell Americans on the idea that they can stick it to the wealthy (isn't that fun, that say), and in addition the new rule will cover all that Obama wants to spend money on in the future.
But it won't.
All the Rule does is put approximately $5 billion into the government's pockets each year for the next 10 years, according to USA Today, which is not even a drop in the trillion dollars deficit debt bucket.
It would be like asking your parent to give you your sister's nickle so you could pay your $13 candy debt, when you don't have any money to go with it. That's the whole kick about the Buffett Rule. Americans are the ones getting it stuck to them, not the rich.
In addition, there will be 273,000 small business owners that get hit by the Rule, but you don't hear much about that, do you?
The trillion-dollars deficit is so big it can't actually be solved by taxing all the rich, as Obama alludes will happen with this sneaky tax idea.
So maybe the real solution is the Debt Rule: If Congress doesn't have it to spend, they won't spend it? Sounds like the Debt Rule would have solved that GSA $823,000 Las Vegas outing, eh?
Photo Credit: Allen Green of Visualdepartures.com
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 6
The president lied to us Buffett’s secretary pays the same capital gains tax rate as Buffett himself.
The president lied to us Obama’s secretary pays the same earned income rate as Obama himself.
The president lied to us Obama’s secretary pays the same capital gains tax rate as Obama himself.
The presidents effective tax rate is lower than his secretary my bet is that he will pay his share, but given the chance, will he lead by example and pay more than his secretary?
The problem is not that this shyster is lying to you, it is that the Free Press, who has an obligation to find and tell the truth is not. The media is no better than the propaganda wing of the Kremlin or Nazi headquarters.
Choose your sources wisely and check and double check there work and call them on it.
Well done Jane!
The White House spokeswoman Amy Brundage lied to us about Obama’s secretary pays the same capital gains tax rate as Obama himself.
The White House spokeswoman Amy Brundage lied to us about Obama’s secretary pays the same earned income rate as Obama himself.
Exact quote from Amy Brundage about the presidents secretary (Breckenridge): 'pays a slightly higher rate this year on her substantially lower income, which is exactly why we need to reform our tax code and ask the wealthiest to pay their fair share.'
The Rates are the same… Now if Amy Brundage someone with far better communication skills than I had used the word “Effective” to modify the subject of rate, then the story would be entirely different.
Sorry Jane, I wrote this fast and it may have seemed like I was somewhat critical of you as I did use the word “you”, however I intended the word to be taken generically as in “we all”, I was sincere when I said well done. Thanks for pointing out my error..
Chelsea: Were you the Chelsea that referred another reader to my page? If so, thanks! About your comment on this article, please point me to where Obama offered to address his unusually low tax brackett in favor of his secretary in 2008 or 2009. A link to a news article would do it. I'm hard pressed to find any such mention myself.