Obama's "Buffett Rule" Flops
Back in September of 2011, President Obama first unveiled the "Buffett Rule" which he explained as a measure that would require millionaires and billionaires to "pay their fair share" in order to help reduce the deficit. And in January, he made the Buffett Rule a centerpiece of his State of the Union Address. Obama rebuffed critics who had argued that he was engaging in class warfare, and deemed the Buffett Rule a common sense way to bring down the deficit.
Well, the numbers are in. From Conn Carroll over at the Washington Examiner:
President Obama's proposed "Buffett rule" tax on Americans earning more than $1 million a year would only raise $31 billion in revenue over 11 years according to new numbers from Congress' official tax analysts.
To put that $31 billion in perspective, Obama's budget spends $45.4 trillion over the same time frame and increases the debt by $3.5 trillion.
- Comment (13)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments:
Re: Obama's "Buffett Rule" Flops
Diane, this brings new meaning to the term Buffett Rule -- a tax that would raise less money than the net worth of the person for whom it's named.
Edited on March 21, 2012 at 1:57amApr '11
Re: Obama's "Buffett Rule" Flops
Obama's has pretty much just checked out on this whole pesky budget process hasn't he?
I can imagine all the previous Presidents are kicking themselves for not realizing they had that option.
Feb '12
Re: Obama's "Buffett Rule" Flops
Over the next 11 years, the debt goes up by only 3.5 trillion? That seems low to me. If we're borrowing 40 cents for every dollar of spending, wouldn't it be more like 18 trillion? (I may be missing something). Nevertheless, given the quote below, the fact that the Buffett Rule fails to keep pace with debt expansion by (at least) two orders of magnitude is irrelevant. "Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness"
Mar '11
Re: Obama's "Buffett Rule" Flops
We've been running deficits of around 1.3 trillion per year lately. Over 11 years that would likely be 13 - 15 trillion, not 3.5 trillion. Promises to cut deficits have not panned out so far.
Apr '11
Re: Obama's "Buffett Rule" Flops
Hey, it's only off by 3 orders of magnitude 10^12 vs 10^9. Thats what I love about the Buffet Rule and all of his complaining about the rich paying more. It doesn't actually solve the problem. If it at least solved the problem it might be worth considering.
Feb '12
Re: Obama's "Buffett Rule" Flops
Gifts for understatement abound!
May '10
Re: Obama's "Buffett Rule" Flops
I think Obama thought the "Buffet Rule" was: Take a clean plate when you go to get seconds.
The guy clearly has no clue about matters fiscal and will say whatever pops into his head regardless of whether it makes the least bit of sense.
Mar '11
Re: Obama's "Buffett Rule" Flops
I think it is more accurate to say that he is mainly concerned with perception rather than reality. He wants to be perceived as addressing the problem, and does not care about actually solving it.
May '11
Re: Obama's "Buffett Rule" Flops
Blue State Blues
We've been running deficits of around 1.3 trillion per year lately. Over 11 years that would likely be 13 - 15 trillion, not 3.5 trillion. Promises to cut deficits have not panned out so far. · 5 hours ago
The original AP article actually sites $7 trillion in deficits over 11 years.
There is an old habit in DC to use budget gimmicks to hide true costs. It would be great if we could stop that. Some of those employed by the this budget can be found here in the bottom half of the article.
Basically, he counts tax increases that won't pass, eliminates spending that was going to happen anyways (Iraq/Afghanistan), and an economic growth rate we haven't seen since Bush's supply-side tax cuts. I think that answers the question.
Mar '11
Re: Obama's "Buffett Rule" Flops
Don't believe anything they promise in the "out years." It is not legally binding on future Congresses and therefore it will most likely never come to pass.
Edited on March 21, 2012 at 12:05pmDec '11
Re: Obama's "Buffett Rule" Flops
I would trade a buffet rule for a 2.6trillion budget next year. Its inconsequential at best, if its a symbolic victory whatever.
Personally I think we should have a flat tax at 19% for personal income, capital gains, and corporate income (dividends should be untaxed as they are taxed with the corporate income tax). It gets him what he wants.
May '10
Re: Obama's "Buffett Rule" Flops
Guruforhire: I would trade a buffet rule for a 2.6trillion budget next year. Its inconsequential at best, if its a symbolic victory whatever.
Personally I think we should have a flat tax at 19% for personal income, capital gains, and corporate income (dividends should be untaxed as they are taxed with the corporate income tax). It gets him what he wants. · 8 hours ago
I like your idea but I'd set the level at 15-17% and shrink non-defense spending to fit.
Dec '11
Re: Obama's "Buffett Rule" Flops
Tom Lindholtz
Guruforhire: I would trade a buffet rule for a 2.6trillion budget next year. Its inconsequential at best, if its a symbolic victory whatever.
Personally I think we should have a flat tax at 19% for personal income, capital gains, and corporate income (dividends should be untaxed as they are taxed with the corporate income tax). It gets him what he wants. · 8 hours ago
I like your idea but I'd set the level at 15-17% and shrink non-defense spending to fit. · 24 minutes ago
Like it or not liberals are going to exist, and we have to have room for liberal spending priorities too. You can make the factual arguement on spending norms and long term expectations, you can convince people and generate a concensus around that, convincing people that our government should be smaller than long term norms is just not persuasive.
A flat income tax is also workable with radical liberals too if they are sufficiently convinced the uber-rich are getting over.