By Fareed Zakaria, CNN
On Monday, Senate Republicans blocked debate on the Buffett Rule, the 30% tax rate floor called for by President Obama affecting anyone earning more than $1 million a year. If I were in Congress, I'd vote for the Buffett Rule even though it remains highly unsatisfactory. Here's why:
The Buffett Tax will raise about $47 billion over the next ten years and the federal government will spend vastly more than that - $45 trillion over the next ten years. So the total revenue from the tax is clearly trivial in comparison to the scale of the problem in terms of deficit or debt. I made this point in my discussion with the Chairman of President Obama’s National Economic Council, Gene Sperling. His response was to really not view it in isolation but to view it as one part of a much larger deficit reduction strategy. He said 'We already have cuts in many programs; we proposed more.' Sperling implied that President Obama was going to accept even more discretionary spending cuts.
Sperling referenced the deal that President Obama and Speaker John Boehner almost came to this past summer in which there were deep cuts. Sperling said that when cutting programs like Medicaid quite substantially, the Administration is saying ‘We have to balance those on the principle of shared sacrifice by asking those who have been most fortunate over the past decade to pay their fair share.’
I think as a matter of fairness, the Buffett Tax makes sense.
My problem with it is that what we really need is comprehensive tax reform. We have what I would describe as the world’s worst tax code. It is the longest, the most complicated, riddled with loopholes, exceptions and deductions - all of which are fundamentally institutionalized corruption. They are a way that Congress is able to reward powerful constituents by giving them what seem to be small giveaways in the tax code but which are, of course, government grants often amounting to hundreds and millions and billions of dollars in perpetuity (because unlike appropriations, these do not come up for review every year; once you put in a tax exemption or preferential tax treatment, it exists forever).
I would be much more comfortable with the Buffett Rule if it were part of a larger tax reform strategy. Gene Sperling told me that President Obama has laid out broad outlines of what tax reform should look like. The implication was that it was up to Congress to do it. But the chance that this broken, dysfunctional, divided Congress is ever going to do something as large-scale and sweeping as major task reform strikes me a highly implausible. This is an area that would take substantial presidential leadership.
I don’t have any objection to the Buffett Rule. I don’t have any objection to paying more taxes myself. But I think that we’ve once more missed a great opportunity for really solving a problem through comprehensive tax reform with the kind changes Simspon-Bowles suggested with the elimination of hundreds and hundreds of loopholes raising hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars. Instead what we have is something more on the lines of a gimmick. All that said, if I were in Congress, I would vote for the Buffett Rule.
 |
Post by: |
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Work for us | Help
I agree 100%. We need a tax overhaul form government to state. We are being taxed and surcharged to death. From Federal and State income taxes to taxes for retail sales, gas, on our utility bills etc.
I think all buffets should be tax free. Except the seafood buffets, like the one in N. Korea last week.
...and Jimmy Buffet concerts.
Good one JAL.
Jimmy Buffet is more of a Capitalist than his dad, Warren.
This is one of the negativity of freedom of speach, people are allowed to make jokes of serious issues and their B S are publish.
Yup – and if you want to be really offensive, you can give them a finger buffet!
Tax reform chatter is premature. Ain't nothin' gonna happen before the election. Buffet tax is strictly a political ploy that has absolute zero chance of passing. The Bush tax cuts expire at the end of this year. As such, tax reform starts from the basis of what existed when Clinton left office. When that time comes, I'll be back.
There is a possible way to get to tax reform. It is for Pres. Obama to let the Bush tax cuts expire. The bill had many other provisions that deeply affect a large number of people. This will create a sense of crisis because everyone will end up paying more, much more. Under this pressure, Congress will be forced to come up with something. It will take courage to do so and if Obama wins re-election, it will be his chance to do something historic.
FPC – If Obama had wanted to he could have got tax reform in before 2010 without needing a single Republican vote. But he chose to bulldoze Obamacare instead.
Do you know why? Because he hadn't a clue how to do it – and he STILL hasn't.
Streuth! where's his Budget Plan? He's wanting a second term – it's a joke.
Indeed, a tax overhaul is necessary. It has to be fair, so that not just the poor and the middle class have to bear all the burden while the super rich can get away with less.
Remember that 50% of all Americans don't pay any federal income tax. And the top 10% pay 70% of federal income taxes.
Uh, you may not have noticed, but the poor don't pay income taxes. In many cases, they get back more than the amount withheld thanks to EITC. Individuals or families with more than $70,000 dollars a year in gross income combine to generate more than 97% of the income taxes paid to the Fed each year. Tell me again about how the poor are paying income taxes?
The poor and middle class do not pay much in the way of taxes. They need to pay their fair share for the services that they use.
John, that's because the top 10% have 90% of the wealth. According to that, they should be paying 90% of the taxes, not 70%.
Well, you drank the media Kool Aid. How'd it taste? The richest 1% make 16% of all the income and pay 37% of all income taxes. Do you think that's fair? Then, to insult them, and us, further, 47% of people pay NO taxes...and that's just counting the people who are here in the country legally. Here's fair: How about everybody just pays 17% of their income? That way, it's by definition "fair", and we can do away with the USA's equivalent of the Gestapo...the IRS.
Very naive comment....poor don't pay any taxes whatsoever...How about a flat tax of 20% which would include non-ordinary income....and here is an idea, less government spending???? The gov't is completely out of control and waste billions of taxpayers money period.
many fo the respondents are pointing out that many poor and lower middle class pay no Federal income tax. They forget that all workeres earning income pay wage taxes and it is those with income from investments instead of wages that ge the free ride. Thus the Mr. Romney's 13.9% tax rate. Also don't forget that business owners also enjoy tax benefits not available to those who'sw income comes from wages.
@John, if you are going to make a statement like that, please include the rest of the stats. Out of the 50% that don't pay their taxes, 75% of them are below the poverty line.
Many people here are saying that the poor are not paying taxes. That is absolutely a farce propogated by the media! They do pay taxes in the form of payroll taxes, sales taxes, etc. etc. After all that they usually have only enough to pay for their basic necessities, or are simply below the poverty line. Believe me, I used to be a grad student and used to live on 15K and I did pay my taxes. Please stop this rant against the poor.
The problem with "fair" is that the definition of it tends to change from person to person. So... exactly what do you mean by "fair"? Do you mean that the rich should pay more than than the poor? Okay, I can work with that... Webster's online dictionary defines "fair" as follows: "marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism".
By that definition, the only way for our tax code to be fair would be to divide the yearly costs for running the country by the number of tax payers; the result would be everyone's fair share. After all, everyone gets protected by the same military, gets equal use of federally funded highways/facilities, and so on. So... now that we have determined the true baseline for fair, let's all admit that that approach, while fair in the truest sense of the word, is not feasible. So what approach is closest to fair while still being feasible? There, the answer is clear – a flat tax rate. No loop holes, no write-offs, no deductions... a straight percentage of all income, for all people.
Before anyone gets started on what is a widely held misconception, a flat tax is NOT regressive; how CAN it be? It's a flat percentage! That way, the rich are STILL paying more (20% of $1M/yr is more than 20% of $10k/yr), while everyone else is also paying a share. Add in the savings from being able to downsize the IRS due to tax code simplification, and this is nothing but a win-win for Joe and Jane Taxpayer.
Brad, you are clueless. Did you just make that up or are you seriously misinformed? According to you, 37% of Americans are below the poverty line?? The actual number is 15%, and while that's still too high, this debate is too important to be throwing around misinformation
It's a well known fact that 100% of statistics are meaningless.
kvpillai – ok, let us say it clearly so YOU UNDERSTAND. When we say 47% of tax-filing Americans don't pay INCOME tax, it means FEDERAL INCOME TAX. As for any other tax, who cares, there is no free ride in this country...if you want the 'services' of an over-spending/bloated Federal Government you should pay something.
I will concur that if you are truly living below the poverty line, you should pay minimal FEDERAL income tax, but again, you still should pay something.
As for the comment that 75% of those NOT paying FEDERAL income tax are living below the poverty line, quite honestly I don't believe that number without a source.
Sorry, simply paying sales tax, gas tax, liquor tax, beer tax, cell phone tax, or any other 'tax' does not make up for FEDERAL INCOME TAXES. Also, if you are living below the povery line, you should not be buying beer, liquor and probably qualify for a free cell phone and free everything else all paid for by the 53% of us who actually contribute to society.
JC, you don't understand the meaning of the word "regressive". Spend a little time reading, and you will get it.
The overhaul would be so that everyone pays his/her fair share; i.e., people/corporations would pay more. But those who pay more would be at the upper end of the income bracket. Simplifying the tax code will never happen. Look how many CPA's and tax lawyers wouldn't have a job.
Can you tell me how taxing a corporation makes sense? Oh, I know, everyone says corporations should pay their "fair share", but this is just a ploy hatched by Democrats to make you feel better about your concept of "fairness". When Coca Cola Corp. profits are taxed at 50%, 75% or 90%, do you think there's somebody in Atlanta named Mr. Coke who writes the check. No, brother, it's you and me...real live people who get taxed not once, but twice!
Gotta agree with Catharsis on this one. If you really want prices to stabilize, you HAVE to reduce the corporate tax to 0%. Corporations don't "pay taxes" per se – the consumers (you and me) pay these corporate taxes. It's simply rolled into the prices of their goods.
@The Zel- I am ok with the extremely wealthy (people making over $1 million) paying more in way of taxes, so long as they are not private business owners who are still putting in their own money in to their companies and so long as the federal budget is reigned in and reevaluated. Small businesses thrive on private investment by the owners of the companies as well as investors/ venture capitalists. Taking more money away from these people could potentially stop the owners and investors from investing more money in their companies and could in fact, stop and halt a company's expansion. It may even lead to its regression in that the owner(s) will be unable to continue to pay the wages for some of his or her workers in addition to benefits and will therefore have to let them go. We need to be careful before we just start raising taxes on the wealthy. Lets reign in the budget and try to make do with the money that the government currently has and gets each year from taxes.
You have to be kidding me. You actually think corporations will pass along tax cuts in the form of lower prices? You know absolutely nothing about the corporate business form do you? How do I know? Because the basic goal (in their business charters, except for non-profits) is to "maximize shareholder value". That means to make absolutely as much money as is possible whether its good or fair or right or not.
20% no deductions, if you get a welfare check, boom 20% off the top. if you get a social security check 20% off the top. if you get anything 20% goes to the Fed. No more deductions. everyone pays. its doesn't get any more fair than that.
Actually, we are some of the lowest-taxed individuals in the developed world. It's a CHAOS, but it's still much lower than most. We get less than most in return for our taxes, though, no healthcare, no higher education, etc.
My household income is below average in the country, but I would not object to a higher tax rate for even us, if it meant healthcare and education. *AND* a thorough overhaul to a simplified, streamlined, more fair tax scale with much fewer loopholes, higher capital gains tax rates and no corporate overseas exceptions.
I agree with Tax reform. Everyone should put something in the pot.
No deductions, no credits of any sort. I want all taxes done in 15 minutes or less.
2% on under 15,000
5% on 15,000 – 30,000
10% on 30,000 – 75,000
15% on 75,000 – 200,000
20% on 200,000 and up
I vote for you. Can we go to 25% at $2,000,000?
Sounds good to me.
"Apples" profits are the equivalent of 6 million American jobs.(Quarterly earnings) $46 billion / $30,000 = 1,533,333 x 4 = 6 MILLION ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND YEARLY “BLUE COLLAR” WAGES/JOBS. Our government gives away another 7 million jobs in subsidies to more than profitable companies!
You are just an uncle tom! Taxes are modern day slavery. If you want more taxes then just donate your own money instead of imposing it on everyone else. People have been in bondage for so long that they don't even recognize slavery anymore. I am a free man and will live free and won't have any uncle toms or slave drivers telling me what to do. Freedom is worth fighting for just as our ancestors have!
What is needed is a President who has a clue about fiscal responsibility and economic mangement.
Not a President who holds up a man who OWES $2 taxes from 2002 on as a role model for his tax plans! Streuth, that is so disrespectful of the peole of America. AND It doesn't even TOUCH any intention of reducing the deficit.
It's funny how this tax hid those that make hundreds of billions a year and take advantage of Americans behind people that earn a million a year! Maybe they should separate the two?
Buffett Rule Good But Not Good Enough -- for Fareed and all of his associated that carry the sign of the Hammer and Cycle!
Sickle. If you're going to use the Communist card, at least use it properly.
Only a true commie would know.
He thinks Fareed works days at Schwinn as a repairman.
Only a complete fool wouldn't know, H57.
As far as Fareed being a bicycle repair for Schwinn, that's an insult to all bicycle repairmen, Catharsus.
I love when people don't read an article but still feel the need to come here and show how ignorant they are.
Fareed's article is saying that this should be part of a comprehensive tax overhaul that closes many more loops. That would probably mean ones that people like you and I also benefit from, so that's why it won't happen. People only like sacrifices when other people are the ones taking them.
How nice of you to 'sacrifice' my paycheck against my will. Thanks! I am sure you will spend it wisely, right? I heard there was this company called Solyndra that is looking for investor's... Only an ostrich believes anything coming from this administration and its sycophants anymore.
He also claims how the tax code benefits the rich without mentioning that it also helps many people pay nothing which seems to be a pretty good benefit. As head of household you can actullty have a negative tax where you pay nothing and geta refund. Thats pretty good too. Everyone is gigging the system not just the rch. What about all the middle class people who would not be able to itemize without the mortgage interest deduction. We need top to bottom reform period. Stop blaming one group or the other, place the blame where it belongs on the idiots that kept passing the laws.
Thank you! All the name calling, out of place cynicism, and not reading are the reason the country is jacked up.
Look, we can't just let people die in the streets – so the poor need provided healthcare. Even those who say they're for letting them die in the streets would change their mind at the sight and smell of rotting corpses lying around (because the government's not picking them up either).
And we have to pay for that healthcare somehow, right? So we have to come together and do it through taxation.
Those are the options. It's that way with everything. People think we can cut taxes and cut spending and have everything remain the same. Not so.
Try working half as many hours. Then cut your expenses by half. Then tell me how much happier you are with no iPhone, no car, no Harley Davidson, no McMansion, no fast food for every meal. Probably about as happy as you'd be with no police, no schools, no hospitals...etc.
This is not about your politics. It's about the math folks, and the choice between the past and the future.
True and socialists find it easy to rob and spend other people's money. Who are we kidding? Socialists programs only beget more people that want handouts – they don't solve problems.
I'm glad you could deduct that from his article as the average person wouldn't be able to do so
I find it laughable that people who gripe about someone who games the welfare system completely ignore the fact that the rich and corporations routinely game the tax system to avoid paying millions in taxes. One is stealing hundreds or possibly thousands of dollars from the taxpayers and the other is stealing millions and billions.
How about we all just pay the same percentage of our income? Huh? That seems fair to me.
Travis you wouldn't know what communism or socialism is if it were tattooed to your forehead!
Obviously, right. So easy to just throw a meaningless label out there and remove all responsibility for your mouth...kinda like this...
Travis, you're a Maoist KKK Nazi Swahili-speaking spaghetti sandwich with 8 toes and a twin frog bike. Har! Take that!
MM, but when it's tatooed on your behind it is visible to all.
You wear your ignorance like a badge of honor.
Read the article for goodness sake.
Sounds like fareed has got it right. You can't keep up a great country "tax free". I suppose you carry the mental deficient sign, huh, Travis.
We can't have the greatest country in the world, with no one paying the bills. We have to pay taxes. No one likes taxes, but we need 'em. If you really don't want taxes, there are some examples of how that works out, google "failed state" for some examples. Our tax code is thousands of pages of attemts to carve out a little discount for this group or that group, and incentives to try to motive big social experiments, all of which combine to form a giant, incomprehensible mess that ends up with Warren Buffet paying a lower rate than I do.
Hammer & Cycle?
I hope the cycle you're talking about is a Harley.
Sickle. If we all had Cycles, perhaps our air would be less polluted.
Americans are so sheltered and insular that most have no idea what Communism and Socialism look like, and instead just ignorantly repeat the buzz words they hear on the radio without any understanding of what those words mean.
It makes me weary, how often I hear "Communist Fascist" as if those words were in any way compatible.
Learn about the world, people, PLEASE. And I do mean the WHOLE world, and I DON'T mean from Rush and Glenn.
Apart from a minor slip you made a good point.
Did anyone really think Zakaria wouldn't like the Buffet Rule? We get it bro. You love Obama. Get over it.
This guy is so in the tank for Obama it is not funny.
Clearly ambiguous where Obama's a** ends and Zakaria's nose begins.
Really? I see the opposite. Then again, I read the article, so that does make a difference.
I see him saying that Obama is not doing enough, just like the Republicans are saying. Fine, he likes the Buffet rule if that's all he can get. But he wants something closer to what Republicans want, like a flat tax or cuts in spending. I hear him saying we need both.
I guess I'll just say..."did anybody really think that Kevin wouldn't support Romney's calling for no Buffet Rule? Seriously, Kevin has his nose so far up Mitt's a** that all he can smell is the ever-changing wind."
There, sophisticated, useful debate that furthers the goals of American society. Do you feel as exhilarated as I do Kevin?
No, he wasn't advocating a flat tax but elimination of most deductions and loopholes that encourage corruption. A flat tax is inherently unfair toward the poor and most likely would reduce the tax burden on the wealthy. Most income taxes worldwide are progressive (although the rich would might them regressive). Cutting discretionary spending is a painful but necessary part of the solution, but that does nothing to eliminate the national debt. Tax revenues must be increased - if we've gotten into so much debt so far, it's highly unrealistic to expect us to pay it off at current tax levels.
Actually, Andrew, fareed is quite pro mega tax. Though he might be quite ambiguous in how he would reform the tax laws in this story, he whips himself into a frothing frenzy of delight in "The Return of the Left" and the prospect that the French will vote for a candidate that supports a flat earning rate of $100,000 (euro) and a 100% tax above that amount. He is quite clear in his expectation (hope) that this is a trend the US will follow with the understanding that the French are always right.
Hammer and Cycle ?????
Says it all, doesn`t it?
I am so sick of these Communist allegations people throw out with no regard to what they are saying. Anyone remember Joe McCarthy??? Has it been that long? Very irresponsible and dangerous.
That's the looney Republican right wing for you Dave.
Only those filthy socialists ride bicycles!
Yea but id rather have the communist dems then the nazi repubs
bicycles and 50cc motorcycles. Thats all they can afford.
Robert – WHY? They're 6 of one and half a dozen of the other!
I'm gonna hope that it was done on a smartphone and was an autocorrect. Otherwise, it's an indictment of the mismanaged and underfunded American education system: another good reason for tax reform!
The call for tax reform has been around forever, but to try and implement even the simplest reform would be political suicide, especially these days when the Republicans automatically oppose anything the President suggests. If the Republicans form the next government even they'll find reasons not to close loopholes, even though they are making that a political platform to help them win the election. The only way to do it is by stages and over a long period of time. Making sudden changes could have seriously negative and unforseen results and the current electoral process works on a two year cycle. You can't get much done in two years.
Why is the 'tax reform' you gloat about always about INCREASING taxes? How is that reform? It isn't. Or is that just a convenient euphemism to make it palatable to Joe Schmo on the street?
Just so you know we don't just diapprove anything the President proposes.We would oppose his policies regardless of who proposed them. The 15 million unemployed should oppose them too.
So stop voting for republicans and democrats. Vote Libertarian. They are the only party committed to tax reform. A Libertarian would rather do the right thing than get re-elected. Republicans and Democrats start their re-election campaigns sometime near the end of their first year in office.
Actually, from watching some of them, it seems that they start their re-election campaigns the day they take office.
The President could have dealt with tax reform before 2010 – without a SINGLE Republican vote. Bot no = he chose to bulldoze Obamacare. Why? Because he didn't have a clue about the economy then, and he has no clue now. Period.
To show how ignorant he is and how disrespectful of the American people – he holds Warren Buffet's useless plan up as a MODEL for taxpayers, when the man owes $2 Billion in back taxes since 2002! Wake up and smell the coffee.
Zakaria is a global elitist who is an avowed socialist and Marxist; who thinks America as founded is fundamentally wrong. Why does anyone take his opinion seriously?
I've tried to ignore this but the more I listen to him or read his books, I think you are correct.
Then don't read his articles. At least you tried to talk with the adults, but some people just don't like logic mixed into their partisan news sources.
I have some breaking "news" for you, CMH. ALL news sources are biased.
You must be trolling. If you read what he's written, he blasts socialism and over-regulation as contributing to economic backwardness and stagnation (using the specific example of India until the most recent decade or two), and his support here, however half-hearted, of the Buffet Rule, could certainly not be considered elitism. Aside from that, elitism and socialism are nearly diametrically opposed ideas, so unless we're talking in terms of averages here, where you might have just accused him of centrism (of which he's certainly guilty), your comment makes no damn sense.
You're wasting your time with rational discussion. People like the OP are so skewed in their minds and so h8tful in their hearts and so poorly informed in their intellects, that they will never see the reality you are trying to explain to them. It just doesn't register.
I have read almost every opinion Zakaria has written and they all have soialism written all over them. You need to get your head out of the sand.
Socialism? Yeah, let the rich robs the poor to the bone and a revolution will happen, where the poor rob the rich back. It's more fun that way.
There is no talk about over regulation in this article but there are plenty of socialist and communist keywords
like "shared sacrifice " .
If we all know this is true – why do we give him credibility by responding to his strange opinions?
I think poor people should pay everything they have in taxes so wealthy people can relax and enjoy themselves.
Enjoy November 2012.
I assume you are working for the Romney campaign!?!?!
You sir or madam are a complete moron. 41% of tax filers paid -0- in taxes this year. There isn't a poor person affected by taxes in this country other than those that mooch off the Earned Income Credit.
Another 'article' that's really a love letter to the prez in the hopes that The One makes Zakaria part of his cabinet...
Nonsense.
I once respected Mr Zakaria's opinions on international issues, but his far-left bent on American domestic issues has caused me to rethink my opinion–if he can't comment impartially on domestic issues, how can I trust him to comment impartially on international issues. I want news. I want honest analysis. I don't want yet another opinion.
‘We have to balance those on the principle of shared sacrifice by asking those who have been most fortunate over the past decade to pay their fair share.’
That's a key insight into the thinking of the Left–they'll never accept that individual success is ever due to harder work, greater intelligence or drive, or any other individual characteristic. If some have been more successful than others, it must be due to sheer, dumb, luck. Or maybe to lying and cheating.
Sorry, Left, but some people really are brighter than others.
I have the same opinion.
You are so mistaken. I am very Liberal and believe hard work should be rewarded. If you want to get rid of the deficit you have to cut spending and raise revenues. Republicans believe that the deficit will go away by giving more tax cuts to the rich and increase spending on the military and laws that invade a womans choice. Remember that it is Ann Romney that said we should all respect a woman's choice. She is a closet Liberal.
That isn't the Republican's position. Nice try, but you failed. There is no war on women. Get a life.
II agree. As a conservative, I really used to enjoy his show even with some of its bias. However, the bias is glaring now and Fareed has lost me as a viewer along with my advertiser dollars.
Really CW...you're a conservative? As if no one could tell from your mindless talking points and barking idiocy.
exactly CW that is why I see your comment here ...
"pay their fair share" The wealthy already pay the vast majority of the taxes this country collects.
True, but at nowhere near the rates they've paid in the past, even under Republican presidents. Tax reform can't be revenue neutral, because (a) that would only shift the burden away from the wealthy to the ever shrinking middle class and growing lower class, and (b) would do nothing to eliminate current debt.
Right on, let's show those liberals! Set the tax rate back to the levels they were when the Great Ronald Reagan was president! That's what we should do?
....
....
What? You mean the tax rate then was higher than it is now?
I am neither left or right.When you say "wealthy"people are smarter or more hard working,well youre wrong by assuming.The wealthy have cheated the system as much if not more than the "STUPID" people! How many poor stupid people have lobbyist's or former irs tax agents woking for them.You are picking sides on a completely broken system and calling people in a lower monetary class than youself "stupid and lazy".What about people who cant afford college,people with serious health problems and or bills,ect..Are you harder working and more "intelligent "than all of these people.Take an IQ test and post it on here.
Thanks!
He is just another in a long line of wanna-be commies. They think they know better than the rest of us and if we would only give them the chance they could do Communism better and finally make it work.
I want to know why 29% of Americans think the rich pay too much. Do they all think they are in the top 1%?
.......because they do.............
II want to know why 50% of America pays no Federal income tax (after returns) and has the gall to demand that the other half pay for their lives and needs.
First of all every single person that has ever used money to purchase some good in America has paid taxes but the tax you are talking about is the federal income tax. I hope you realize that there are legitimate reasons why 50% may not pay taxes, assuming this percentage is even accurate. These numbers include students who don't have a job, people who have retired, homeless, unemployed etc. Its simple, lets say the tax rate is 30% flat. Your income is $0 because you go to college. What is 30% of 0? You get it yet?
So lets look at the percentage of all Americans that are in school, retired, unemployed and add them all up and you get your 50% who don't pay taxes.
I'm not sure what everyone thinks "fair" is. I paid $35k in federal inome tax on $170K income. That doesn't count social security, FICA, sales tax, excise taxes, state taxes, etc. How much is really enough?
Look man it sucks that you have to pay so much but its all about proportions. The simple fact is that the country is in the deep red. Debt is about 100% of GDP. That means that if everyone gave everything they had we would still probably be in debt. If you want this country to survive then everybody needs to stop asking so much from their government.
Just throw it all in and only get back what is needed to live on. Consider a mud hut with an outdoor toilet. Very fashionable
everyone pays too much.....not just rich or poor...everyone......we dont have a money problem, we have a spending problem
Given how the government wastes so much money, we all pay too much. The populace should refuse to pay any taxes until the politicians clean up their act.
All morons, buffoons, teabaggers, birthers, people of Walmart, evangelicals, nascar lovers and gun nuts should be taxed at a higher rate. They can call it the Sarah Palin Tax.
And that is why your party will lose in November. Good luck with that outlook.
A man walks up to a woman at a fancy party and asks her if she'll sleep with him for $10 million dollars. After considering it, she decides that she will. At which point the man offers her twenty bucks. "What do you take me for?!" the woman asks indignantly. "We've already established that," says the man. "Now we're just haggling over the price."
This story is the exact same situation. Once you agree to the notion that ANY progressive taxation can be "fair" you're just haggling over the price. For the same service, I might add. There are only three ways taxation can be fair. You can: 1) Tax everyone the exact same amount. 2) Tax everyone at the exact same rate 3) Tax everyone down to the exact same level of post tax income. Obviously strategy 1 really isn't practical, as you would have to set rates on the lowest common denominator. Strategy 3 is a recipe for disaster. So unless you're willing to support a flat tax (aka strategy 2), you're just trying to figure out if you're the man or the woman in this story. And what your price happens to be.
Well said!
Totally false analogy. The more money you make the higher your tax rate still means the more you make, the more you still keep. Your realistic choices make the rich, richer and the poor, poorer. Something that cannot exist for long before the Nation fails.
Explain to me how allowing someone to keep more of the money that they have earned, makes poor people poorer. Idiotic talking points never die.
And again, Steve, proves that it is easier for him to effectively steal from the taxpaying public rather than better himself and his family. Nice.
Steve, it's not yours to redistribute.
I wish that More of our citizens would understand economics and the negative effect higher income tax rates have on achievers desire to expand, ie. create positions of employement (not in the public sector). Bigsky you are dead on the problem with increasing tax rates on achievers and subsidizing (enabling) those who do little; to keep up doing little.
Excellent.
The problem that Buffet himself has addressed is that because of the loopholes in the system and deductions he and his peers pays a significantly SMALLER PERCENTAGE of their total income in taxes than do those in the lower classes.
American conservatives have no interest in helping the country. They want tax breaks to help themselves, their companies and masters (big oil, defense contractors, insurance companies, etc). As long as we continue to elect these corrupt right wingers our country will continue to deteriorate.
Great argument. So spending ourselves into oblivion has no consequences, right? How about some restraint instead of the constant sky-falling desire to raise taxes?
Thankyou for sharing the DNC's dailey talking points.
Liberal definition of fairness: Pay nothing while consuming the vast majority of the services, all the while complaining that your ill-gotten gains are insufficient. Grow up parasites.
When will Buffet grow tired of being pimped by this Administration? Probably once he realizes that his investments in "green energy" aren't going to continue being propped up by taxpayer dollars. Buffet rule 1: To thyne own self be true.
So the ends justify the means, right, Fareed? What gives YOU the right to someone else's wealth? Serious question. You are advocating legalized theft implemented by the federal government. You can call it taxes, but most American's (who actually work) call it theft. Develop some novel solutions for reducing the debt (how about cutting spending???) and leave my wallet out of it. Fareed, November 2012 is going to hit you like a ton of bricks.
We are at the lowest level of tax collection as a percentage of GDP in over 50 years, and at the highest rate of spending as a percentage of GDP since WW2. We need to both increase revenue and decrease spending. Most importantly we need to match revenue to spending. It isn't taxes that matter, it is spending. It is like when your credit card bill comes due only paying the minimum, your debt keeps rising and eventually you hit your credit limit and everything falls apart. We are following exactly in the tracks of Greece. Even if you follow Rep. Ryans budget plan exactly it will only drop spending slightly. We still need to increase revenue to the point where we are not spending more then we bring in. Reducing taxes without reducing spending just delays the point when we have to collect those taxes plus interest.
We are at a low point in tax receipts because the economy is stagnating not because tax rates are too low. Increased revenue comes from increased economic growth, not increased taxes. Its a bogus arguement that the Dems use.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. This is America and we should not discriminate against the middle class to benefit the wealthy by providing the some very wealthy invidividuals with lower tax rates than the middle class. For those who note how much the wealthy pay in dollar amounts, you should also note how the wealthy benefit from government and the resources they use. If you want to speak with your senator or congressman, good luck getting a call back. If a very wealthy person does, I bet they get called back before your average middle class person. If a wealthy person is murdered, there is a much bigger pressure to provide the man hours to solve the crime. And that is just the beginning.
IIt has always been that way. Life is not fair. Get over it. You can continue to cry about stuff you cannot control or you can rise above it through hard work. Your choice.
Fareed, go back to sleep, please.
Why is there a push to make paying TAXES a good thing? We pay so out of control government can spend it. That is NOT they way the USA was constructed. The orignal intention of taxes was to manage USA business. Not become a welfare state. We are allowing the president to reach KING status. We the people will soon be mere SUBJECTS to the throne if this mentality continues...yes, Zakaria should quit imposing his socialist views upon the USA. We are NOT Asia. We are NOT Europe.
Taxes have been a sore subject since our nation was conceived. We have had tax rebellions (with actual gunfire). Why not try something different ; that's been kicked around for many years. I'm suggesting a flat tax on everybody , including corps. (who will cry the loudest against it ). If the powers that be would do the math , they would see the vast amount of tax money coming in. A flat tax of 12% or less could get our nation out of debt in short order ( if congress would keep their fingers out of the till , not likely ). This tax payer is just dreaming.......
Oh I forgot , I pay 29.8% combined state and federal taxes.
Here's my simple tax code. All income is that. Income.Whether it be wages or capital gains or inheritance. And all taxed at the same rate. Reduce the tax rate to maybe 12.5% one eighth of your income. There are the deductions. 1. Interest deduction for you home of residence only . No second home,no vacation home, only where you live and if you have two or more home only one of them. 2. College tuition for you children. An educated America is a strong America. Medical expenses. All of it would be deductable. Then the people who can't afford insurance would hace some relief. That's it get rid of the rest of the deductions and loop holes. Lastly if you are below the poverty line you don't pay 12.5%. You pay 1% until you rise above it. You simplfy the tax code, reduce the tax rate and everyone except the very porr pay the same.
That sounds reasonable to me , but the powers that be will bluster and say it won't work , without even checking to sere if it would.
Good Start Tom! However, if your have deductions then Congress will begin to add to them immediately. I suggest a straight 15% of (ALL) income, no deductions and the Government pays college tuition (with a 3.0 GPA), and covers healthcare. The Government pays ALL educational expenses for physicians, who in return, owe the government 5 years of service at a clinic. You have given back critical expenses to the middle class, and dramatically increased revenues by eliminating all corporate loopholes. Oh, and only allow $100 or less per year in political contributions from INDIVIDUALS only.
The only reason Buffett does and says what says is so the occupiers wont show up at his front door. Buffett has an Army of tax lawyers fighting the IRS as we speak.
Youtube the following- "Reagan no loopholes for millionaires" It's only 59 seconds
Raising taxes to 30%+ is very different than eliminating loopholes.
Zakaria Came from a socialist ideology country. The time India got its freedom, India had to allow home grown businesses to grow and to protect them against foreign companies, they had to adapt those ideologies. Around same time Zakaria moved to US, still frozen on those ideologies. Zakaria, your own country has given up those ideologies. Smart business mentality is to increase the sales, not just reduce the expenses.
Zakaria, you should know the reasons of record collections of late 90s and 2004/2005. The biggest reason was that companies were growing, economy was flourishing; tax collection automatically increased.
The biggest problem that I have with our government is that they waste too much money on pet projects. If they are serious about reducing the debt, they should earmark fix percentage of the revenue collection towards paying down the debt. Right now, I don't see it that way. Event after event is the indication of growing the government.
http://www.obgyn.com
ultrasound section
the relationship between placental location and fetal gender.
We need in addition to the Buffet Rule the Simspon-Bowles reforms, not something like it or whatever
"I don’t have any objection to paying more taxes myself."
Then maybe you should pay my tax bill, too. I'm tired of politicians stealing what I earn so people who don't work can have a good life.
I'm against giving them anymore money until they pass a budget. If we give them more, they'll spend it three or more time. Until they act responsibly, no more money. Would you give your children an endless bank account. I doubt it. how are they any different.
Fareed is way out of his element here. Economics not his strong suit.
"I don’t have any objection to paying more taxes myself."
So, the guy sitting on the couch all day collecting government checks, food stamps, subsidized housing, etc... that's not enough? Do you want to pay more taxes so that he can get free cigarettes too?
"I think as a matter of fairness, the Buffett Tax makes sense."
No, sorry, it doesn't.
The top 1% of Americans currently earn 17% of the nation's income. Yet they pay 37% of the income tax burden. Those making above $1M per year pay an EFFECTIVE tax rate of 20.1% (with payroll tax), or 18.9% (without payroll tax).
The "buffet rule" would take those who already pay twice a percentage of the tax burden that they make as a percentage of the income, and raise the amount they pay by 50% or more.
Only in the most liberal, socialist line of thinking would this qualify as "fairness"
i guess the problem is how anyone can work so hard as to deserve making millions of dollars each year. and the more money you have, the easier it is to make more. but thats capatilism.
well, it depends on how the 1% earns their income.
Some people actually earn it. Now, I'm not in the 1%, but we are high income. And...we earn it with two full time regular jobs.
Some people earn it by starting their own businesses and busting their butts.
Some people earn it by cronyism. You know...you scratch my back, I scratch yours. CEO's with golden parachutes (who cut pay, jobs, benefits for their employees). And, they make the rules. They lobby to make the rules work for them. And they make millions and billions a year, not necessarily because they are working hard (some of them do, I am not generalizing).
Look at the difference between the typical CEO pay and the pay of the lowest paid employee (as a multiplication factor) now vs. 20, 40, 60 years ago. It's changed quite a bit. That's a huge problem, depending on how that CEO earned his dollars. (That said I worked for a company where the founders made millions and millions. When I heard grumblings, I pointed out that those 7 guys all took out 2nd mortgages on their homes (and third) to start that company and took HUGE risks. That's not the case with most CEO's today.)
Absolutely agree with Mr. Zakaria – one of the smartest people in the news business. I would add one more suggestion: Republicans should form one big independent southern state as their own country and free this great country (USA) from their stupidity, obstructionism, gun-related violence, racism, anti-science, etc., etc..... These uneducated religious folks deserve their own destiny.
...and the liberal America that was left would quickly collapse from the lack of people willing to reproduce, and the huge welfare burden created by rampant social decline in the inner cities, and unchecked illegal immigration.
I would rather have a country without republicans OR democrats. Democrats want to screw with my money. Republicans want to screw with my social life. I could do without either one of you.
I guess you live on Mars.
The facts: Self-identified Republicans are significantly more likely than Democrats to have 4-year college degrees.
Regarding graduate-level degrees (masters or doctorate), there is a rough parity between Democrats and Republicans. According to the Gallup Organization: "[B]oth Democrats and Republicans have equal numbers of Americans at the upper end of the educational spectrum — that is, with post graduate degrees..."
It's not enough to make up for 30 plus years of Reaganomics creating a class war. Pay your f@#%ing taxes, richies and corporations or get the hell out!
Presently the top 1%&5% of income earners pay 34%&60% repectively of all income taxes. Apparently, this is unfair. In the unlikely event the Buffet Rule might eventually pass (so far it hasn't) and these same 1%&5% income earners end up paying say 50%&80% of all income taxes, why do I think this "privileged" group will still be vilified as not paying their fair share?
But it's a start.
Fareed, You're a fool. Buffett is living on dividends which is a lower tax rate than his secretary who is paying on her income from a job. That's a lot different. Obama also paid less than his Secretary. Get off it. This is just a distraction from the real issue of the deficit. How much will the Buffet rule add to revenue? A few billion? I can' imagine such stupidity from an uninformed individual.
Relax Bob. No one, not one person or political figure, has ever claimed that the so-called 'Buffett Rule' aka 'Romney Rule' is intended to solve the deficit problem. You're barking up the wrong tree. It has always been cast as a matter of fairness and taxation on ability to pay .... period. And, if you look at it in that single perspective, only a fool would find it objectionable. As such, it can be seen as a small step to a far larger program to attack the tax code and the deficit in the future.
Get off this stupid talking point! Everyone knows that the Buffet rule will do little to reduce this massive deficit that Republicans and Democrats alike have grown. This is about changing the country's zeitgeist. It has ever been so in the history of our country. It takes small steps to make big changes. We cannot continue down this slope with such disparity of income. It's hardly a matter of the have's and the have nots anymore; it's the "have-it-all's" and everyone else.
May be we need a method of recall for Congress members so we can have some clout with them.
This is coming from Zacharia? The same guy who advocated a flat tax a couple of weeks ago? The DNC or the Socialist Party (not that there's a difference) must have gotten to him and he didn't want to end up like Vince Foster.
Actually, a flat tax is what he's advocating in this article, too. Reform the tax code to something fair to all. If you read his stuff more, you'd see it's probably the most reasoned liberal point of view you're going to find. And it's not very far left at all. I'd consider him more centrist. While Mr. Zakaria takes the President's views as motivated for the good of the country (instead of politically motivated for the good of his reelection) more than I would, at least he addresses those views/actions with a reasoned approach. Most liberal commentators just can't keep the emotion out of their analysis, and they end up with an emotional plea instead of a reasoned argument for their position.
Obama's cnn puppet has spoken yet again. why cant someone just shut this jack.as.s off
Why don't you shut up and move on. No one, especially YOU, is being forced to read anything. If you don't like his work, then pass on it.
Pertinent or not, I can't believe this story got linked on the same article announcing he has prostate cancer. It's like getting an all office email in Outlook that announces a personal tragedy, and hitting "reply all" asking if this will delay that budget proposal you were expecting. How about some tact CNN?
The problem is that Congress has and will continue to grant a zillion loopholes for themselves. Loopholes will always be abused. Even Obama got out of paying tax more money to his kids than many of us make. Taxes will only be fair when everyone is taxed at exactly the same rate regardless of race, religion, or income.
It's amazing that this Country puts up with the likes of General Electric which in spite of taking in 13 Billion dollars in revenue in 2010, paid no taxes. That's right, zippo, nadda, nuthin. The reason: General Electric actually has 2,900 employees working to make sure it pays no taxes. This Country needs a minimum corporate tax rate. Our Corporate Tax Rate is 35%, but only fools pay that. The average corporation pays around 16% to 18%, which is what other corporations around the globe pay. If a corporation has over $1,000,000 in profits, it ought to pay at least 10%.
Jimmy,
If you utilize the tax code, you could benefit too. Did you know that:
1) Revenue/Interest from Treasuries is tax-free?
2) If you contribute to a 401k or IRA you are taxed AFTER the 401k/IRA distribution?
3) If you contribute to a Flexible Spending Account (FSA) or Health Savings Account (HSA), you are taxed AFTER $$ is paid into these accounts?
I could go on and on but I don't know how much good it would do. The above tax breaks benefit those making << $1 million per year. You just have to know how to read!
regarding item 2, that is meant to say that you are taxed AFTER you put money into your 401k/IRA. In other words, your Adjusted Gross Income is lower....
Zakaria,
If Obama scratched his rear, you have your nose so far up it that Obama would gouge your eyes out.
I seriously puzzle over the theory that those that "CAN" afford to pay more should. They do not use any more services than any other citizen and in fact are responsible for the lifelihood of many others (who are taxed).
While I think it's slightly reasonable to charge a bit more the idea of "they should do more" is absurd. Provided no one is cheating out of their obligations they should not. They're already screwed by paying more even if they had the same tax rate, but that's aggrevated by them also paying at a higher rate (except for the "cheats").
Comprehensive tax reform is needed, for the loopholes and the sheer volume of thousands of pages of tax code that no one really understands anymore. But when we get all bent out of shape about taxing the "rich," lets not forget that 47% of the people in America don't pay any income taxes. That includes many, many low income and middle income people, not just some of the richer people. If we want "everyone" to pay their fair share, then a flat tax is the only way. But then low income people have to pay it as well, regardless.
It seems to me the Liberals who are crying foul are being VERY hypocritical!!
If all these Liberals are so altruistic, why aren't they following Alec Baldwin's lead and finding a way to pay 32% of their income toward taxes? I don't agree with Baldwin's politics but at least he's walking the walk.
Just think of the hours/days/money every taxpayer would gain back each year with a simplified code. Excellent opinion piece, but it makes way too much sense for anyone in Congress to listen. And especially this executive branch. Reason has no place in an election year. If it's not scoring points, it's not going to be proposed or accomplished this year. Because being elected is much more important than the good of the country, don't you know?
The ignorance in this country is simply astounding. This man always present a well rounded, rational look, and opinion on what he comments on. He is among one of the brightest journalist around, and well respected not just in this country but abroad. Yet, there are some here who obviously lack an iota of a intelligence in presenting a well formulated opinion or argument, choose instead to attack the man with comments that simply demonstrate their inability to understand the core issues we face in this country. This isn't about Obama or Romney and those that see it that way will never see the bigger picture involved. It's a shame that some of our brightest minds are oftentimes attacked by schoolyard bully tactics and language reserved for the primitive among us. Much of it is driven by deep rooted bigotry or prejudice and our own insecurities. Thus...the bully and gutter language card. We are supposed to be better than that. Shame on you.
The guy is an idiot. Really....give the government more taxes to waste and pour down the drain? It's laughable to think this guy has a column.
You proved my point 100%.
Who's the bully here? You certainly sound like one. The fact is socialism doesn't work. That fact has been proven in Russia, China, and India. They had to embrace capitalism to advance their societies. Can anyone claim the increase of the standard of living in those countries was not the result of their adoption of capitalism ideas? People WAKE-UP ; socialism does not work – ever. Zakaria has consistently pushed socialist ideas and people on here have called him out on it.
Folks the person who wrote this article is brain damaged. He really wouldn't object to paying more taxes??? That's what he wrote. I don't want to pay more taxes and anyone out there who really does is doing some hard drugs. No wonder this country is so screwed up,.
I don't really want to pay more in taxes, but I would gladly do so if it were used responsibly and if it was part of an equitable solution that put our countries finances on a sustainable and stable course, which they are currently not. We all lose if our countries finances collapse like is threatened in Greece, and their would be no one to bail us out either. I understand where Fareed is coming from with his statement.
More taxes? How bout the government first spend what it gets responsibly! There is so much fraud and waste going on it's laughable to think anyone would advocate taxing anyone any more than they already are.
Really amazing to me that people actually are focusing on this nothing issue (4.7 billion per year would not even fund the govt for a day) when almost 50% of Americans did not do what I just had to do....pay federal income taxes.
This is just some sort of punitive measure for some unknown reason...
You are right! So the limit should be broght down to 500 thousand instead of 1million and the minimum tax to be increased to 35%? Is Obama is too lenient?
I agree with the author, a fellow who usually does his homework, that there is a definite need for a much more comprehensive tax reform. In addition to the corruption issue, there are a few other good reasons to do so as well. For one thing, millions of extra man hours of labor are wasted for no good ends in tax preparation unnecessarily because of the complexity of our current laws and rules which are described as the 'longest and most complicated' by Mr. Zakaria. Aside from moving resources from one group of companies and people to another, there is really nothing productive from the current complexity especially given the inequities of many of the loopholes.
Additionally I have a view that, at least on state and local levels, taxes are more equal if they are on moved towards property and away from income. The reason is two fold. First, it seems to me to be more equitable in that, at least in my case, my wealth is tied up in tangible forms of property and the more of it I have, the more I can actually afford to pay. Second, it forces me to use what property I have, or at least a fair portion of it if I have a large amount, for productive purposes or else I do not generate the income needed to pay those taxes. Third it takes away additional penalties for hard work if it reduces income tax. I generally do not believe people should have to pay a higher tax rate because they take on a second job to support there family, or for whatever purposes they use the extra income.
But alas, as it stands, if I were in Congress I would probably vote in favor of the law as well as at least it increases revenue, all be it a tenth of a percent of what we apparently will spend, as a functional means of bringing our deficit down even in this token amount without too seriously harming any segment of our society. It seems clear to me that we both need to cut spending and raise some taxes in order to get our fiscal house in order.
Really sad and pathetic that our President is focusing so much effort on an issue that will bring in at most $20 billion per year (and it will be far less than that when they figure out how to avoid the tax).
If I'm running a company, I'm not dealing with something that affects less, way less, than 1% of the overall budget. Politics and nothing else. Sad.
Every person should pay the same percentage on any income that they legally made throughout the year. This percentage should be deducted from their paychecks. Any additional income (interst, money from stock sales or additional profis when something is sold) should be taxed at the same rate. Businesses should pay at least a 5% tax on gross income. No deductions, tax credits, wrie-offs. Everyone pays the same percentage period.
This is the first time I've agreed with Zakaria. The tax MUST be raised on the super wealthy. They've enjoyed endless income for too long at the cost of everyone else. They sit on that money and it doesn't get recycled back through the economy. The tax rate for the highest income bracket has only gone down since the 1950s, while the brackets themselves have not changed to account for inflation. The highest income bracket should be $3.5 million right now, not $350,000, and it should be taxed at least 50%. (It was 90% in the 1950s, the most prosperous decade in American history)
Tax=((Income/20)^1.2)-2000) is a nice formula to fix everything.
Doesn't get "recycled"? You do realize that the only way to drive down your effective rate is to INVEST it, don't you? To put it BACK into the market where it drives the economy, finances new growth, and creates jobs...
The "Buffett rule"affecting those with reportable income >1M is a partial concession to the Republican refusal to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire for those with reportable income >250K. So yes, it's not enough, but that not for lack of trying. And yes, tax code reform would be ideal, but the chance of that happening under the current Congress is even less likely than letting go of Bushynomics.
It's been my observation that America doesn't do reform well. American is by and large a conservative country, distrustful of government, and conservatives resist change, particularly large, sweeping changes. Thus we try to address problems with small tweaks and patches rather than sitting back and asking how we can redesign an entire system from the ground up to make it more effective.
to all repubs and conservatives ..... pls answer why rich folks should be able to pay less tax than the poor .....
Why again do I care how Zakaria would vote on the Buffett rule? He's a big-government liberal who wants more power in the hands of Ivy League elitist, like himself, who think they spend money better than the people who earn it.
You liberals are so silly and hypocritical on this issue that it's absolutely pathetic.
Let's put this into perspective on the grand scheme of things with common sense and simple math. The Buffet Rule would save us 4.7 Billion a YEAR /47 Billion in 10 YEARS. When President Obama took office, the national debt stood at $10.626 trillion. It now stands at $15.681 trillion – an unprecedented increase of $5.055 TRILLION (and counting) in just around 1200 days in office. That's all adds up to be a little over $5 billion the US spends in A SINGLE DAY. This would pay for around 10 HOURS TOTAL on our national debt.
How Dems/Obama can spend more money (and still counting) in less than 4 years than ALL of the past Presidents/Administrations COMBINED and then turn around and cry so much about paying for 10 hours of federal spending is BEYOND RIDICULOUS.
Your error is presenting facts to Liberals, which ultimately just confuses them. Your analysis also assumes that the money saved, small that it is, would be used wisely and create more jobs. History has repeatedly shown the opposite.
I normally disagree with Mr. Zakaria, but to be fair he is spot on. He won't quite admit that the Buffet rule is pure and deceitful politics...which means very good politics. We should not raise taxes one dollar, but we should certainly reform the tax code. For example – there should be no – as in ZERO – deductions for mortgage interest for anyone making over $100k. We way overconsume housing compared with the rest of the world because we encourage overconsumption of housing (sorry REALTORS)...that deduction (just one example) must be phased out.
Most apartments in the United States still have loans due on them, and most owners make over 100k per year. I just calculated that I would have to add about $100 per month to each apartment's rent if I did not have that deduction in order to be at the same point financially. I and every other landlord would be forced to pass that cost on to renters. Paying interest on property loans is a real cost of doing business for almost all people with investment properties. It is money that I can not use as it goes from a part of the rents collected to the bank that holds the mortgage. If I have to pay 28% tax on all rents collected and cannot deduct the mortgage interest from the amount I have to pay taxes on, I (and every other landlord I know) would have to pass that cost on or give up on renting apartments altogether as it would become a money losing proposition – since my overall margins currently are averaging less than $100 per apartment.
"Fairness"? Zakaria? How is it fair? The rich already pay at least 30%....when they have investment income–the principle that was already taxed once–and it gets taxed at a lower rate is why the total tax bill can be a lower percentage. I still don't see how it's "fairness." Fairness would be requiring the 50% that don't pay any taxes to contribute.
Fairness is a false issue used by liberals. The real intent is the aggrandizement of the political class by taking money and power from the individuals who earn it. But Control is a much less effective campaign slogan than Fairness.
It becomes a simple math equation after a while. Just look a Greece. You can't keep raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations, while continuing to hike minimum wages, allow third parties a part of the pie, and not expect more job cuts. Anyone that thinks executives would take a cut before eliminating a job is fooling themselves. You can replace them w gov't jobs, true, but that's at the expense of the taxpayer and obviously we don't have the money. Besides 44 percent of congress are millionaires while we are in debt. Not sure giving them more money to spend on themselves is the answer(apparently the bills aren't getting paid now but they all got some sweet hookups)
We do need a simple fix. I would be in favor of the Buffet rule if it exempted those that have employees. Otherwise the rich will cut jobs to save themselves. We need to incent them to hire more. As an independent, I see both views. Unfortunately Both sides only see their own.
Fareed Zakaria.... suggest further taxation to the tune of 30%. I'm so shocked!!! Its almost like he's a taxi-socialist who's connected to the leftist drivel that is Time Magazine. Oh wait...
For anyone actually interested in facts regarding the economy in order to make a more informed opinion (rather than spouting off about fairness and/or socialism), here is some relevant info:
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2011/3b.html
This link shows avg production worker salaries. As you can see, after adjusted for inflation, avg hourly worker wages haven't increased since 1965. Compared to CEO salary averages during this same time frame you can see for yourself where the truth lies:
http://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_snapshots_20060621/
The vast majority of Americans are getting screwed by tax policy and governmental corruption, and yet many of you yahoos are rooting for the people causing the corruption. The system is broken, and the American Dream is dead.
I say tax the "job creators" (I'm not seeing many jobs created, are you?) more, and reduce spending as much as we possibly can from this obviously corrupt governmental system.
Jeff wouldn't it be better to incent those with money to hire more and create jobs? If we only tax them, then money just goes from one rich pocket to another. (like pelosi/boehner) – I would rather say "Tax is 35% if you have no employees but gets reduced greatly with the more employees with benefits hired"
Two things. One,
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=14519
There have been TONS of incentives to create jobs, given with our tax money no less. So where are the jobs? Obviously these programs aren't working.
Second, I agree with you, it would be great to tax based on the number of employees working for you in the upper tax brackets. The question though then becomes how do we enfore this type of rule and ensure that there aren't any loopholes?
For some additional proof of this post:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2009/03/is-greg-mankiw-right-that-the-tax-code-is-already-highly-progressive/1326/
As you can see, the time in America's history which was widely known as a golden era actually coincided with some of the highest tax rates for our wealthiest citizens. It actually makes sense when you think about it. The rich will actually invest more into job growth in order to get tax breaks when income taxes are really high.
Combined with the graph in my last post, we actually experienced the highest amount of job growth during the period when the rich were taxed the most. All this "Reagan Trickle-down economics" goes against supply and demand theory.
Finally, people are inherently greedy and lazy. If they can get more money by doing less work (work like creating jobs for others less fortunate), they will do so. Wouldn't you? Rich people have no better ethics or morals than anyone else. We're all human.
It amazes me that almost nobody mentions that investments are not risk-free. One bad year and you can lose (a lot of) money. You are allowed to deduct only $3K when this happens, even if you lose thousands or millions. Because there is risk involved, most (intelligent, non-communist) investors would invest and risk less if the taxes where higher, not worth it. Then, investments in equities would drop, and the stock market would drop. Is this logic so hard to understand? Risk-reward. If you increase the taxes, you decrease the potential rewards. Given the same amount of risk, investments would drop. Everybody would suffer...
Investments are great and definitely help, but to make an argument that people should be taxed less on this form of income just because there's more inherent risk involved is a non-starter. There's risk in losing your actual job as well, just ask anyone laid off since 2008, and yet many of those who were laid off still pay higher taxes than a lot of these millionaires.
If taxes increase on investments, people would move their money to somewhere else (people are not dumb), that may not be as good for the economy (real estate, commodities, etc). Always follow this rule: tax more what you want to discourage. Tax less what you want to encourage. Do we want to encourage investments?? How about hard work? From this perspective, it does not make sense to tax the most productive people, you want to encourage them to work harder and produce more, everyone benefits from this.
Trying to respond to your response but the comments section is weird. Regarding benefitting the economy, these people aren't actually contributing anything to the economy by moving stocks around. All they are doing is draining money from the system, and then reinvesting it into that same system. That's why the Dow Jones has stayed fairly stable (outside of the crash) for years. It's a shell game. If you move $500 of shares from one company to another, you aren't helping the economy, you're simply backing a different horse.
Jeff, I am not an expert on equity markets, but you are very wrong on this one. Companies can make investments with their stock, and offer compensation to their employees with stock. By investing, you are voting on what companies are the best and make the best use of their resources. You are encouraging and helping the better companies. And in the process you get rewarded as well (when the stock price goes higher). And investing can be a lot of work. It is not just asking a monkey to pick stocks for you. So by investing, you are really helping the economy in a big way. You are risking your money, and it is natural to be compensated for your risk. If you increase the taxes on investments, equity markets would definitely take a hit (and therefore, the overall economy as well). Investments therefore should not be treated as work, and taxed at a lower rate, to encourage them. The other big thing, this is not only for US investors. If you increase the investment taxes, any doubts that lots of foreign capital would exit the US markets? Why invest here if you get taxed more? Always think globally, we can't ignore this.
The focus should be on a reduction in spending, not squeezing the people dry.
Not sure that the millionaires are "dry" as you say, but we definitely need to get spending back under control. But before we start cutting programs that actually help the people of this nation which keep money in our own economy, and cut programs that give money to other countries. Also, we probably don't need to be spending more on our military than every other country on Earth combined. The terrorists aren't "that" scary. Just sayin'.
Agree with most of your points Jeff, but I would argue that China, N. Korea, Iran, or an unforeseen foe in the future could potentially be "that scary".
In reply to Ritmas:
Here's some info on military expenditures by country according to the SIPRI military expenditure database (available at Wiki):
USA: 687 Billion
China: 114 Billion
Iran: 7 Billion
Do we really need to be spending THAT much more than the rest of the world? Have some pride in our nation for god's sake.
How is it good? We have a spending problem not an income issue. Giving the government more money right now for greater expansion and parties makes me ill. It is no wonder that Obama's approval rate is 81% in Washington DC because they keep getting raises
Exactly. I'm not at all opposed to the Buffett Rule, but ultimately that 47 Billion in 10 years would most likely go towards further expanding the government or wasted on some other mishap or misadventure .
It's a spending problem we have. When it comes down to it, bigger Government is not the solution – it is the problem.
Anyone that remotely thinks this BS rule makes any sense shows their lack of intellgence. Rajeeb is clueless.
Anyone that remotely thinks this BS rule makes any sense shows their lack of intellgence. Rajeeb is very clueless.
Buffett Rule–named for the tightwad who has dozens of lawyers fighting a 10 year old 1+ billion dollars tax bill. HEY WARREN, WHY DON'T YOU JUST PAY WHAT YOU LEGALLY OWE, AND STOP PRETENDING YOU SUPPORT HIGHER TAXES. I live in Omaha, where Buffett lives. He is what is wrong with the 1%. Why do people pretend only conservative rich guys suck. Believe me, the vast majority of them suck
Mass immigration, both legal and illegal is hurting American workers in every single job category but you don't hear Buffet or Obama saying too much about that. I think that Buffet would tend to encourage politicians to remain silent on this topic. After all, they don't want to break the other Buffet Rule, i.e. those who need cheap labor make the rules.
The Bush tax cuts for the top 5% have already cost us $1.1 trillion dollars.
The Republicans want to extend them to 2021, which will cost us an additional $2 trillion dollars.
Pass the Buffett Rule and repeal the Bush tax cuts in December.
And how much money has Obama and all of his free handout policies cost us, numbnuts?
What happens if you tax people at 0%? You get no revenue for the treasury. What happens if you tax people at 100%? You also get no money for the treasury since people are not stupid and are not going to work for no return (or they find ways to avoid the system and not get taxed). Therefore, the tax you collect is actually a non-linear function of the tax rate (ok, I am simplifying, but you get the idea). The revenue curve starts at zero if you tax people at 0%, increases up to a point as a function of increasing the tax rate, but at some point it has to come down back to zero (when you tax people at 100%). You can see that this curve has a peak. Nobody knows exactly where this is (well, several factors and dependencies), but there is strong evidence the peak occurs at 20-25%. This is why it does not make much sense to tax people above 30%, since the tax itself discourages work and therefore revenue. This is in general why decreasing taxes (up to a point) increases revenue. This is why keeping the Bush tax cuts is a good thing. Unless you are jealous of rich people and want to punish their success (since this is "not fair"), and therefore increase the effective tax rate. But in the process, you end up collecting less tax revenue for the treasury.
And how much have the taxes to the middle class cost us? Far more. Wah wah wah.... "I'm the only one that pays my fair share and everyone else cheats.... wah wah wah!!!
Folks, this isn't about a major deficit reduction in raising the tax on the very rich. It's about something that we once prized and treasured...fairness for all Americans. If a government is to ever serve it's people, it must one that treats ALL it's people fairly. Fairness doesn't mean a bigger piece of the pie for the rich.
I would like to know your definition of "fairness". Please note two very important stats with your reply because I am curious as to your thoughts. 1. Almost 50% pay no federal taxes whatsoever. 2. The top 1% pay between 35-40% of the total revenue (that means 40 cents of every dollar collected comes from the richest 1%). Let's have an honest an open debate about this.
The next time you go out to eat, order exactly what the guy at the next table is eating. Then ask the person at the next table how much he makes for a living. If it is less than you, be sure to pay more for the same dinner. It is only fair for you to pay more for everything than someone who makes less than you.
Great analogy goupe, but you forget that a little over 50% are paying $0 on taxes. To inject this into your story properly, 1/2 of the people eating next to you paid for that same exact dinner with food stamps.
I would like to know your definition of "fairness". Please note two very important stats with your reply because I am curious as to your thoughts. 1. Almost 50% pay no federal taxes whatsoever. 2. The top 1% pay between 35-40% of the total revenue (that means 40 cents of every dollar collected comes from the richest 1%). Let's have an honest an open debate about this.
Fair is when we have taxed the smart and hardworking until they are as poor as the lazy and stupid.
This is craziness. Our tax structure is no different than the community dump. It is full of trash meant to alter our behavior, buy political favors, re-engineer society and the economy and who knows what else. Now we think it good to add to the mix tactical maneuvers such as the Buffet Rule to win elections? I have to LOL and Black Monday comes to mind when people cry over LTCG and Divedends hoping to get people to invest long term. Throw the entire tax code out and create one that simply pulls in money to pay bills without attempting to modify our behavior and penalize it or alter us socially. That would keep it clean and stop this Bull.
A flat tax rate is the only FAIR way to tax people. Why penalize success? The government needs to stop spending money it doesn't have. Quit sending dollars overseas. How effin hard should it be ?
It used to be to pay down the deficit now it's fairness. Next it will be to fully implement marxism which is really what this is all about.
.
Common Sense: Wealthy people invest in business that generate jobs for us. Wealthy people, just like businesses and stockholders, will continue to insist that they make as much or more money than before the govt increases their taxes. How? Simple, the prices to us normal consumers will rise. So, the only thing that will happen will be that the govt will get more money to spend foolishly as seen in the news while us middle class consumers will have less in our pockets to spend. Result: Rich and Govt get richer, middle class gets poorer. Solution: Flat Tax 10% and govt live within the 10%. Chance of happening: Same as snow everyday falling in a desert. Alternative solutions for some of us middle class: A) Join the poor class on govt handouts or B) Get a govt job. Since govt is always expanding, should be some new jobs every year, regardless of political party in power.
LOL. Your premise has been proven so false the last 5 years that to continue suggesting it is laughable.
"Fairness' Hahahahahahahahah. LOL. ROTFL.....this is one of those words everyone understands but has no agreed upon meaning. That is what makes it such a good political weapon- it is a meaningless word because it means such different things to us all. We can all relate to it but 'fairness' is different to us all as well. I truly question the motives of anyone who uses that word to support an argument knowing it is a word with no common understanding at the personal level. It is UNFAIR to use that word when depicting others.
CNN... whats with employing CFR members to spread propaganda?
I would think that such a major news network would proofread an article like this before posting. I saw many typos and grammatical errors. I got the message, but, come on...
Why are people so opposed to a flat tax? Of course it's because those opposed to it currently pay little to no income tax. It's laughable that the left screams and squawks that the wealthy (who get little to nothing from the government) are "expected" to pay their fair share, while those who benefit from those dollars the rich pay aren't expected to contribute anything.
People are opposed to a flat tax because it's inherently unfair. The rich are perfectly able to pay a high marginal tax rate while having plenty left over for themselves. The poor already pay a lot in taxes (sales taxes in particular slam them), and the middle class pays too much because the rich don't pay FICA taxes after about $100K. The rich used to pay high marginal tax rates, and the economy absolutely boomed because we could afford investment in infrastructure that benefitted everyone.
The wealthy get nothing? How about continued protection of an economy that enables their wealth to multiply? How about the same protection by the military everyone else gets? How about the same federal funding of the nation's infrastructure (as neglected as it is) that everyone else enjoys? How about subsidies for the oil companies? Funding of the federal court system? In fact, the wealthy enjoy the same benefits that everyone but the poorest enjoy.
But are the only ones expected to pay for it.
Not so. The 47% that supposedly pay no federal taxes do indeed pay FICA. But flat tax rates would most likely reduce the burden on the wealthy and increase it on the middle and lower classes. Cutting taxes and spending don't get rid of the national debt. By most estimates, something like Newt Gingrich's radical tax reform would only serve to increase the deficit because it would not even be revenue neutral but would reduce revenues such that budget couldn't be balanced.
Oh please, Simpson-Bowles? The Catfood Commission?! Tax the super-rich at a 75% marginal tax rate, eliminate loopholes, and tax corporations heavily for every year they don't bring overseas profits back into the country. Cut the military, not Medicare (except by allowing Medicare to bargain on drug prices). We have tons of bases here and overseas that we don't need, and we have to get out of Afghanistan anyway.
That would absolutely work, assuming that your end goal was to bring upon the complete destruction of the United States.
Not proven. The country boomed with much higher marginal rates and higher capital-gains rates.
Tzedekh: If you think the amount of deductions is staggering now, you have no idea how it worked when the top tax rate was 90%. The effective tax rate of high earners was only slightly higher then than it is now.
I f y O u d O n ' t H a V E a j o b ,
o F c o u R s e y o U D o n ' T m i n D p a Y i n G M o r E t a X E s
I would like to improve – really improve – on the Buffett rule. I understand he pays 20% and his secretary pays 30%. Let's have him continue paying 20% but decrease hers down to 15%. Inequality solved!
Great idea. Now let's all gather at the collective and praise Chairman Barack as we eat gruel, and tell each other how happy we are that no one is better off than anyone else.
So very wealthy people pay around 15% of their income in taxes (based upon some numbers I've heard thrown about lately). The 30% floor on tax would double tax revenue from them, bringing in an additional $47B over the next 10 years. Meaning, if we put a 99.9% floor on upper bracket taxes, we could expect to bring in an an additional $313B of the $45T we're going to blow in that time frame? Perhaps we need to address our spending as well as our taxation.
I'm sure there's a flaw in my numbers there. Somebody, please set me straight.
It has never been about the level of taxes, because Obama's projected budgets for his second term and beyond project revenue ABOVE HISTORICAL AVERAGES.
It's all about class warfare so Obama can keep spending money he doesn't have.
You really dont hear much about cutting spending on CNN do you, well except for the $800,000 by the GSA since they hoped to connect it to the Bush admin. and of course they ignor the $500,000,000 wasted on Solindra. They really want to focus on %. in stead of actual dollars. So here is a percentage. the top ten % pay most of the taxes already.
You're damn right it's not enough.
How about we get the half of all workers who pay no income tax to pay their fair share?
A 15% flat tax (no deductions AT ALL) is enough to ensure everyone contributes. I would even prefer a 15% national sales tax instead, that would deal nicely with anyone who gets paid under the table.
If you feel you need to help the poor at that point, set up a way to make payments to those who make less than a certain amount per year. But let's get everyone contributing first.
Is China importing capitalism, or are we importing communism?
Well the assumption has been that China is flourishing right now because they are moving towards capitalism. If this is false, perhaps we should import communism, so that we can flourish like them
Conser miss the point. If the Buffett Bill can't be passed, THEN nothing else stands a chance. The coming election puts everything on hold. The Repubs will NOT allow Obama to get credit one for anything. Conser MUST keep up the illusion
that Obama is divisive and unable to get the cooperation of anyone in congress. IF Obama is re-elected, things will open up a little bit.
You don't think Obama is divisive? Every speech he makes is an attack on some group. He's a divider, not a uniter, and only someone who ignores both his words and his actions could believe otherwise.
Can someone with knowledge of the economy or tax code please explain to me how and why 50% of American workers pay zero federal taxes? When was this enacted and how on earth is that even allowed? Thanks!
The idea that ANYONE should be paying 30% of their income to the government (btw that doesn't count FICA and local taxes) is insane. How can you support that. Thirty percent is way too much I don't care if you're Bill Gates. We do need tax reform but that needs to come in the form of a flat tax. Every person and every form of income taxed the same. No loopholes, no deductions aside from true charity donations. The rate should be as low as possibly, ideally between ten and fifteen percent. Of course, couple this with massive cuts in spending.
Major tax overhaul/reform is beyond overdue. Major government overhaul/reform is also well overdue. There's plenty more, but none likely to occur in our like time.
Rz
Frankly, it's well past time for a second Tea Party, but we're too lazy to get off of our fat asses to do it.
(And no, the Tea Party political group doesn't fit the needs.)
We don't have a revenue problem. The Feds have a spending problem. They waste most of our money. Did you read that zakira? Our money. If you don't feel you are paying enough then WRITE A CHECK and be a good little socialist.
I think it would be nice if Buffett just paid the taxes he already owes. Berkshire Hathaway, his holding company, owes about a billion dollars dating back to 2002. Not sure why anyone thinks raising the rate will do anything, he won't pay anyway.
BUFFETT brought up the reform. Don't all you Poindexter's realize that by accusing Zakaria of being a socialist because of his support of the "Buffett Rule", you are essentially also accusing one of the greatist capitalists of our time of being a socialist as well?? So return to the original point. It is a fact that US tax law ensures Warren Buffet and other successful capitalists pay a much lower proportion of their income in taxes than his secretary or other typical middle-class American wage earners. Super-capitalist Buffet judges this unfair- so why is he wrong? Zakaria argues it's not just capital gains vs. wages, but government's efforts to distribute favoritism and exert control through Byzantine tax incentives that's also unfair. How is that socialist?
Fortunately Fareed Zakaria is not in Congress. If he were, there would be a role model for an even more apologetic, cringing Administration.
I agree. Cities should not be able to issue tax-free bonds. All they are doing is adding additional burdens onto future generations. Cities need new ways to raise revenue. But cheating the 99% is not one of them.
Of course, you'd vote for the Buffett Rule, Fareed. If it were up to you, we'd be living in a third world country from which you emerged. Following your tenets of "fairness", India has been an economic catastrophe for the last fifty years. No, make that five hundred. Or five thousand. Cycle of Cathay...
Can someone please explain why someone pays 300 in taxes gets 7200 back but someone else paying 18000 gets 2700 back. I don't know about everyone else here but that doesn't sound like a " fare share " to me. If you fix the damn system just maybe we wouldn't be broke to begin with and we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
Is it lost on everyone in the Press that Buffett gets paid the minimum $164,000.00 so he would not be affected by this bill with his name on it! This is the epitome of Political Kabuki Theater! It is BS. Pass it and he would still pay less. We need a fair flat tax that takes no real IRS enforcement and put those people to work on something else. Then if you want to tax the rich don a luxury tax on high dollar goods that only the rich want to afford. lol
I'll be willing to bet that Zakaria didn't even bother to read the actual bill. If he did he would immediately know that it would not assure that those with income above a million pay at least 30%. The only thing this bill really did was increase the Capital Gains tax rate from 23.2% (what it will be in 2013 after end to Bush tax cuts and Omama Care tax) to 30%. It still left muni income out of the picture which is the most popular means of reducing tax liability by the ultra rich. It also let tax credits stand and charitable contributions be deducted from income in determining the 30%. This bill was a joke designed for political means only. It certainly did nothing close to what Obama said it would do or what Zakari is implying.
Zakaria should talk about how our system is set up, that's the problem. This country is a republic, not a democracy. If we want democracy we will have to get rid of the Senate, the Supreme Court and the Electoral College. Our system was set up by reactionary slave owners – that's the elephant in the room that Zakaria can't or won't talk about.
Look at some of the comments on this board... do we really have an intelligent enough electorate for direct democracy?
When you say this will take great presidential leadership, I hope you are talking about getting Congress to work together (even though I'd prefer the bill not even be passed, the income tax is completely illegal and was passed by a recessed congress consisting of only a few people who are traitors and sold out this country to the Federal Reserve). If you are talking about the President by-passing Congress that too is illegal. I'm not sure why so many people are fine with our president acting as a dictator, when in reality he is supposed to be the weakest power wise of the 3 governing bodies. We are a Republic, not a Democracy and definitely not a Dictatorship.
No cut can with stand the spending that going on in Washington.
No one is stopping you from paying more taxes, Captain Know-It-All. You are just as hypocrytical as Buffett, who is currently in court trying not to pay several million.....
You are pretty dim, aren't you? An effective tax code doesn't rely on people volunteering to pay more taxes, nor would people like Zakaria voluntarily paying more taxes make the tax code more fair. Grow up please, or leave and let the adults talk, you mor0n
The writer is so right but i feel the rich should b taxed up to 50 petcent since the trickle down effect dies not wrk make exemptionz for the rich when they hire ppl n penilize them when they move our jobs over seas
You are a perfect example of what is wrong with this country today. Leches that pay jack and want to punish the wealthy.
Pathetic.
Hmm, 30% tax on 1million then you take home 700k. 23% tax on 50k and you take home 38.5k. 0% tax on 20k and you take home 20k. Yeah the poor have it really good not being taxed (sarcasm). Enough with complaining about the 50% of the public who don't pay tax and start asking why 50% of the public can't AFFORD to pay tax.
I love how so many commentators here clearly never went to college and probably don't have a large income, yet they still come on here and defend the rich who fleece them. Really ironic
If we are going to talk about fairness and overhaul the only fair thing to do is throw out the whole 75,000 pages and start over simply. You make this much then your tax bill is this much... end of story. No refundable credits of taxes you never paid. No deductions. Everyone pays something even if it's only a few dollars. No one gets a free ride. You can even set the scale "progressively". Simple. If we need to do other things to help the poor and increase investments etc. Make them separate, transparent programs. Don't hide it in the tax code. The tax code should only be about taxes pure and simple. Oh and add in the mix a balanced budget amendment to prevent this giant problem from ever recurring. But, the chances of anything like this happening = ZERO. The Buffet rule is just political posturing for media consumption.
I agree 100% with the Buffett rule: people providing employment and investing in America should be punished!
This philosophy is very Owellian: In 1984 it is the "evil capitalists" that big brother "saved" the people from.
I hardly see how asking the rich to pay the same active tax rate as their secretaries is "punishing" them. Nice try though
Long term capital gains should be at least as high as the upper salary tax bracket. Until that happens, billionaires are always going to pay a lower tax rate than many of us wage slaves.
Agreed. And unless the rich want a revolution on their hands, they would be well advised to pay a rate that the rest of the country thinks its fair, regardless of whether or not they find it fair.
Right, and in no time the rich will be paying 99% tax rates... Thankfully we are not a democracy...
You know John, there is a healthy middle ground between Communism and the Gilded Age
It doesn't do enough, that is true, but when the alternative is to do nothing at all where does that get us? A whole lot of nothing that's what. We're not moving forward and we're stuck in the same rut.
How is it fair that some people pay millions in income tax and others don't? the only true fair tax(ok still not fair) is a taxt where everyone pays the same amount. Different rates is unfair. Since we are all supposed to be treated equally we should be treated equally under tax laws. Plus, whether you pay $1 or $1 million you are treated exactly the same by the government and generally receive the same government benefits. This is NOT fair! Anyone who pays more money in taxes should get more in return from the government. the ideal solution is to repeal or significantly modify the 16th Amendment to limit how much taxing power the federal government has...
haha wow, not even gonna touch that one. Well ok, maybe I will:
"Anyone who pays more money in taxes should get more in return from the government."
I would argue that people bringing in millions of dollars anymore are "getting more in return" from our society than people who can't make rent. Thus, the wealthy should be asked to give back to the society that has been so good to them in the form of higher taxes.
*every year, not anymore
In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%. That's about $20 trillion.
I guess that top 1% must have worked 20 trillion dollars harder, eh? The destruction of the middle class is just the American Dream in action
I am pretty sure Zakaria is a communist who also supports terrorism. He is basically supporting a nuclear Iran while also supporting his boss Barack Obama. Nobody even cares what this guy says anymore because he is so partial and annoying.
I'm pretty sure its past your bedtime. Should you still be on your mom's computer?
Drew – why? Your mom doesn't mind you being on her computer; I rolled over and asked her
Then dude, send in a check and volunteer to pay your extra taxes for this government to give away.
As for me, I don't like paying the taxes I have to pay to a gummint that wastes money in free programs for those who chose NOT to work. I won't pay one more panny but you can certainly pay for me.
Now dude, did you include a 'little more' in your April 15 check to your fav uncle? Didn't think so......
NATO...no action, talk only...designed to just stir the pot a little more. Guess you got your marching orders from the Obama regime...
"I think as a matter of fairness, the Buffett Tax makes sense."
It is FAIR to tax some people at a higher rate, just because they make more? That is about as ludicrous a statement that you could possibly make. Amongst other things, "Fair" means to be equitable; all paying tax at the same rate would be "Fair".
Increaseing the standard tax rate across the board would bring in FAR more money (but you wouldn't get re-elected). Cutting back on unnecessary spending would save FAR more money (but you wouldn't get re-elected).
Let's start with a balanced budget ammendment, and work up from there. Don't punish me for working hard and being successful.
Forty Six Percent of People Don't Pay Tax, 3% of people under 50k only pay tax then the others get back 105 billion dollars, ILLEGALS PAY NO, NO, NO, TAX IS THAT FAIR??? stop it with your double standards i paid higher percentage than ohhhbammy. THE PRES. TOOK TAX BREAKS FOR THE RICH THEN HE CRITICISES THEM. HYPOCRITE.
did they not have taxes in Kenya ???? waste tons of fuel to take vacation then expects me to drive a volt for 38 miles.
The same people that created the Post Office, EPA, DOT and wrote the tax laws are going to Fix them.
..............................GIVE ME A BREAK...............................
i'M FROM THE GOV. AND IM HERE TO HELP. DON'T MATTER IF YOU ARE A R OR D, YOU'RE CROOKED.
At least Zakaria is honest about his feelings. "I think as a matter of fairness, the Buffett Tax makes sense." That's silly. Most of that money is from capital gains. They've already paid taxes on the money. The company is paying taxes on that same amount of money. That money is taxed at over 30% already! If you keep taxing it, there won't be anything left!
If you have a problem with the tax code, fix the tax code. Adding another few pages isn't going to help fix it! The tax code should be no more than the front and back of 1 page of paper, 12 font. If it can't fit there, then it's too complex. That way, anyone who can read and count can figure out the 'fairness' of it.
"The company is paying taxes on that same amount of money." Nope, the return on the investment is rarely the same amount as the investment itself. It should be taxed like any other income
Companies paying 30% is a myth. Do you know GE paid zero tax after making a good profit last year? After all the corporate tax is only 4% of US government revenue. That tells the truth! How about we eliminate corporate tax and capital gain tax code?? Tax individuals only when they get dividends??? If companies do not pay dividends and reinvest in capital spending and new hires, that good for the economy as well. If they hoard cash, impose a tax on that.
How about _% of your income goes directly for taxes? I'm not sure what the number would be . . . 15-18%? No deductions, no loopholes, no expensive and complicated tax code. Everybody pays the same rate, except those who make below a certain amount. Just take it directly from my our paychecks – no need to even file taxes!
Good idea! But the super rich tax evaders will never allow that.
Fair is fair, flat tax everyone. 15%. no deductions and no loopholes
But you people don’t really want fair. You want to others to pay more than you.
Because you are jealous of the rich they should pay more. But “fair Share” don’t kid yourself.
I find it fascinating that when liberals perceive an imbalance in taxes (e.g. Obama's pay 20% while his secretary pays 30), they immediately want to raise taxes to 30, instead of lowering everybody elses to 20 or less. Remember this fact. The Boston Tea party; the incident that arguably started our revolutionary war, occured because Brittain put a 0.5 % (that's 1/2 of a percent tax) on tea. It is inevitable now in this country that there will be a revolt. Sadly it will occur after we've forced all the wealthy to pull their businesses and their money out of this country. Ask yourself this question... When was the last time a poor person hired you?!
Fareed, your standards are too low. If it's just a gimmick, you shouldn't vote for it. But it's worse than a gimmick. It adds a second Alternative Minimum Tax on top of the first, and on top of the rest of an insanely byzantine tax system that HAS to be reformed. We must put our collective foot down and insist on simplification, not more complexity.
Of course Fareed thinks it is 'to balance those on the principle of shared sacrifice by asking those who have been most fortunate over the past decade to pay their fair share.’ Love it when we use that 'fair share' term.... but nno one can quite define it. For the hard left it's probably defined as "How much do you have" as in 'all of it'. BTW Buffett paid over $7M last year – so what's his fair share? T. Boone Pickens has paid nearly three-quarters of a BILLION dollars over his lifetime – what was his fair share?
Almost all major western countries have a lower tax on capital gains than on income. Why do you think that is? Not because the rich control politics in countries far more socialist than ours. The Buffet Rule undermines that concept and for what purpose? Pandering to the ignorant; this is not about fairness. It also creates the impression of doing something for a voting base while doing effectively nothing – it is a cowardly approach. The big money is in three places – the middle class, expenditures and economic growth – period. A president who does not face those facts should not get support for the jealousy tax.
So who is Buffett jealous of??
72% of the population agrees with something like the Buffet Rule. I am not sure who Republicans are representing then. I am sure most of you, if not all, do not make more than $1 million a year so I am not sure why you defend those that do so hard. It must be a matter of ignorance. Anyway, I like what Zakaria is asking for – the tax code can be made fair and even efficient. We just can't get that when these two political parties keep attacking each other just for the hell of it.
72% of who? Registered democrat OBama supporters who want an increase in their handout?
Not even sure why Zakaria is even allowed to write as he's so out of touch with reality. His makes the statement "My problem with it is that what we really need is comprehensive tax reform" as if tax reform will magically solve all the problems. But he refuses to touch on reality ... $45 Trillion in spend over the next 10 years, of which at least $10 Trillion isn't paid for. NO AMOUNT OF TAX REFORM will get you close to covering that shortfall. Oh I can agree that tax reform is needed, and even agree that minimum tax floors (must pay this percentage) should be set (like the Buffett rule). But the best you can do with such floors and reforms is maybe an increase of up to $300 Billion a year .. or $3 Trillion over 10 years. That still leaves $7 Trillion unpaid for. The only way to stop the flow of red ink is to reform the big programs - Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security ... to lower cost growth and cut expenses. Failure to do so will bankrupt the economy. But Zakaria and his ilk keep focusing on tax the rich and reform taxes as if those are magic. Sigh....
Fareed IS A SOCIALIST FROM INDIA....of course he wants higher taxes on the rich. He is probably one of the 47 % that pay no federal income tax. Wake up Fareed, unless you make everyone pay some income tax (soc. security and medicare doesn't count) then everyone will want to keep getting a free ride and not care about our gov't bankrupt policies, waste, fraud and abuse.
So does that make Buffett- one of the most successful capitalists of our time- a socialist from America?
As one that males over a million a year running a manufacturing business I can tell you that I am not interested in paying anything more. Poor people need healthcare? That fine, just not on my dime.
Fareed only has a job because CNN loves to hire minorities to spew how wrong the nation is, and how it should be changed according to the own opinions, derived from the failed countries they left to come here.....Fareed...SHADDUP....you know nothing of being a true American.
Because your a propagandist fool and idi0t.. that would be the best bet. Buffet does not qualify for his own rule so obviously its a rule for someone else. I would say upper middle class. BUFFET YOU WANT TO PAY TAXES THERE IS VOLUNTARY RULE YOU CAN PAY EXTRA>
Zakaria should change the name of his blog to "The Communist Terror Blog"
And Buffett should change the name of his fund to Berhshire Hathaway Communist Fund??
This board is filled with uneducated comments and lib propaganda. that is what Oblame-a depends on. Keep up the good work. By the way – wealth and income are not the same. All you turds are arguing for is a higher tax that will keep new entrepreneurs from getting wealthy. The rich can (and will) stop investing and hold onto their money if the risk-reward paradigm is changed. Wealth is already distributed to a few – mainly through past entrepreneurs creating estates – maybe you should go back to the death tax. Then you can grab it with no one to argue with.
Buffet wants an oligarchy so tax the lower so called rich. IN order to have Oligarchy you cant have a middle class.
How about tackling an issue that you and many liberals simply won't address. 46% of all Americans pay no federal income tax. These are not just poor people but many middle class as well. Someone please tell me why ZERO is"their fair share"?
Yep. You don't see the media touch on that at all.
Gotta keep making those 1% out to be the evil rich people who care for no one.
Does anyone know how many people are employed by the poor?
Here's why I'd vote for it: So that $46 mil can be spent on whatever (Fannie, Freddie, Solar Energy, whatever) while the other cool mil can be spent by say... EPA on a retreat in Las Vegas!
You would vote for it because, based on previous writings, its apparent you are a Socialist.
And Buffett, based on his funds performance must be a socialist too?
Of course you would vote for it. It does not effect you in the least and it goes to forward your agenda.
It's easy to say something is good when you have no skin in the game.
The funny thing is that Obama has a lower effective tax rate than his secretary as well, but you don't see a whole lot about that.
When asked if he would send in a check to make up for the difference the answer was no.
So exactly how much does this rule actually mean to him?
You decide.
Buffettcertainly has skin in the game, and he's the one who brought it up.
What is a gimmick is 47% of America doesn't pay taxes. If you are going to raise taxes on people who already pay a lot in taxes, then you should bring more people into the taxing pool so you can collect more revenue overall.
I don't agree and I think the people who do are severly misinformed. The buffett rule will only hurt the US economy because other countries have a far lower tax rate. It will only cause people to invest money somewhere else in another country's economy. If you people who actually read the article believe that people in this income category are going to pay a 30% tax you're crazy. Even if it did pass it would be a complete disaster. Plus, the only reason president Obama is pushing it is because he wants to make his political opponent Mitt Romney look bad. Sorry to say but what Mitt Romney paid in taxes is completely legal and actually more than a lot of other countries pay.
The Dems want to solve the deficit by raising taxes. The GOP wants to solve the deficit by spurring GDP growth to increase tax revenues. Both parties are working on the wrong problem.
The government is running $1.3 trillion deficits. The total revenue from income taxes is less than this. Double everyone's taxes (personal and corporate) and you cannot eliminate the deficit. The government is spending more than double what it did in 2000. $3.7 trillion today versus $1.7 trillion then. Obama, Bush and both parties in congress have doubled the size of government in less than 12 years.
We need to cut spending. Tax reform is a joke. When it is all down any tax reform will just change the forms filled out. Most people will still end up paying about the same. Reform is just a diversion from the real problem that the politician do not want to tackle.
The US as a whole should pull its acts together. It cant continue being superpower if it runs on deficit. Buffet rule is hardly a good compromise but if it is the only one Congress is willing to approve, the whole country should be all behind it and be ready to face the dire consequences especially deep cuts in social services. China is threatening to economically overtake the US in the near future and the only way US can mitigate a harsh life coexisting with a bully-rich China is to keep the US not only militarily strong but also economically robust.
It is a funny thing that you never see, or hear anyone in Hollywood, the music industry or sports figures coming out and saying that they support Obamas wanting to tax the rich, of which they themselves are. Do you actually think that when Obama is at one of his Hollywood fundraisers that he he preaches this mantra " thanks for your campaign contribution, and oh, by the way you do not pay enough in taxes and I want you to pay more ". of course not. Or when he is hosting all of these sports teams at the White House do you thing he tells them that they need to pay more in taxes, of course not. These are members of the 1%, yet Obama convienently never calls them out on it. Makes you wonder why? Yet the successful local businessman who has finally made it is being hammered by this continued assault from Obama.
They already pay more than their fair share. Maybe if the government would come out and say "you make more so you should pay even more (more than your fair share)" it wouldn't be as bad. Wealthy people are insulted by the accusation that they aren't paying enough. Everyone seems to lump everyone making over $1M as some sort of dead beats. Most wealthy people were middle class at one time and poor people pay nothing.
The Buffet Rule just works the edges. So no one complains
it should be a flat tax, NO deductions. That way everyone
pays the same %, and the government works with what
comes in for that year.
Mr. Zakaria, since you like the Mr. Obama Tax (Buffet Rule) so much; why don't you just make out a big fat check and send it to your friend Mr. Obama so he can blow it on his idiotic policies and programs.
If you are so convinced that the Mr. Obama tax will work so well, put your actions where your text IS!!!
Says another reporter about something plagiarized and used by the president from a law student...lol
47 billion over 10 years. Wow thats shure going to help. That wouldnt pay SS for long we need more than this to fix this mess.
let's look at this...you work for
CNN and agree with Obama. Strange!
Zakaria would vote for anything that Obama ask him to–CNN is just as bad as CBS,NBC, and ABC.
Hey Zakaria, can you name one Obama policy you haven't supported? You are so in the tank for this administration it is laughable. Then again, so is CNN.
Ahh, did you really have to write an article to let us know that ? I mean you work for CNN .
Zakaria – you don't know crap. It has been shown that it would NOT raise that much money, in fact it would hardly make a dent, whatsoever, in the national debt. It is all hype by the current, lying administration, PERIOD! I wish you people would get a grip with reality and quit jumping at crap you hear!
If the govt takes 30% of the wealthy salary, who is going to start new businesses, restauraunts, companies? How am I going to risk $300,000 to start a new business if the govt takes it? What business has the govt ever run? How have they done witht he post office? The govt does NOT know how to effectively use money. People with money know how to effectively use money. So what if some guy makes $1,000,000. In the process, he's given 25 people a job, and invented a product that people want. What if the govt had taken all of Steve Job's money in the 80s? Who would have ever made the iPod/iPhone/etc?
I completely agree that the tax code needs to be revamped and made simpler. However, I am really getting tired of this word "fairness". Can someone please tell me what their definition of "fair" is?? The definition that I looked up is evenhandedness. So with that definition ALL Americans should pay the same percentage – what's know as a flat tax. We already have an unfair tax system where the more you make the higher percentage you pay. So, what most people are saying is not let's make it fair, they are saying let's make it less fair. Who decides what a "fair share" is. Me?? You?? Congress? The President? I still think the already named fair tax is a really good way to go. No income tax only a sales tax. That way the more you buy the more you pay. Sounds fair. Rich people probably buy more stuff that poor people right? And there's a credit for necessities like food and living expenses.
So the writer complains "We have what I would describe as the world’s worst tax code. It is the longest, the most complicated, riddled with loopholes, exceptions and deductions." But he is for the Buffett Rule which adds to the complexity of the tax code. Not sure how to take that.
Of course you would Mr. Zakaria, you are part of the far left. You embrace Marxism and class warfare just like our president.
Christan conservatives/ compassionate conservatives??? wow, is there such a thing anymore, where are the so call compassionate christans? From what I'm hearing now days about how the poor don't pay taxes, and the rich 17% rate is too high, lower than mine btw. how come conservative is saying hey, they poor don't pay federal income tax, because they need it for basic necessities.
TAX RICH HEAVILY/UNRELASTICALLY IS called communism. Anyways communism works great if all the rich people decided to share weath but unfortunately it failed as poor decided to share the wealth they dont have! so they decided to rob the rich. I am not against communism but everyone shares what ever they have its ok but 99% of communists want to share what they dont have and that is the problem.
Obama's concept of "Fairness" will come with a price. History shows without a doubt, when cap gains are raised, especially in a recession/depression, money will flow towards tax free investments (munis), and the Fed will take in less money. THE POOR WILL SUFFER THE MOST TO ACHIEVE YOUR FAIRNESS. Even Bill Clinton, who says he supports a raise in cap gains, say it must be coupled with a 10% reduction in corp taxes, to avoid the loss in fed revenue.
this is all about electioneering and class warfare, pitting one american against another so the president can selfishly try to win an election on the backs of dividing people....it IS a gimmick and has nothing to do with raising revenues ...if they want to raise revenues, you HAVE to have the bottom 50% paying something. Allowing people to pay nothing is the real lack of fairness.
is that what you voted for in 08????? some hope....
When will the discussion turn to the root of the problem? The issue isn't taxation, the issue is spending. The tax discussion is designed to build a sense of have's and have nots; a class warfare approach. You could tax ever single company and individual making $1million or more a year at 100% and that revenue would be a drop in the bucket with virtually no impact on the deficit. Until the focus stays on reducing spending, we as a country will never get out from under this budget crisis. The government needs to quit spending money it doesn't and will never have.
Mr. Zakaria does not seem to understand that the reason SOME wealthy people do not pay a lot in federal taxes is because they derive a portion of their income from municipal bonds, which are not taxed at the federal level (or the state level, if they live in that state.) Muni bonds are typically low interest, but they are attractive to those with high incomes because of the tax equivalent yield. If you put a minimum 30% tax on those with high incomes, then the yield on muni bonds will rise, in order to make them a worthwhile investment. This will cause borrowing costs for municipalities to increase, which will push up property taxes for everyone. Thus, raising the tax rate on the rich will have the unintended consequence of increasing taxes on the middle class. And raising the rate on dividends and capital gains will slow the flow of capital through the economy, which will hurt economic growth. It has been clearly demonstrated time and again that lower tax rates on capital gains and dividends result in INCREASED tax revenues, which is what congress and the White House should be focusing on. Mr. Obama's policies over the past four years have made matters worse, and he does not deserve another four years. He admitted as much himself; The ARRA was a $900 billion waste of taxpayer money.
You're a fool to be ok with paying more taxes...
I'd support the Buffet Rule and the Anti-Buffett Rule. The anti-Buffett Rule says we go back to 1996, when just 16% of people paid no federal income tax (don't confuse payroll tax with income tax). Thats how far our tax code has taken us thanks to pandering. When half the population is not responsible for supporting the government, you have a non-representative government.
As for Mr. Obama, I cringe when I hear him ask the wealthy to pay, "their fair share." Just say, "...a little bit more."
I was a student with a job at minimum wage and I paid taxes. I was under the poverty line. I didn't get it all back at the end of the year. I don't understand this claim that the poor don't pay taxes.
Buffet for Presidency 2012!
Stop dreaming. Neither the Republicans nor Democrats want real tax reform because loopholes are the candy they give to their friends in industry. This debate has gone absolutely nowhere for 40 years, and it won't go anywhere now.
Zakharia has been in the tank for President Obama since his first campaign. "The Buffett Tax will raise about $47 billion over the next ten years and the federal government will spend vastly more than that – $45 trillion over the next ten years. " That is a one-thousandth. A 1/1,000 drop in the bucket. If this was not a class warfare campaign 2012 strategy, why didn't President Obama pass this when he had 60 votes in the Senate and owned the House of Representatives?
The headline for this should be "Zakharia: Why I would vote for President Obama." Zakharia might as well get on the campaign payroll if he is not already.
God Bless America,,,,,,,,,,,,
God bless President Obama,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
and god bless 4 more years of socialism !!!!
I think the "John F. Kennedy" rule is better. Slash taxes for everyone regardless of wealth, and lower the capital gains tax. Lower tax rates always result in more revenue as a result of the success of a growing economy. The icing on the cake would be to cut government spending by 5 percent every years for the next ten years. Start with repealing the Obamacre law, abolishing the Departments of Education, Energy, Commerce and about 90% of the EPA. The formula isn't that hard.
If soon-to-be President Romney is unable to reduce taxes as a result of the "Do-Nothing Senate", then he should send rebates to all taxpayers. The President cannot raise or lower taxes, but he can send back money to its rightful owners.
Zakaria, like President Obama, is really not smart enough to figure this out.
Obama is not smart enough to take the White house,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Did anyone seriously think an article from Zakaria would be impartial? L O L
i dont think he is impartial
The tax that makes the most sense to me is a national sales tax instead of income tax. The flat rate income tax idea is a huge break for the rich contrary to what most people seem to think.
Here is why I believe the national sales tax makes sense.
1) We spend more than we earn, so it is a larger pool from which to draw. 2) The rich spend more money than the poor so they pay more. 3) Exempt basic food, medical care, and cost of primary home or rental. 4) Corporations, small buisnesses, or individual, everyone pays. 5) It eliminates the IRS and is replaced by much more simple accounting at US Treasury.
Gotta love the loons and how they mimic Obama with the word "fair". What about the 47% of US Households that pay absolutely no federal Income taxes? Is THAT fair? I think not!
The Buffet rule is not going to end the deficit, but it is a step in the right direction towards economic justice. The GOP harps about record deficits, but is unwilling to put any revenue increases on the table becuase of a pledge Grover Norquist. The Congress takes an oath to serve the country not Grover Norquist. The real tax issue is that mature profitable companies pay ZERO – that's right folks ZERO! – income tax. An example of this is General Electric which hasa profit in 2010 of 5 billion, but paid zero income tax. There should be a flat income tax, flat personal income tax and a flat federal sales tax. Everbody would be playing by the same set of rules.
I see CNN is in full campaign mode for Mr. Obama.
We have the highest corp tax rate in the industrialized world, but most major corporations pay little or nothing because of loopholes & offshore havens. Only small & mid-size businesses pay full taxes because they cannot afford to play in the loopholes. The same is true of our personal tax code. No matter how you slice it, the big 3 (SS, MC, & Defense) suck up the majority of our budget, and they either need to be paid for or changed. Easy math, hard decisions.
Cut spending down to its traditional 20% of GDP and then we can discuss raising revenues. But of course, history already shows that if goverment spending is held in check, then revenues natually flow to government coffers.
I sometimes get sad reading these posts. I can't believe that so many people really believe that ANYONE should have to give over a THIRD of their income to the U.S. government. This administration and the FAR left are appealing to the worst in people (GREED & ENVY). I don't make a lot of money and I don't care how much money someone else makes. Good for them. So many people keep talking about the RICH not paying their fair share although the stats show that the top 10% in this country pay the majority of Federal income tax while over 40% pay NOTHING.
Besides, why should an investment be charged the same % as payroll? The person investing is taking a RISK can could quite possibly lose some or all of their money depending on the investment. In addition, the money they are investing had to be taxed before at some point down the road. The problem is that Americans are becoming so used to being taxed on everything that we'll let anyone tax us on anything.
And for those intellectually dishonest people out there that complain about %s. 14% of 1 million dollars is still a heck of lot more that 20% of 50,000. What are those people paying more of an amount in taxes getting from our government that the middle class or poor isn't? Do we have tanks guarding their houses? Do we take them to work in F-15s? NO! They do create jobs however. This % argument is the same BS argument America haters use against our charity #s. You hear people talking about the % of charity/aid given by the U.S. to the world is a lower percentage of our GDP compared to some other countries. YES, that is quite possible because our GDP is SOOOOO MUCH higher then most of the world. Ask some starving guy in Africa if he would like a whole truck load of rice from the U.S. or one piece of rice from France and see if he cares what % it is.
If you really want FAIR establish a FLAT tax with no deductions except charity.
Less Government, Less Taxes, Less Spending. --> More money to spend on our own families
I agree. An overall tax reform is needed. I would also pass the buffet rule because it is fair. Sure over time what it brings in won't compare to what is spent but its a step in the right direction. Just because its not a cure all doesn't make it any less legitimate. Part of the problem is the fact that for many years we have been missing out on all this millionaire tax to begin with. But I agree in the grand scheme of things, tax reform is needed. The loopholes are the real problems but that doesn't make the buffet rule less fair whether a political ploy or not. Thats like saying .. why drive a hybrid when our carbon emission is still off the charts. ... Baby steps. Its hard to make overwhelming change all at once, especially when people have to agree to it. No one likes immediate radical change.
I haven't read all of the responses... but has anybody at all brought up the topic of reforming CONGRESS? How about we start with them AND the tax code at the same time.
Too much work? I don't think so.
Why do a certain few people basically get to write their own checks if they are elected? Why are there no term limits? Why did it take an independent investigator to prompt change in Congress regarding insider trading? Their rules, aside from classified military information, should be no different than the rest of us.
They are to SERVE us, not burden us with their differences and inability to negotiate.
First of all lets be clear when they state Buffet pays a lower percentage that his secretary that is a lie. He pays 15% on capitol gains, his secretary pays the same on capitol gains, Buffet may or may not pay a higher or lower tax rate on his wages but that is not what Obama, the media or Buffet are talking about.
How is this for tax reform ...
1. Eliminate the difference between WORK income and INVESTMENT income ... if you earn $1 you pay taxes on $1 ... including income tax, FICA, medicare, etc
2. Us a progressive tax system with gradual step up ... maybe 5 / 10 / 15 / 20 / 25 as the levels – Each step up should double the prior break point ...
3. Eliminate the marriage penalty – a married couple earning 2X pays the same rate as a single person at X...
4. Eliminate all of the deductions from the system EXCEPT one base deduction that is based on an average for the poverty level (and cap these at 4 deductions per return).
5. On the corporate side go to a flat tax based on earnings with only one deduction to lower the rate for products PRODUCED in the US ...
My guess is it can meet a lot of the goals ... earn more / pay more, reduce overall rates, increase total amount raised and encourage US based investment ...
excellent idea...
however with the rules, the left base would be unhappy. Only 4 deductions ( oh my god !!!)
The wall street will cry and complain
The politicians dont have the guts or courage to make real changes
Ramesh, what communism. Where in the maniofest it says that rich should pay 30% min tax. And in the bible for that matter. Of course hey should as we live in different world, where mass production and technological advances made some work irrelevant and non existent, where lucky few enjoy success even as the result of thier own hard work. As a society we need to be more fare, not communism fare, but somewhat fare to less fortunate. But I agree that this is not a solution and even more agree that nothing substantial can be done with tax code or anything at all with this Congresss and political state in the country.
Buffer rule is a basically a quick fix attempt to add yet another amendment to essentially cancel the effect of some previously adopted amendments. Basically a proposal from someone who did not take time to understand what is in the current legislature, but decided to fix it with an axe.
What about
1. Tax Capital Gains at the same rate and any other types of income, AND AT THE SAME TIME,
2. Abolish the $1500(single)/$3000(couple) limit of the Capital Loss for each year - make it possible to write off any about in your Schedule D.
NOTE: I am not proposing any new legislation: all what I am proposing is to get rid of some portions of the existing legislation.
The problem is: some say that taxing Long Term Capital Gains and Qualified Dividends at 15% rate is not fair: 15% is too low. However, it may be gain one year and loss for the next, then gain again. In happened in 2007-2008-2009-2010-2011 - You have gains you pay taxes, then you loose what you gain but have no ability to write off your loss, then you partially recover what you lost and pay 15% as it would be a fresh gain starting from the lowest position as the "base cost" for the purpose of Capital Gains Tax. The current Capital Gain Tax Law literally works like a rectifier. That is not fair: on a longer term you end up paying your real money for fake Capital Gains - the gains which exist only on papers sent to you by your bank, but not real money.
Rob, I will show you a few counter points to your tax proposal.
1. When you work at a job you're essentially putting nothing at risk. You get a place to work and the materials are provided. You usually get some benefits. When you invest your own (after tax) money in a company, it is all at risk. I have lost much doing this. So based on this reality, investment return should be taxed less.
2. A simple tax code can still contain progressive levels as your state. The lowest level will have to be 0.
3. Forget the marriage penalty. The cost of living for two people living in the same house is lower than two single people living in two houses. And don't say it takes a bigger house, it doesn't.
4. Forget deductions altogether, start the income tax at 150% of poverty level, below which it is 0 tax on income. One possible exception is a deduction for up to two kids. You want to over populate the world, do it at your own expense. But this would mean no deductions for spouses that don't work for income and lets get rid of alimony.
5. The corporate can be tiered, maybe 3 levels. What is made in the US? that is complex, Raw materials, parts, assembly. Some incentive seems like a good thing but must be well defined.
In the real world none of it will happen. The Senate can be blocked by some threat of filibuster so even a majority can't rule. One last thing. Anyone who has complained about those who pay no income tax (remember there are plenty of other taxes) should just trade places with them for a year, income, house and all. It might change your mind.
NewsBusters: CNN's Zakaria Supports Obama's Buffett Rule
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-hadro/2012/04/18/cnns-zakaria-supports-obamas-buffett-rule
Taxes are not the real problem – the real problem is that our governments (local, state and federal) are just too big to be effective. They have become to compartmentalized and they don't interact well. we need to cut about 30% of the workforce. We also need to consolidate departments and we need to allocate our tax dollars for essential things like roads, education, healthcare for the unfortunate. Further, we need to cap discretionary spending for things that really don't serve the people of america – like perpetual welfare
Tax reform is badly needed, but it likely won't solve the problem of government (on all the unnecessary and somewhat redundant levels we have) simply costing far too much.
n 2011 our household paid 33.12% of every gross dollar earned in one form of tax or another. Counted in that number are real estate taxes, self-employment taxes, unemployment taxes, state replacement taxes, regular medicare and social security taxes, state and federal income taxes, sales, liquor, utility taxes, tolls, gasoline and vehicle taxes like annual license stickers. Adjust income taxes, and just like "whack a mole", another levy, fee, or other inventive way to feed the king's coffers will shortly take it away.
About 7% of the American economy is underground now. Keep up the never ending taxation fiasco and our underground economy will mushroom to the 30% or so found in Greece or Italy. Once that many people are evading taxes, it will be tough, if not impossible, for the king to reassert control.
This is nothing more than a political gimick by the president. His only hope it to galvanize the democratic base . He knows that in an election year, this was never going to be passed. He just brought it up so that he can hammer Romney on the campaign trail.
What happened to the 2008 promise of being different!!!!
I read the other comments I can't help but wonder who are these people that don't pay taxes? If anyone in this country buys anything in this country they pay taxes. Those with food stamps, wellthey have to buy clothes, buy gas, if they own a car they pay property taxes, they buy a burger there's a tax (Burger King, McDonald's & Wendy's don't accept food debit cards) and don't think those free cell phones are free, there's a fee for the minutes and guess what , there are taxes! So where are these people getting that BS line about they don't pay taxes? But yet there are some who'd rather see someone get paid $12 million a year to dribble/shoot a basketball, throw/catch a football, throw/hit a baseball and pay less in taxes then the ones watching them and worry/complain about the poor not paying taxes! As a comedian says, "Wotta Country!"
those who work under the table don't pay much fed taxes. They under-report income.
Amongst some of those grossing under 100,000. per year, they cheat the Fed .Gov't. by 700 billion a year. It was about 400 billion 10 years ago. So most of our deficit could be blamed that.
II think we need a little more honesty and integrity as so much is based on the "honor system."
Two simple fixes for what ails America:
1. Flat tax to eliminate waste, corruption and abuse while raising revenues, making people's lives easier and wiping out a giant, parasitic swath of the economy that preys on tax scams, deductions, etc, while making revenue raising more transparent and more directly linking payer and payee and programs – see 2 below for details
a. Variant is VAT
2. Reform election process including elimination of Super PAC, PAC and all lobbyists, with restricted campaign schedule like other countries where representatives actually serve the electorate
Top rate when Eisenhower was President, +90% all 8 years, on couples making $400k/yr. There were 24 Federal tax tiers.
When Nixon left office, top Fed tax rate was 70% on couples making $206k/yr.
Pres.Obamas Buffett rule is showing that the rich can have a patriotic heart,by coming forward and voluntarally investing in our country ,tax wise...You won't see the Romneys of the 1% coming forward ,I assure you.They invest in only things profitable for THEMSELVES,the rich,egotistical rightwing extremist ,who think they're holier than thou.Pres.Clinton had the right idea and it left us with a measureable federal surplus,a fact that has not been achieved governmentally since.Even with bipartisan support,remember republicans when people were civil with one another, is that too hard to comprehend,not really.Years ago,before the rise of republican teabaggers and extremism,people actually worked together to help, not hinder this great country.There was no obstructionism,no anti-government radical groups,nothing.Just people working across the aisles in both houses patriotically for the red,white and blue.
Pete, you have no knowledge of American political history. In your view, conservatives should just go along to get along with whatever the left wants. Then there will be no divisiveness.
The 1% pay 39% of the taxes! If that is n ot fair, what is? Actually, a flat tax of 10% on all income (wages, dividends, cap gains, individual and corporate) with no deductions would be fair to all. That way, you pay in direct proportion to what you earn, and everyone pays someting.
Even Warren Buffet doesn't believe in the the "Buffet Rule", because he still owes about a billion dollars in back taxes! ...put your money where your mouth is Warren! ...LOL
Good point! Buffett can well afford to pay tax lawyers to F with the public sector union grade dummies from the IRS.
That's why the IRS targets the little guys (like waiters who don't declare all their tips) more than the big guys like Buffett. It's easier.
Liberalism is a mental disorder.
European Socialism: Tax the rich until they've either left the country or there is anyone left to tax and everyone goes broke.
It worked so well for Greece, Spain, Portugal, France, England and Italy. And its working so well in California, Wisconsin, Connecticut, New York, Illinois and New Jersey.
Liberalism is a mental disorder.
The Buffet Rule has a lot of basis for it's proposed enactment. America's wealth barrier is getting larger by the year and it's time that those whose portfolios are in the millions should pay the equal amount of tax that a $50,000 or less pays!!
I've been surfing online greater than three hours nowadays, yet I by no means discovered any fascinating article like yours. It is beautiful worth sufficient for me. In my view, if all website owners and bloggers made good content as you did, the web will probably be a lot more useful than ever before.
Thank you for some other excellent post. Where else may anyone get that kind of info in such an ideal approach of writing? I've a presentation subsequent week, and I am at the search for such information.
Archive Issues. You can order individual back issues for only $6. Just send us an e-mail or letter listing the month and year of the issues you'd like, as well as.homemade dog food