Editor's Note: Tune in Sunday at 10a.m. or 1p.m. ET for Fareed Zakaria GPS on CNN.
By Fareed Zakaria, CNN
After months of meandering, it seems President Barack Obama's re-election campaign has settled on a theme. The problem is - it's the wrong one.
The "Buffett Rule" tax on millionaires has become Obama's bumper sticker. The proposal is reasonable - but it does not deserve the attention Obama is showering on it. It raises a trivial sum of money - $47 billion over the next 10 years - during which period the federal government will spend $45 trillion. It adds one more layer to a tax code that is already the most complex and corrupt in the industrialized world.
The focus on the Buffett Rule is also bad politics in the long run for Obama. While polls might momentarily show that it works, Americans are generally aspirational, not envious. Over the years voters tend to support a government that focuses on creating opportunity rather than one that tries to reduce inequality. Bill Clinton and Tony Blair's great feat was to position themselves as pro-market, pro-growth, pro-opportunity progressives. Obama should not fritter away that asset.
Ironically, Obama has been pivoting at the very moment events in the real world are providing him with the perfect campaign issue. We are four years into the financial crisis. In the United States, the government acted speedily and massively to stimulate the economy, using monetary and fiscal measures. In Europe, by contrast, governments quickly turned toward austerity programs, cutting spending across the board to reduce budget deficits.
Well, the results are in: The U.S. economy is expected to grow 2 to 3 percent this year. The euro zone is expected to contract by 0.3 percent this year; Spain and Britain have officially entered a double-dip recession, the first time major economies have done so in 40 years. IMF projections show that even Germany's average growth rate over the next five years will be only 40 percent of America's.
President Obama started the year speaking of "an economy built to last." He should return to this theme and frame this campaign as a choice between investments on the one hand and budget cuts on the other. And he has substance behind his rhetoric.
Obama has proposed several important investment initiatives: a $476 billion infrastructure plan; a 5% hike in research and development spending; a job-training program to help dislocated workers; incentives for manufacturing; funds to expand the pool of college graduates and to increase science and engineering students. So, he should ask Americans to choose between these investments to create long-term growth versus massive budget cuts.
In the midst of the economic crisis, Warren Buffet said that his strategy was to invest in America. That's the Buffett Rule Obama should follow.
Tune in Sunday at 10a.m. or 1p.m. ET for Fareed Zakaria GPS on CNN.
 |
Post by: |
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Work for us | Help
Fareed, I don't get why you're so opposed to the Buffet tax reforms. Yes, they are inconsequential and won't amount to much except politically, but it is a step in the right direction. It seems like you are writing to expose the fallacy that Obama's gang is propagating that these reforms will be critical; this is admirable because it is certainly a fallacy, but I think that the amount of $ we need to invest in our infrastructure is far too large to be politically viable.
Imagine if Obama focused on infrastructure improvement, workforce education/training, and investment in failing public schools, (6 of 10 citizens can't pass the citizen test immigrants are required to). If he did this, he would be branded a "big spending and big taxing" liberal by the feudal parts of our society because of the GOP machine. I think that our nation is incapable of good policy as long as the Citizens United ruling stands as law and the conservatives are able to manipulate the duller part of our nation into voting for them; the Buffet rule is a welcome distraction that will call conservatives out on their own BS- that's the best we can hope for.
A step in the right direction? It`s a step in the wrong direction.
Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.
OBAMA: Right.
GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.
OBAMA: Right.
GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.
So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?
What about the other 100 million that don't own stock?
People who don't have savings have only themselves to blame for being wasteful.
You shouldn't have wasted all that money on tattoos, piercings, booze and dope.
the increase in tax revenues after the decrease in capital gains was not do to the decrease in capitol gains. In each case it was due to a boom in economic growth (in both cases caused by an economic bubble). What happened to tax revenues when the economy fell off a cliff at the end of Bush's presidency ? The capitol gains tax was 15% then, so obviously this was to blame. correlation dose NOT equal causation !
"when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased"
That's nice. Prove to me that dropping the rate CAUSED the increase, and then maybe you have some sort of argument.
THE ECONOMY COLLAPSED IN 2007 AS DEMOCRAT CONGRESS ANTI-BUSINESS REGS TOOK EFFECT.
Obozo's campaign pledge to DOUBLE the capital gains tax then sent investors to the sidelines, where most of them STILL sit, and caused the meltdown of 2008-2009.
the results are in Fareed. 2% GDP growth is embarrassing for the US. Benchmarking Europe is a pathetic comparator. Especially when Obamas cronies projected every year since the stimulus that GDP growth would be at 4%. That's half of the regimes projections!! CEOs of companies would go to jail if they rolled out phony numbers like that and unemployment numbers
Bill, sorry but its people like you on the far left and right that screw everything up. If you are against the policy or for the policy because it will hurt or help, lay out your point. When you say what about the other 100 million, you are being envious (which makes your subsequent post ironic). By the way, if you think the politicians at the top of the Republican party are for the elite and not the Democrat, you are ignoring history (they are both for the elite). Do you really believe that Obama keeps giving all that money away because he thinks it is helping the economy?? (this is not a defense of Republicans so please don't treat it that way).
No, CEOs would (did) cash in on their golden parachutes while their company took a huge bailout.
Dropping it to zero will create no revenue. So where it the optimal taxation rate? I say we are below it.
No one ever told them to buy that stock, Scott. You buy your ticket ... you take your chances.
Buffet Rule: Do as I say, not as I do.....pay up your $1,000,000,000 and Private Jet tax and we will listen
Uh, sorry, the government is not taking in more money from lower tax rates. Per capita capital gains tax revenues under Clinton were higher than they were under Bush, who lowered rates.
You also seem to imply that Clinton was in favor of lower capital gains rates, when the reality was that he was working with a Republican Congress, and lowering the capital gains rates from 28% to 20% was a concession that he made to get other things that he wanted. He has repeatedly said that he would prefer for capital gains rates to be close to a person's income tax rates, not significantly lower.
You may be doing your accounting solely based on the initial results of the change, which occurred when the economy was still relatively healthy. After 10 years of Bush tax cuts, any serious independent economist concedes that they have caused a loss in revenue, not a gain. Hence, we have a massive deficit now (and it was already at more than a trillion dollars per year in the fiscal year that started before Obama took office), where Clinton left with a yearly surplus.
See this for a debunking of the Charlie Gibson statements you just regurgitated:
www dot cbpp dot org slash cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1286.
What is "all of that money" that Obama keeps "giving away", John? Could you please itemize those give-a-ways for us , then send us a link to the academic sources that prove Obama is "giving away all that money"? I'd also like to see a link to proof that raising the tax rate reduces revenue. It would be great to have a link to academic sources that will substantiate that bit of new, too, because it's not true.
Obama gave 500 million to solyndra after bush killed the loan for good reason. Solyndra has ties to major Obama donors. There are several others just like this. Also, democratic districts received twice as much money as republican districts from the stimulus. Google it Katherine, cause the libs in the media covered it up. If you want an example for revenue increases from lowered taxes, look at Reagan era. 21 million new jobs. Peace!
This "drop taxes, raise revenue" stuff is completely false. It never happened. If you drop taxes in a recession, of course revenues increase as the economy gets better. But at NO TIME did revenues come back to where they were. This has been the one conservative dogma that has produced more deficit and misery than any other.
You just contradicted yourself. Lower taxes equals stronge economy. That enables more people to enter higher tax brackets, which means more taxpayers and more revenue. Simple economics. Yu don't get anywhere taxing the rich more. But more taxpayers? Yes that makes a difference
lower taxes rates resulting in inceased govt revenue and increased economy has been proven time and time again. Its not a debate, not even an issue. Its just easy logic.
Please see this article. It shows how your short-term calculation of capital gains revenue does not match the long term reality of a cut in the capital gains rate: http://works.bepress.com/richard_serlin/16/
IF THE CAPITAL GAINS TAX IS RAISED IT WILL AFFECT MANY OTHER THAN THE "RICH"..FOR EXAMPLE YOUNG COUPLES TRYING TO INVEST FOR COLLEGE AND OTHER FUTURE NEEDS..PEOPLE OF MODEST MEANS..EX RETIRED FOLK CAN GET NO RETURN ON ANNUITY PAYOUTS..LESS THAN 1% DOESNT DO IT..SO WE INVEST AND HOPEFULLY INTELLIGENTLY AND PATIENTLY MAKE A GAIN...LESS TAX WOULD BE VERY WELCOME. DIANA SPENGLER, RETIRED CHARTER FINANCIAL CONSULTANT
My guess is that most of the stock owned by working people is in an IRA and when money is withdrawn from an IRA, (other than a ROTH IRA), it is taxed as earned income. While Mitt Romney is paying 14% on his over $57,000 a day, people with regular IRAs are paying taxes at around 25% to 35%.
To those saying that lowering taxes does not increase revenue I would like to ask do you mean as a percentage of GDP or in real dollar amounts? According to U.S. tax revenue history, found here: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200
the amount of revenue in 1985 in dollar terms equaled and then superseded the amount of revenue taken in by the federal government in 1981, which is when the Reagan tax cuts were put in place. However, the percentage of GDP that taxation represented declined over that same period. Additionally, with the tax reform of 1986, which lowered rates but was supposed to remain revenue neutral by closing loopholes, especially for wealthier individuals (as in the same policy favored currently by many republicans), revenue increased fairly dramatically. So yes, lowering taxes can raise revenue but only in dollar amounts, not in terms of percentage of GDP.
There's a problem with your question and the result.
That is the lower capital gains taxes does not increase those revenues over a long period of time. Only for a short term.. Your statement is accurate about the "immediate" effects of lower tax rates implemented by both Clinton and Bush, but only in the first year or two that it is enacted. It then actually went down. The moment a restructuring of capital gains tax is announced, investors react. They pause on selling something until the tax cut is actually enacted so they can benefit by the lower tax rates. So this results in much substantially lower revenue than can be expected in the year previous to a tax cut and a substantial increase immediately following. But if you factor in these "fluctuations" you will find that over the long run that lowering these tax rates did not in fact increase tax collection but reduce tax collection.
There is in fact an "optimum tax rate for tax collection" Just as there is an optimum sales price for any item. Lower prices may increase overall sales, but it may not make up for reduced revenue.
JRL- major flaw ing your statement on Republican reciept of Stimulus as opposed to Demoncrat. maybe you don't recall the new at the time, but numerous districts and states were -refusing- said stimulus money, definitely effecting that balance.
There were spikes in revenue after the tax cuts because folks knew that there was possible legislation to reduce the capital gains tax rate and delayed incurring capital gains until after the reduction.
the 100 million do not pay taxes either.
BINGO! The hardest thing for liberals to admit or understand is the relation between tax rates and revenue flow to the IRS.
Sean, Fareed is a tool of the American CIA used to control morons who can't figure out why he's opposed to something that makes so much sense
Sean, Fareed is a tool of the American CIA used to control morons who can't figure out why he's opposed to something that makes so much sense
You'd better understand what Fareed is saying if you took a moment to actually READ what he WROTE.
He's not opposed to the Buffett rule, he's opposed to making it the central plank of Obama's campaign.
If you don't understand why, then read the article, because that's what the entire thing is about. If you still don't understand it, then I am truly sorry for your learning disability.
Of often forgotten point in any article, but especially in the world of posting!
what I can't understand is why CNN lets Al Quaeda report the news
And you'd better understand that what people say is not always what their try intent is. Normally, people learn this after about age 6.
Fareed Zakaria is a lifelong Reaganomics tool. He knows that a Buffett Rule is popular, so he's smart enough not to come out plainly against it. He makes some roundabout argument about it just being the wrong focus of Obama's campaign, to disguise his true desire to keep push the trickle-down economics that he knows most independent voters have wised up to.
Just not you.
... should have read "true intent" above
I don't know, Merrick, probably for the same reason they let racist white trash (wanna-be-KKK) respond to posts on Cnn.
Fareed is a tool, that's why he's opposed to something that makes so much sense. And he's a dirty mexican so nobody should listen to him
You are the best example for mandatory castration.
"dirty mexican"
He was born in India. BA degree from Yale, PhD from Harvard.
You are officially a moron.
Of course it is a step in the right direction..It is in effect a start to taking this country back from the rich elite and the corporations.. Who now are running things with the power their money affords them.
Because we are loosing the "majority rule" kind of democracy we have built this country on.
This country is in danger of becoming under "rule" of a few over the many..
It should be very obvious that since the Bush tax breaks to the wealthy that the few are gaining power over the many..Simply by using the power wealth gives them.
Its what has taken every civilization down from day one.. The rich rule over the poor.. Until they implode.
You can't expect people to accept living under the power a few wield..it never worked and it will never work..
Its doomed to fail as it always has.
Mary-I don't understand what you mean. The "rich" are not to blame–they provide the jobs, the insurance and the growth for our country. Without them we remain stagnat and no one has even the opportunity of a job, a house, a car, a vacation-or most importantly-a goal! Please rethink.
Kwl -
I'm afraid you are misunderstanding how it works. The problem is the middle class and the poor are stagnating. They are the ones that supply the 'growth' in the economy by spending their money. The rich invest it in the stock market to create more wealth thus it never gets into the economy. We need to raise middle class and working class wages. Get those folks spending again. Then we will see growth... and jobs. Giving more money to the folks that already have most of it is not going to create one job. Getting more money to the middle class and working class to spend will create the demand which in turn will create the jobs.
Hey, Mary - How old are you ?? The rule is: "THE NEEDS OF THE MANY OUTWEIGH THE NEEDS OF THE FEW – OR THE ONE!!!"
STAR TREK 2
The Bush tax cuts made it possible for 15 million Americans to pay ZERO in Federal income tax- and "cost" the government $230 billion a year.
All the Bush tax cuts should expire at the end of the year. We would be able to cut the yearly budget deficit by 25%.
RIGHT ON MARY. This is a democracy. We need people to read, think critically about the policy of whom they are voting for. I vote, pay taxes, and ask questions. Where's the WMD's, Who's going to pay for this war? Bail out single moms working paycheck to paycheck, bail out laid off fathers trying to keep a roof over his family. I support working people, not wall street. Fareed is right, Obama needs to go back to the grass roots, and quit pandering about this so called buffet rule, close the loop holes and defend Healthcare reform NOW!
Albert – you'd be dead right if you DID live in a Democracy, but you don't! You THINK you, the people, will choose in November? Get real. Obama has proved he doesn't NEED the people when he told Medvedev he's going to be re-elected!
Please don't even TRY to justify it it. He said " This is my last election. When I'm elected, I'll have more space.............." Not if – WHEN.
And Hilary Clinton said the same thing 2 weeks before! YOU are not needed and you're certainly not respected by the failure you call leader!
don't listen to what he says he's a dirty mexican
Fareed is not a Mexican you cretin.
He's a Mexican-Arab.
He looks like he bathes... do you? He's a tool, but a clean one.
He's Indian... for you geography challenged moron, that's on a different continent – keep staying out of school and you'll wonder why they ship your job overseas.
And you, Merrick, are a terminally ignorant racist! Therefore you have no credibility here.
Sean B:
1. What was the Citizens United case about?
2. What dispute led them to sue in the first place?
3. Why do you believe the decision was incorrect?
I'll wait while you try to learn something about what you have parroted out.
Just out of curiosity, what would you tell Americans when next year if it is passed Buffet's tax bill is still lower? Because it will be! He only takes the minimum allowed from Berkshire Hathaway of $164,000.00 so this "Buffett Rule" won't even apply to him.... Oh it will to those new millionaires making over $225,000 a year. (Funny when I learned math 225,000 didn't equal one million but then this is a new math now isn't it!
The Buffett Rule clearly states that it would apply to people making a million dollars a year. Sorry to bore you with facts.
Ah read the Bill language and not the BS on here or in the Press... Or listen to Biden and Obama... They have spelled it out more than a few times! It is $225 for singles and $250 for families. The Bill is the facts!
Sean, Zakaria is not against Buffett Rule but he is saying it's Bad Politics wrt Obama. Obama should build 'an economy which will last' and not create rule and harp on it when it is just another rule taxing Rich people where most of us say that it should one tax code for everyone. It might not matter to Rich people whther they pay 25% or 35% on long term capital gains when they make $100 million profit but it should be one tax code for everyone when we say that it should 20% on capital gains for everyone. SO it's just a rule which Obama is harping on an not building economy which his legacy should be.
I like Obama too but this is just bad politics!
There is no "economy that will last" so long as the global megabanksters continue to wreak havoc worldwide with financial markets. Consider the sanitization of these terms, which really mean that a few thousand people are enriching themselves at the expense of 7 billion human beings. The Buffet Rule is inconsequential unless it points to the direction of controlling the global mega-psychopaths destroying real business on this planet. Politicians now think their job is to convince us to put up with this nonsense, instead of battling it on our behalf.
How many times in the last 4 years has the Federal Reserve [made up of the 5 BIG banks bailed the government? They print more money and like the Buffet Rule they don't get to the root of your problem - which is:-
[1] Unfunded liabilities of $120 Trillion
[2] ALL Federal revenues from both Income and SS taxes iare less than $2.4 T a year
[ $120 T / $2.4 T = 50x......that means that every tax payer would have to pay 50 years tax TODAY to get back
to even.
[3] USA has 100% debt to GDP ratio – and going up 10% a year with $1.2 Trillion deficits.[immediate problem]
[4] 60% of Public debt matures in less than 3 years
[5] That means astronomcal money supply growth [printing cartloads of money]
[6] THAT means the coming loss of the $US status as the world's reseve currency.
Since Obama'Buffet's rule won't TOUCH the deficits – it is a waste of time. They're in denial and electioneering on false promises is not right.
The election of an Anti-Business nincompoop is the primary reason for our pathetic economy.
Re-elect the Bozo and get 4 more years of high unemployment.
Tax 100 percent of SSI payments instead.
After eight years of pro-business Bush, this economy was in a death spiral, the Dow was crashing, and we were headed for the next Great Depression, losing 700,000 jobs a month. Check the numbers and get back to me.
mr Tooth,,, actually yes the economy did reach a point of failure at the end of the Bush admin, but it was due to the housing crash,, which was created by the Democrat's,, See a program started by Clinton in 1995 called the National Homeownership Stategy,, which pushed with HUD, and Cisneros, Fanny and Freddy to take subprime loans, and consequently the whole thing got out of hand, GO read a web site called "the Affordable Mortgage Depression" and on the right margin of that site is all the data you need.. Just once I'd like to see a Dem take responsiblity instead of passing the blame. thx,
Greetings from America. Brother....REALLY WAKE UP! @_@ SSI is a low ball issue my friend, do you want to clean a disabled persons a$$? i don't think so, there are great men and women out there every day working to provide Healthcare they need, one day when your too old to clean your own a$$, you might understand you bozo.
@beingone
It's a sure sign your website is a right-wing propaganda site when they claim that it was Obama that caused us to lose our 3 star rating. That is so glaringly untrue that it should have given you an indication that your website is a phony.
It was the Teaparty and their hijacking of the debt ceiling debate that caused us to lose the credit rating, and the agency stated as much when they did so.
If you want to learn anything guys, remember there are endless sites set up for Republican Apologetics. Do not take them as factual.
This is idiotic. 2% GDP growth is atrocious. Absolutely pathetic growth. That's like saying, well I'm getting a D in my class, but look at that guy he's getting an F. The stimulus was so dumb because you have to take 800 billion dollars from the private sector to give it to the public sector friends of Obama. He's toast. Romney is in. Fareed you might as well move to china because you are a communist
Jobless Barry is clueless about all economic matters. Utterly clueless. Even Fareed can see it.
now that really is BS Sean. We need real solutions – not kicking cans down the road for our kids and grandkids. That's what this president has done – written blank checks payable by my kids, my kids' kids, etc. The auto bailout – blank check. The Stimulus, blank check...it goes on and on. He needs to move to solutions that are large and not nickel and dime....
Well, he could have proposed investing in a newer and larger space program. How many jobs and industries would that have been worth? That is only one example. The way Obama comes across to me is this: He will tell each segment exactly what they want to hear. He is trying to play rich against poor and men against women in little sound bites and pass it for public policy. Leaders lead, politicians play games and unfortunately right now no one is leading and there is no one on the next ballot that will lead. Kennedy,Truman,Reagan and maybe Johnson in my lifetime were leaders. "Here is where we are going and here is what we are going to do," seemed to be their message. Like it or lump you knew what to expect. Right now we are so focused on the next news broadcast that no one is planning for 2025 and tht is a huge mistake.
A step in the right direction would be to massively simplify the tax code and restructure it in a more fair way, rather than slapping more code on top of the existing behemoth in an attempt to make things more fair. We got in this mess by slapping loopholes on top of loopholes on top of loopholes for decades. The problem isn't going to be fixed with a bandaid, and this is nothing but partisan politics. We need a president more interested in fixing the country's problems than political pandering.
In that case, we're probably better off electing Obama than Romney.
We need people to use critical thinking skills instead of spouting soundbites.
@Lagos,
It's funny, from where I'm standing, the pandering is happening on the Right. But keep in mind, Lagos, it's a vicious circle.
One side plays partisan politics or panders to a certain segment, then the other side is either forced to play the same game or hope that people are smart enough to know the truth.
Democrats are brokes. Always have been, always will be.
Buffet pays the 15%...plus ofcourse the 35% on the corporate end...plus 7% to SSI....plus his state taxes of 9%...plus the city tax of 3%.....so actually he pays 69%....but according to this "NEW TAX", he should pay higher taxes on top of that....Mark my words....when the "Top 1%" who contribute 50% of all tax revenue decide to take a 5 or 10 year vacation in Greece (it's pretty cheap there right now).....and the loss of that 50% of income allows the USA to go the way of the USSR....then old Mr. Buffett will probably get a little more respect!
Buffett is in favor of the Buffett Rule.
Don't come up with your number. Buffet himself said he paid 17%. If he paid 69%, whe would have said 69%. Make your argument based on the truth.
I guarantee you that if every billionaire and every corporate ceo were executed tomorrow, nothing would happen. Nada. If every janitor quit cleaning toilets tomorrow, people would die in droves of disease. Top 1% = leeches on society.
@DoNotWorry Low skilled workers are easily replaced. This is why their labor demands the lowest wages in the marketplace. Wages in a free market are based on how many people can do what you do. This is why there are people who make more than you do. I know it hurts, but this is the truth.
Steve: You are embarrassing yourself. You obviously don't know the tax code.
Great article by Fareed. Obama has been investing in America and America's citizens. And while our economy is not blazing trails in regards to percentage of growth, the fact that it is growing, and has been steadily for awhile now, in the face of a do nothing republican congress, goes to show that President Obama's plans have been working. Good point as well regarding the failure of European Austerity Measures, which is bascially the same CUT and CAP BS that the House Republicans and Romney are peddling.
your kidding?
The "Buffet rule" is bad economics. If you increase taxes on investments investments will decrease. It's a simple fundamental rule of economics. If he is so concerned about taxes of a secretary vs. an evil rich person, why doesn't he lower the tax of the secretary?
Your simple, fundamental rule is made up nonsense. During the highest taxing rates on capital... the United States had the greatest amount of growth. During the lowest taxing rates on capital... the United States has had the least amount of growth. Truth? Capital has gone global in the most maniacal way. Corporations have gone global and in negotation with third world countries have traded our jobs for entry into emerging markets. Fools abound who are willing to blame all the victims of the global psychopaths for being the problem.
@DoNotWorry if you were right then why don't we make it 100% for maximum growth? Your theory is made up nonsense!
Fareed did not say he was against the Buffet Rule. In fact, if you listen/read carefully, he said it's reasonable. What what Fareed is saying is that Obama should be giving more focus on his stimulus successes. Results are in: cost-cutting austerity measures in Europe did not work to grow economy... Obama's stimulus plans did work.
While the Buffet rule may not raise enough revenue, it is good politics. The Republicans have no legitimate grounds, especially Mr. Tax Break himself, Mitt Romney, for opposing it. They oppose everything, showing how they oppose something like this will hopefully make even stupid people see what really motivates them - quest for power, greed, bias, and religious fanaticism.
The Health Care law is a prime example, a few republicans could have compromised and that would have allowed the president to not give in to the far left. Instead, we are left with most expensive and least effectual health care program among developed nations. The issue is not taxes, or the Buffet rule, but the ability to work out compromises that work.
Sean B. you are right but when you are right then to the left you are crazy and they will call you everything but a milk cow
yeah let's take more of people's money and out of the private sector where we need jobs, and give it to a fiscially irresponsible government to make it more powerful so that in the end the government can control all of us. you don't know much about history do you? a powerful government is a dangerous government to the freedom of the people.
Agreed...Mr. Zakaria you are completely wrong.
anyone and everyone that has a 401 or a company sponsored 401 or ira has stock ownership; whether you ilke it or not,, unless of course you are self managing an keeping our money "safe' at less than 1.5 % return on cds....go head,, keep on sucking obamas hate the business world balls, and you will see your privately held holdings diminish
Sean,your right,the republican hypocrites and their adopted teabaggers twist everything against itself.But can't come up with any viable solutions while constantly downplaying the presidents true aspirations for this country.He is in this political fight for the average citizen and is fighting an ever present republican approach to make him a one termer.It's sad when you read these websites, seeing the constant racial barbs being aimed at our first black American President.He's in this for the long haul and hasn't given up,unlike what Bush did in his last term in office,after creating this economic debacle.This country could do much better if the rightwing hypocricy went away and all peoples involved took more of a bipartisan stance to get this country on its feet.These politicians know,they started it on the floor of the senate ,not too long after Pres.Obama took oath,that their ultimate mission was making him a one term president,no doubt about it,made publicly also...So if they'd put as much work into helping as trying to obstruct,we'd be financially in much better shape than what the previous administration left is in..
So quit being so racial,so hypocritical ,so obstructive and let's move forward,all of us and once again make us the global leader we once were.Be proud that your American,that's all in a nutshell....
I completely agree with Fareed's commentary this morning!
Sean
I believe our spending must be addressed first. All the things that you mention cost money which we do not have. If you raise tax rates that impacts consumer spending which accounts for about 70% of our economy and that reduces growth which reduces tax revenues even though the rates are higher. If we do not reduce our spending first, we run the risk of continually raising taxes until the economy contracts since the consumer will have little to spend. In addition, we are nearly bankrupt with more debt than our GDP. Thank heavens our interest rates are low or our debt payments could be twice to three times higher and we would be broke and no one would lend us money since we couldn't pay the interest
I might be from the duller part of our nation but I did pay attention to economics in college and graduate school and believe that eventually, without a change in our spending and tax code (not rates) we will be bound for bankruptcy or devaluation. Then we will not be able to control our destiny
Dana,
I don't think you're part of the duller part of the nation. Your comment is perfectly reasonable and well stated. I do have to question your perspective, or rather the scale of your perspective. You're absolutely correct that we need to cut the deficit. We need to cut it in the intermediate to ong term, though. For the time being, we need to do a whole lot more spending, even if we have to continue to borrow the money for a while. Allow me to explain:
When the economy is already in a recession, cutting the budget further is kind of like cutting the end off of a board in the hopes of making it longer. I agree that our deficits are impressive, but if you expand your vision to a global scale, the people in the world that have excess money have been shipping it here because the United States is the safest place for them to park their excess cash.
So the money is already here. We don't need to go begging for it. We need it, too, at least in the short term. The economy is in a slump because there's no aggregate demand for anything other than the bare necessities of life. If we could get more money into the hands of more people, by either fair means or foul, most of the people in this country would then rush out to buy al the things they've been doing without for the past three years. When I say that, I don't ust mean buying things, I also mean buying services, things like beauty salons, barbers, nails salons, restaurants nd so on. Once the demand rises, you may rest assured that businesses will follow that demand. Greater demand spurs more hiring, more hiring means that the tax base swells, which leads to greater government revenue which could be used to additional public sector hiring to replace the hundreds of thousands of public sector jobs lost in the recession. It's a spiral, but it's an upward spiral, and that upward spiral will inevitably draw the attention of investors. More capital investment will lead to more job growth, and so on and so on.
At that point, when the economy is booming and unemployment has dropped, that, Dana, is the time to start raising taxes a little bit and turn our attention to paying back all that debt. I believe you're absolutely correct in the long run, but misguided in the short term.
Long term Capital gain income is available to everyone. Working people with pensions will be hurt by a rise in this rate.
I made millions last year, some from LTCG but most from regular income and I paid an overall of state and federal rate at 38%, not to mention the millions that I paid in LLC income tax and employment and payroll tax on a $4 million per month payroll. Screw Buffet and his rule!
When capital gains taxes are cut, there is a one time bump in capital gains (preceeded by a one time drop). The reason is simple. Investors are not idiots. If everyone knows that there will be a drop in the capital gains tax next year, they delay cashing in on those capital gains until after the drop takes place.
Therefore, if in October 2012, it is announced that there will be a cut in capital gains tax in 2012, there will be a drop in capital gains revenues during that quarter then a big bump in the first quarter or 2013, when people take the gains that they would have otherwise taken in Q4 2012 as well as what they were already going to take in Q1 2013.
After that, capital gains revenue drops commensurate with the percentage that the rates have dropped.
Sean – Fareed doesn't say he is against the Buffett Rule; in fact, he calls it "reasonable". His point is that Obama is milking it a little too hard.
The Buffet Rule:
Obama`s own lapdog media tried to explain to Obama why the Buffet Rule is a BAD IDEA. Just listen to what this HACK has to say in response...
Obama and ABC`s Charlie Gibson Capital Gains Tax Exchange. 2008
GIBSON: All right. You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton," which was 28 percent. It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent.
But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.
OBAMA: Right.
GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.
OBAMA: Right.
GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.
So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?
OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.
And this is the lesson liberals never learn. Life is not fair. If you take money out of the hands of investors than the economy will get worse; the government will simply squander it as they have been doing for three years. He does not care if the economy will do better if the so called rich or even middle class successful people keep,their money he wants GOVERNMENT to redistribute it and but votes at the same time.
The problem with socialism is that sooner or later, you run out of other peoples money.
Yeah, socialism for corporations and the rich, capitalism for the rest of us. Public losses and private profits.
Counters,wrong again with this Reaganist approach.These so called investors of yours make bad decisions and our tax policy let's them write it off.BP,they had an unsermountable task of cleaning up the oil spill,and last year was allowed to write it ALL OFF as a lose of revenue.Corporations under Bain ran industrials into bankruptcy ,than wrote off the loses at the end of the tax year.It's typical of big corporations to give their CEOs big bonuses,than screw their emplyees as they close the door after bankruptcies.There's no such thing as trickle down economics,you republicans know this as Romney well does.That's why you'll never see the jobs prospects in this country like years ago,because thugs like Romney and Bain shipped industries overseas with Bushs help and tax incentives made it even more inviting
What you need to do is fully understand the BR and than maybe you can discuss the subject in a reasonable manner to the rest of the world. The President is stating that everyone should paid the same level in reference to they taxes for instance I do not see why Romney/1% should pay only 14/15% on their income,where Mary lou who made $45,000.00 paid a higher tax rate on her income,plus Mary Lou cannot hide her money in oversea bank accounts. Its not class warfare it just fair that everyone pay their fair share. Also the President stated that this is one of many programs he is willing to use to get American back to work and trained for jobs for 21st century which most American over the age of 50 lack the education to work these job of today and its their fault because the Government been telling everyone the day is coming when you will need to re-educate yourself to keep up with the new technologies in the work place and this was back in the 70s'.The problem with most American they do not believe in education they think they know everything about everything with out using the tools a good education provide to us in our work environment. Also the problem with this Country and our President is that we have never had a President in this office with his intellectual skills and you and I both know what the old saying "WHEN SMALL MINDED PEOPLE AROUND INTELLIGENT PEOPLE AND DO NOT FULLY UNDERSTAND THE SUBJEST MATTER THE SMALL MINDED PEOPLE START CALLING THAT PERSON NAMES TO COVER UP THEIR OWN STUPIDITY. In closing scott I highly recommend you and your friend rick invest in a good education program instead of racism and bigotry.
I made over $40,000 and own a home and have 3 children. I paid 2% which is well below what WB and his secretary paid. We are not privy to his secretaries taxes. Did she make money on investments? Is she part of a dual working household? Does she take a standard deduction? All these are reasons to simplify the tax code. The $47 billion would be nice for the govt to collect, except the money would probably be wasted instead of used wisely. Many American's don't understand how taxes work, Obama is playing to that. Fair or not fair is not a solution. Party politics is not a solution. America needs a solution before it is too late.
What does Buffet have in mind, when he spoke of "invest in America". Obama's development spending is Keynesianism.
In Europe leaders face the dilemma of Keynesianism or austerity measures. The French voters are confronting these options next week.
What Buffett has in mind is buying assets that are undervalued, because there are a lot of undervalued assets in America right now. Bank stocks and real estate, for example. Buffett's not really talking about "investing" so much as speculating on capital.
Which has virtually nothing to do with fiscal policy, it's just a catchy handle on which Fareed can end his column.
Obama doesn't get that Americans naturally gravitate to capitalism, no matter how much money they have. People want to work for their money. They don't want free handouts. And all Obama wants for America is a system of free handouts. If a revolution, is the goal, then the system of handouts is the right approach. See Egypt.
You are clueless.
youre on welfare
Class warfare. Yawn.
It`s nothing but more radical Marxist CLASS WARFARE from Obama. Can`t wait until this clown is gone.
You just HAD to interject into an intelligent conversation and spoil it with silly, offensive and false conservative talking points.
WHY?
We don't need more taxes, we need more tax payers.
EXACTLY!!!
@ Rhonda, Yes, that is certainly part of the equation, and it's great to hear it. But take it a step further. In order to increase the tax base you need more jobs. And not the kind of jobs that just cycle money around. We're talking about real jobs, the kind that actually leave you with something at the end of the day. Now that doesn't mean that all other jobs aren't necessary or important, of course they are. But a mining town will often become a ghost town if the ore runs dry.
If I wanted America to fail …
I would start with energy.
I’d cut off America’s supply of cheap, abundant energy. I couldn’t take it by force. So, I’d make Americans feel guilty for using the energy that heats their homes, fuels their cars, runs their businesses, and powers their economy.
I’d make cheap energy expensive, so that expensive energy would seem cheap.
I would empower unelected bureaucrats to all-but-outlaw America’s most abundant sources of energy. And after banning its use in America, I’d make it illegal for American companies to ship it overseas.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) took to the Senate floor today to draw attention to a video of a top EPA official saying the EPA’s “philosophy” is to “crucify” and “make examples” of oil and gas companies – just as the Romans crucified random citizens in areas they conquered to ensure obedience.
Inhofe quoted a little-watched video from 2010 of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) official, Region VI Administrator Al Armendariz, admitting that EPA’s “general philosophy” is to “crucify” and “make examples” of oil and gas companies.
In the video, Administrator Armendariz says:
“I was in a meeting once and I gave an analogy to my staff about my philosophy of enforcement, and I think it was probably a little crude and maybe not appropriate for the meeting, but I’ll go ahead and tell you what I said:
“It was kind of like how the Romans used to, you know, conquer villages in the Mediterranean. They’d go in to a little Turkish town somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they saw and they’d crucify them.
“Then, you know, that town was really easy to manage for the next few years.”
“It’s a deterrent factor,” Armendariz said, explaining that the EPA is following the Romans’ philosophy for subjugating conquered villages.
Soon after Armendariz touted the EPA’s “philosophy,” the EPA began smear campaigns against natural gas producers, Inhofe’s office noted in advance of today’s Senate speech:
“Not long after Administrator Armendariz made these comments in 2010, EPA targeted US natural gas producers in Pennsylvania, Texas and Wyoming.
Zakaria is an idiot.It is not about the 47 billion it is about class warefare.
I love it.
...another parrot repeating slogans........
Wow, even Obama's lap dog recognize's the BR is bad policy. Amazing!
Like Zakaria knows more than the president!
rosie – knowing more than this president is not a significant accomplishment. He seems more interested in filling out his NCAA pool than the problems this country faces because of his horrendous polices. Time for ......change!!
rosie – a lot of people know more than the president. I would almost bet there are people on these posts that know more.
I think the last thing Obama should do is try to repeat history- he needs to respond to want the vast majority of citizen's want, and in supporting the Buffet rule, he does that. Yes, Americans aspire, but they also have a great sense of fair play and it is only fair everyone pay their share. It's not about raising money- it's about fairness
Wait a minute!!! You mean life is supposed to be fair???? Shoot, y'all owe me a lot so I can get back to even. Who knew it was supposed to be fair? Is it fair that Luck will make millions in his 20's and I haven't made even one yet? Man, that's not fair! He needs to divvy up.
Here is a challenge for you. Discuss taxes and fiscal policy without using political catchphrases. Your mission is to discuss only terms as budgeting, revenue, expenditures,mandatory, discretionary and any others that are germane to the topic. Begin.
If everyone was pulling his or her own weight, we wouldn't have half of the problems we currently have. We need a flat tax!!!
Liberals are just clueless. All of them! They will universally fall back to an emotional argument. "Fairness" is everything to them. Throw out the economy over fairness, burn down the house over fairness, which is an undefinable concept. Life isn't fair, people aren't the same. They don't have the same gifts or drive, and there is nowhere in the natural world where anything is "fair". What is fair about a guy who makes more paying a higher percentage? He is already paying more because he earns more. Just how is that fair, and just how does that encourage people to work harder and invest when the government just takes it away?
Lets put a tax on the pretty people,the people you wish you were.It wil make you feel better slothing that pig of a spouse,Excuses,Excuses,Excuses.Get of your ugly stinking assssss and produce something,anything.Keep blaming the fact you didn't catch that foul ball.God lesson you taught your child,cry and someone ill give you what you want.NOT WHAT YOU NEED,WHAT YOU WANT.PARASITES
Brilliant argument. Life isn't fair, so why should our laws be fair?
It's just not a good idea to declare anyone to be clueless, and then immediately proceed to
1. state that "fairness is undefinable", followed immediately by
2. "Life isn't fair"
Thereby turning an undefinable concept into the foundation of an argument, and in the process permanently branding oneself a pompous buffoon.
It's a way for us ALL to start looking at greed...changing that is the only real answer.
First time I absolutely disagree with this guy who is usually so smart. Just think of all the excuses not to tax the Rich a "little" more. The big one is: it is just not that much money collected. Good God so you realize they are saying billions of dollars is NOT that much. Duh, every little bit helps and "someone" else will pay that little billions if not the rich.
The 1% wants to own 99% of the countries wealth but only wants to pay 1% of the taxes.
"The one percent" CURRENTLY pay 36% of the income taxes, and almost half of U.S. citizens pay no income tax at all.
Now, explain to me again how increasing taxes at the top is some how "fair."
Please tell me you are joking? I don't normally comment but this is the most insanely misinformed posts ever. The 1% or so you called them payed more that 30% of all income taxes. I am by no means against a more equitable tax system that can even out the field a little but you ruin any chance of convincing someone you are right when you sound like a moron.
Have you even bothered to check to see who pays the taxes in America? It sounds like you're spouting off talking points without any substance.
Jason, please go back to your burger-flipping. You will always be a bottom feeder.
You should second guess the 2-3% projected growth for this year.
Fareed, I think you are an amazing journalist and analyst, but I like Romneys chances in the general election. I think you are trying to help this president, but deep down you know he has a re-election debacle. Romney can make Obama look like a hot-head quite easily and Romney is just what the Dr. ordered for the economy and ailing families.
Wow, people on the right (which will always mean wrong) commenting here don't get it that the buffet rule, odds are, unless you win a lottery or somehow out of a miracle that most likely will NOT happen will NEVER affect you. But you right-wing Faux News watchers will believe any rhetoric talking points your leaders to which you are the sheep to slaughter put out there, you believe anything even if it works against you because you're pretty much like the Germans to Nazis, that seems a bit strong language but it's true, they blindly believed, look where that got the world. The buffet rule just brings in line the wealthiest people who are getting out of paying their share to actually, you know, PAY THEIR SHARE! But ohs noes from the right-wing propaganda machine and their mindless drone followers who think this affects them, when it doesn't.
By the way, liberal, in the dictionary, means "one who thinks for themselves," no wonder the right-wing use this as a smear word and the right-wing sheep followers who don't look it up also fear it, heaven forbid you right-wing types think for yourselves, you're not part of the solution folks, you're part of the problem, you're just too ignorant to know the difference.
"[the Buffet rule] will never affect you..."
That's right. Class warfare in action. Shame on the President.
Apparently asking the rich to pay the same % as everyone else is class warefare.
It might never happen to you or me.......bus does that mean its ok to impose this on someone else? This is contradicting the very argument you Liberals use to protect the rights of minorities. I may never experience racial harasement, but does that mean its ok for someone else to?
Its quite clear, that since you pay little to nothing in taxes, your demanding of more taxes from "the rich" is cowardly and pathetic. You should have no say in how our tax money is spent..........if you want more, give it yourself.
Chucky: If "Liberal" means "to think for yourself".....then why do you support so many government programs?
How about this new rule: no representation without taxation!! Tell that to the 50% of non-tax payers!!
What does it matter? We live in an aristocracy now. When was the last time you elected a middle-class American to office?
Last Election and his name is Obama
America needs some revenue generation. The space program cut becuase no revenue to continue exploration. Military downsized.... why no revenue generation. Social Security Dying off... why because no tax generation.
This worked under Bill C. and would if our republicans on the take from the top 1% would allow it to happen. Koch brothers worth 52 Billion have big pockets and own Romney already.
If we could pay our bills we could pay off some of the foreign bonds out to all them other countries.
Alas but Ryan had all the republicans to sign the never ever ever raise taxes even if the country was to disolve never ever ever pay more taxes.
WAKE UP AMERICA... paying ones debt increase ones ratings and standing with foriegn countries and makes since.
The Buffet Rule doesn't go far enough. Taxes on the most profitable corporations and the wealthiest should be upped to Eisenhower(R) Administration Levels. The writer don't think Obama picked the right issue? This issue has been on my radar since before Obama. I'm sick and tired of seeing our most privileged members of society given a free pass and the rest of us told to work harder for less. Tax them and do it yesterday.
The corporate tax argument is totally bogus. The corporations pass taxes along as price increases; increases in corporate taxes are made on the backs of the poor, who have no choice to pay those higher prices. (The rich pay, too, but they can better afford it.)
Bottom line: all taxes are paid by individuals. Some are hidden and some are not. Hidden taxes are bad.
Zakaria realize he's apart of the 1% which is why he's speaking negative of the Buffet Rule. Shame on you Zakaria.
Sean B......you think the GOP manipulates, what is Obama doing as only he can? He knows the revenue generated from the Buffet Rule is hardly a drop in the bucket relative to our debt. However, he knows the average Democrat IQ. Poor good....rich bad. Work those who can't think for themselves into a class warfare frenzy.
Agreed. Start a class war so his cronies can continue robbing the Treasury.
@Zakaria, You win today's Imminent Correction Award! We do NOT need corporate and government-america to survive. Given your job, you do. We real Americans still pay 20 to 25% of our salary every month. We real Americans with lucrative businesses pay even more. But, multimillion dollar companies end up paying a lot less due to tax breaks, loop holes and programs that fit them only. Tax laws favor the largest companies and corporations. Goldman Sachs, Fannie Mae, GM and AIG represent the greed and rot within our system all favored by government. You really need to understand the root of the problem before you spout off your ignorant rhetoric.
You really don't get it do you?
More propoganda drivel from this Non-American born muslim radical leftist
What does his religion and his birth place have to do with this argument?
Zakaria ? well, he is actually a tool. He might be Harvard educated, but he's a marroon. He critizes our tax policy, but his Exxagerating and calling it corrupt adds nothing to his argument against the buffett rule. Z's an idiot. He thinks he should be able to run for President. And the basis for him being a presidentail candidate."Foreign born people are equal and just as good as Native americans".. Can Anyone imagine how dsiruptive politics would be if we DID Actually have a foreign born president? his loyalty would be constantly questioned, nothing would get done. It would never stop. the foreign Z clown could serve in every other capacity and his SON/Daughter could be prez, but that aint good enough for him. What a TOOL. too bad for harvard....
@Charlie, Americans are gravitating towards capitalism because of what corporate and government-america has taught them – "Take any easy money you can at any cost. If there is no law precedent, it's even better." The entire human race including my own Americans have moved closer to letting greed rule every decision.
"Americans are generally aspirational, not envious."
And that is why the Left, with its eternal drumbeat of the Politics of Envy, eternally fails.
I somewhat agree that the focus is maybe a little too much. But it is an accepted fact that the disparity between the haves and have-nots has increased steadily since the 70's. The rich complain about taxes, but the fact is they are taxed less than they have been in a long time. No matter the amount of revenue raised, the tax code must be updated and the tax loopholes for the wealthy and corporations that have crept in over the past 40 years need to be reversed. Ask yourself: is your family better off today than it was in the 50's and 60's? In my family the answer is no. We used to have a nice long 2-week vacation in the summer, a home that could be paid for within 10 or 20 years and a mom and dad at the dinner table every night.
This article is such hog wash I am don't know where to begin. How about a more close to home example.
I make $50K a year and I am currently spending $75K. My adviser Fareed tells me I should use my Visa (China) at 14% to make an "investment" that has historically has returned -5 to 2%. How brilliant!!!!
Sounds like you need to let your wife handle the finances...you have the Obama problem – spending way more than you bring in.
Romney is the kind of corprorate hatchet man the Federal Governmnet is desperately in need of. The austere Germans are doing fine and the austrity measures in thhe UK are working great. Zakeria is completely wrong to mistake austerity for bankruptcy in Greece and Spain, where the only limits are from their lenders. I really hate to see Zakeria become just another DNC political hack, but this is what happens.
Fareed, I very much appreciate your opinion on this subject. @ScottTrent I did not before see that interview and it makes me rather nervous as an Obama-supporter.
The frustration that i have with the Buffett rule is that it represents intellectual dishonesty. Firstly, it plays into this notion that rich people are somehow defrauding the government of money. In truth, some are, but many (I would optimistically argue most) are not. We must stop looking at the EFFECTIVE rate paid by the rich compared to the STATUTORY rate paid by everyone else. The IRS data on effective rates is easy to find for all brackets. The question is not "How do we get the rich to comply with the law and pay close to their full statutory rate," but rather "how do we adjust the statuory rates to yield an effective rate of taxation that will lead to the greatest prosperity to the largest part of the economy." We have a ludicrously complex and corrupt tax code, and the solution isn't to arbitrarily say that people over a certain income threshold are ineligible to access some of that complexity. This is a band-aid at best, and generally speaking, poor policy. The POTUS seems to believe that people over a certain income threshold should be unable to use any sort of deduction, tax credit, or preferred rate from distinct income types.
Secondly, the Buffett Rule is a political smokescreen for a larger, more complex question. Rich people pay EFFECTIVE rates lower than their STATUTORY rate PRIMARILY because of the way they make their money. Paying the Long Term Capital Gains rate of 15% will lower a Statutory rate from 35%. Those rich people still pay the full 35% on standard income from salary if they take one. The larger the portion of their income that comes from LTCG, the lower their effective tax rate. The POTUS is trying to arbitrarily say, "You have to pay 30% no matter how you got that money." In other words, the REAL discussion is whether or not the POTUS should be raising the Long Term Capital Gains Tax to 30%. One could make a compelling argument for why that is right, but I would appreciate if the POTUS grew a pair and was forthright about this, so we could actually have that conversation. To hide behind the "class warfare" rhetoric of the Buffett Rule is cowardly and disingenuous. While the spirit of the Rule is consistent with his campaign promises, the politicization of the issue certainly is not in keeping with the hope and change that I voted for.
I have also, as of yet, not been able to discover whether or not the Buffett Rule will apply to income derive from tax-exempt bonds. I have to imagine it would be illegal to sell someone tax exempt bonds (people who loan the government money–horrible people, I know right?) only to tax them on it significantly because of a Buffett Rule. I certainly hope this is not the case, but I have yet to see the specifics, and the language of the rule seems to be all-encompassing (or it would have no teeth).
Fareed is 100% correct that the elephant in the room is the tax code itself. A simplification of the tax code is essential to reduce inequality, reduce fraud and corruption, and steer the country back on the course for a just system of taxation and a strong economy.
Very well put. I'm glad there are wise ones among the flock of idiots that post to these boards.
What about when you factor in health care reform?
I just want to add that the Obama administration is fixing the American economy backward!! Instead of focusing on job creation and economic growth, the focus is on regulation and taxing wealthy people. Simply it won't work! It's a mindset that believes in losing less is better or it could be worse! We must come back to a 4 to 5 percent economic growth! Are we going to spend a decade talking about recession and slow recovery?
Everyone I know has found a job.. if you dont have a job.. you should go out and look... companies are hiring. Or start your own business.
Unemployment rate in my parish is 15.8%........of course 57% of the residents are black and live the good life on welfare and crazy checks.
You're right – it's called class warfare or ignorance. He does this to divide us further and to make sure that there's enough hate in the nation to tear us all apart.
4.7 billion dollars a year for the next ten years.....Wow...That will really turn this country around!
This mess proves one big point.....This government of ours has too much revenue coming in, its a spending problem not a revenue problem! Obama should give every tax payer the greatest tax cut in the history of this country...In other words, starve the government and make them live and spend in the tiny box we give them and empower the citizens....."You want to see this economy explode!"
WOW.......What Happened To This Obama Boot Licker!......Did Barry Dump His Follow Muslim?
Not once did you mention Romney. Paint Romney as an out of touch rich dude (which he is, let's face it) and point to how he's against any taxes on the rich. Who's going to vote for that? I think Americans aspire to kick the rich people in the ass.
Obama is 100% right on this. The Buffett Rule of trying to make the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes and end tax loopholes is one of the big reasons I'll be voting for President Obama this fall!
Just because our economy is growing better than that of some European countries doesn't mean we're better off. Those European countries are taking their lumps now so they can be better off in the future. Apparently we'd rather just delay the inevitable and be 10 times worse off than we would be if we started our own austerity program now.
The Buffett rule is a loser just like obama. Can't wait for the debates when obama mentions the buffett rule and Romney reminds Americans of the huge tax break just given to Buffetts private jet charter service, which Buffett spent one million dollars to lobby for.
Or the hundreds of millions of dollars of back taxes Buffetts companies owe, all the way back to 2004.
As for the infrastructure bank, that would use the same rules as the stimulus did, union workers only need apply. More kids going to college? That means more Pell Grants. Last year the Pell Grant budget was $45 BILLION dollars, and the Dept. of Education says they have no reason to track graduation rates of Pell Grant students. $45 BILLION dollars with no accountability!
A lot of micro thinking going on there Mark from Louisiana. You're not much of a big picture guy. Obama will win the election because he has pretty good instincts about what is going on. That's how he got Osama, and he'll get Romney the same way. Romney is stuck in one line of thinking. He will fail in the debates because there won't be anyone there to tell him what to do. If Romney were to win the election, you can bet he won't be the one calling the shots.
Just because the liberal media won't report on Buffetts bad side doesn't mean it isn't true. In fact as more people become aware of the media bias, it will hurt obama.
If you think there is no media bias, google Solyndra or Fast and Furious and see how most of the major networks simply never mentioned those debacles.
It could be that by raising the Buffet rule of increasing taxes on the wealthy, he is just raising awareness of how the Norquist "no tax increase" that all Republicans have signed prevents them from doing their job. One can't do the job of listening to the arguments, finding common ground, negotiating, and legislating if you have already made up your mind, and you could lose your job when Norquist unleashes anti campaign funds against you. I think Obama has already embraced the other Buffet rule of reinvesting in the country. It's coming.
Of course it is bad politics. It raises 5 billion a year. It would take 200 years to pay off ONE YEAR of Obama;s deficits at that rate. And what's worse – it's all he has as a plan to save our economy
Agreed. The debt is beyond payable. All the government can do is keep paying the interest and close several of the agencies such as EPA (can merge with the Interior) to cut some costs.
Republicans wouldn't raise taxes even if it were used to raise their own wages. The all singed the Norquist "no tax increase" which means they can't raise taxes even if the believed it was in the best interest of the country. That is why Obama is calling attention to it. Also Business outsourcing places an upward pressure on taxes because their are it creates a "less taxpayers" situation. Either stop the outsourcing or raise taxes. You can't have low taxes and outsourcing. Businesses are smart and leading some pretty dumm and UnAmerican Republicans.
The Buffet rule will punish small business owners by discouraging earning.
Buffet wants to keep more people out of the market so his company can continue to rule the markets.
The banks should have never gotten one red cent!
14% of Americans on food stamps. The American dream is to take cash to the super market rather than a welfare card.
America is toast, I hope Obama gets back in to speed along the end to this failed state.
Anyone who knows the monterary and economic facts can't seriously and logically be bullish, unless they have a 20-50 year timeline. Amerika, time to take your medicine, like it or not, it's going down.
Zakaria is correct. People desire genuine talk and policies from both candidates. Anything that looks like politics is a total turn off.
Fareed is right on the money here. Obama has made this a huge issue, when it shouldn't be. We've got real problems that must be dealt with. Raising a measly $47billion in revenue by raising taxes on successful people makes no sense. We owe TRILLIONS! This is like a kid mowing lawns for $20, so he can go buy a $100k Corvete........not going to get the job done.
How is that Buffett gets to look so saintly in all this? He has benefitted for years from sheltering his taxable income and now he has a change of heart? He is worth billions by manipulating the system and now he is altruistic? What a joke.
Should millionaires really be news reporters? How does it feel to be a monkey puppet Zakaria?
Obama is President!
did you have to remind us of that sad fact? we're having a great debate here – we don't need to be reminded that we have a president who is clueless!
Why shouldn't they be? We are better off hearing from someone contributing rather than someone with their hand out.
Are you really an old man with a mustache and goaty?
Wow when a stone cold Obama apologist and outright no holds bared Liberal like this tells you Obama has the wrong message it is time to go and pray to JESUS for the man. He just might be human after all.
Pray to Jesus? I think Jesus must be taking another long coffee break. Why do you have to pray? Can't Jesus see what's wrong and fix the problem? Why do you always have to tell him what to do? Can't he ever take any initiative? Seems pretty lazy and shiftless to me. I'll bet he never had a job in his life and just lived on handouts from others.
People used to have too much pride and dignity to accept handouts. They would live a scrappy existence, save and take calculated well thought out risks to get ahead. Now everyone has their hand out and wants to point out how the next person had an unfair advantage. What a weak society we are are.
Hmmmm – Obama's 12 billionaire buddies signed a pledge with regard to the Buffet tax – big deal
If each one signed a check for 1 billion dollars and gave it to the Treasury then I would give them consideration
Fareed, its about time you had something negative to say about Obama. Keep it up. He deserves negativity.
The Republicans miss the point, even thought they think that 47 billion, or as some say 75 billion dollars won't fix the federal debt. No, it won't and there isn't any one item that will. It will take paring away at the entire budget to get the federal budget down. Just like the middle class spends at the grocery store, nickel and dime and pennies even to add up to huge savings. I am so tired of hearing that the small pittance of 47 or 75 billion wouldn't make a dent in the federal budget, no but it along with other cuts here and there may save some truly important items from being slashed to find the big bucks the Republican are looking for. We might start with their salaries, golden health benefits, and huge retirement pay for a few years in office. What used to be considered a servants job to the people, it is now making the politicians millionaires and billionaires. Which is another reason the Republcans would vote against the fair taxing of the millionaires. I do notice that President Obama is willing to take the tax hit....how about the Republicans?
Mr. TTTT – stay in your tent. Everyone is taking a hit – we have for quite some time. Those evil rich people you all keep targeting have quite possibly taken the biggest hits. So, you raise their taxes and get 47 billion – bfd. Then what, when Obama spends another 4 trillion you gonna raise them again, and again? When will you be happy – when people who are successful and yes, wealthy give 100%...??? Seems that way. The man has no plan – tax the rich, tax the rich – make it fair. Here's what's fair – let the American people have another President for four years who can bring change – it didn't happen in 3.5 – and the campaign hope and change is gone. Now he's running on what – give me more time to get it done. Hell – he never got it started....so if it takes 3.5 years more just to get to the starting line – we are sunk as a nation. time for big change! Get him out of the WH – stop nickel and diming the rich, stop dividing everyone with your rhetoric – and listen to the more conservative values and try to move to the middle a bit – you'd be surprised what a plan from the middle can do.
The rich may have been taking hits recently, but not from the government...the majority of Americans have seen their incomes level off over the last 30 years, while the incomes of top bracket have been skyrocketing. Also, what plan from the middle are you advocating?
If you tax every American and every Fortune 500 business 100% of income, you still won't pay off the debt. Our economy is circling the drain and our politicians won't even acknowledge it. Here is Tony Robbins' interesting take: http://youtu.be/jboTeS9Okak
a job-training program to help dislocated workers is just more smoke and mirrors....IT ISNT WORTH CRAP IF THERE ISNT ANY JOBS. What an ignorant man.
'like' and thumbs up
For you I suggest a course in remedial English.
The U.S. is not "toast". The welfare for the rich and poor needs to be cut back. People need to live within their means and contribute to society. Our country is still the greatest in the world, but the culture that makes us great will vanish if we don't return to our core principles.
I totally agree with you Linda. We have come this far and we are still the Leader of the free world and we still have classes of people who wont, (not cant) but wont contribute to this nation. When that is achieved and we returned to the values that brought his this far...there will be so many great days ahead for our great grandchildren
You don't know what you're talking about. It's pure fantasy.
obama has been the biggest failure in america's history and the disgraceful condition of the country proves it!
Obama is not worthy to breathe the same air that a true patriot does
I am equally contemptuous of Southerners.
Just can't stand it that a black man is in the White House, huh?
The big flaw in following Warren Buffet's lead is that he is not your typical rich guy. Warren lives in a humble home and does not relish his wealth. Most human beings, yes you too, would not be too happy paying out 30% in taxes, especially if being very wealthy meant your were doling out millions in taxes. What do you get more of, than the other guy, for your money? If I had thirty million dollars of income, and was going to be taxed 10 million, I'd rather buy an island and move out of the country. This in the end will cost the economy rather than bring income.
Oh how quickly they turn on Obama!
Zakaria is suffering from the same delusion that all politicians and voters are. That a single strategy will work. Look at the New Deal, which blasted this country out of the Great Depression. It was a massive restructuring of taxing AND spending. Right now the richest 1% have a greater share of the wealth than in anytime in history. The top 10% own 80% of the wealth. This is because over the last 40 years the bottom 80% of the population has experienced a decline in income so drastic, that they are making 1/2 what they did. Although more people are working than back in the Great Depression, the inequality in wealth and income is about the same. Just more jobs paying less and far more debt. I know we need a New New Deal, but I also know we will never get it in this political climate.
Know why our economy stinks?
Because for the last 3 years, we've had B.O.!
Yeah, actually the economy was in worse shape when BO took office. It was rapidly receding, in the midst of all-out financial crisis, and had been in recession for 13 months before he became President.
It stopped receding, and started growing slowly, only 6 months after he took office.
Sorry to have to mix in some actual facts with your nonsense.
Ha ha! Yeah, the last Republican president was a war criminal who was guilty of crimes against humanity and who managed to send this country's economy into free-fall. Sure! Let's go back to that!!! Haven't Republicans done enough damage for one century?
I DISAGREE WITH ZAKARIA BECAUSE IF YOU CAN LOOK PAST 11 YERAS BUSH TIME GIVE WHEALTHY PEOPLE TAX BENIFIT THAT DIVIDED NOW POOR AND WEALTHY IN TEN YERS WARS. DID BUSH GET $10 BARRAL FROM IRQA? WEALTHY CREAT ANY JOBS IN AMERICA? MIDDLE CLASS PAYING 40 TO 50 % TAXES OF TOTAL ECONOMY WEATHY PAY ONLY 14% OF TAXES OF ECONOMY. MIDDLE CLASS GET MONEY AFTER TAXES WEALTHY GET MONEY BEFOR TAXES AND ALL EXPENSIS PUTING IN BUSNESS THEY PAING ONLY 14% TAXES.DEMOCRATE STOP SPENDING AND INCREASE WEALTHY TAX CAN COPENSATE ECONOMY.
Way to show everyone how STUPID you are by not knowing how to spell a word longer than 4 letters long. Now, go get your welfare check out of the mailbox.
AMEN!!!
Hey, 10-Billion here, 10-Billion there and pretty soon you are talking about REAL money ! ! !
This article is a joke.There is not a revenue problem at all people, there is a spending, waste and fraud problem. WAKE UP AND QUIT FALLING FOR ALL THE LEFT AND RIGHT POLITICAL RHETORIC!!! Anyone who buys into this "Buffet Rule" is an idiot plain and simple. The minuscule amount of money those taxes would raise won't cover what any one single department of our Federal government wastes (hello GSA). We could have balanced budget and completely wipe out our national debt if we cut the waste and fraud. What needs to be done is for the GAO to do an honest audit of every department of the Federal government to find all the waste and fraud and completely eliminate it. Between Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security fraud and all the reckless, wasteful spending by the government I would guarantee that over a trillion dollars could be saved annually if it were cracked down on. The problems run deep, but can be fixed by "cleaning house".
Joe. GAO does not have to do too much if we could eliminate the Departments of Commerce, Energy, Education, Transportation, etc. Keeping the Department of Defense and IRS, and creating a central mechanism to coordinate national issues (e.g., highways) are sufficient. Over the years, governments have done nothing but ruin our economy.
The Buffett Rule is Obama's attempt to turn around the modern Republicans' fallacious response to JFK's call to "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country". Keeping more of your profits for yourself than your investments return to your employees by lowering taxes on the rich and raising them on the middle class is not aiding your country.
Actually, Fareed, the economy would be doing swimmingly if it weren't for the Iraq War, which I recall you wholeheartedly supported, unlike Obama. The president doing the best he can to recover from this billion-dollar fiasco that folks like you are hoping folks like me somehow forgot about.
Zakaria has got a whole lot of bad decisions on his resume. It's pathetic that after 2008's financial meltdown, Reaganomics isn't completely laughed out of the building, but people like Zakaria just won't let it die.
It's really gonna be fun to watch Obama lose in November. I'm gonna be so happy seeing him look out Marine One's window as it flies him away from the White House, thereby bringing safety back to the country.
Calling all Wingnutz, Calling all Wingnutz ! ! !
Hey, how about we actually go after people who owe us their taxes.. OH YA LIKE BUFFET who owed over 1 BILLION... WOW.. one man alone owes us over 1 Billion... many of the MONKEYS in Washington owe a few million, and multiple hollywood actors owe HUNDREDS of millions..... OH wait they aren't paying their taxes now so raising taxes isn't going to fix the problem just push more people NOT TO PAY since the government hasn't done crap to anyone.. well except Snipes cause he is black!
Another thing I don't like about this article is how he uses the word "envious". This is a term used excessively by conservatives to justify the rich gathering and KEEPING all the wealth in this country. You can't create jobs without money. You can't get money to create jobs without taxing. You have to force the rich to create jobs, by taxing them accordingly. We already tried giving them all the tax breaks and look what happened. What amazes me is the number of people that still think republican policies are working for the "general welfare" of the country. The are and have been since the turn of the century all about enriching and protecting the elite.
There is one thing no is willing or is afraid to say. All of those guys, elected Republican sword to defend this country against anyone, foreign or domestic, who does or try to do harm to this country. To do oterwise is treason. Everything the Republicans are doing is to bring this country down in hopes of destroying the President. To me and Webster, this is outright TREASON.
Since this subject is rated inconsequential, why are we discussing it ? ? ?
Fareed voting for a republican is bad politics...
Everyone can gripe all they want....BUT, we are definately worst off with Obama than we have ever been. He can whine his ass off about bush and finger point, but he is without a doubt the worst leader we have ever had. I agree with Nugent.
I'd say Reagan was the worst leader we have ever had. Even worse than Tricky Dick and Georgie Porgie. He started us down the road of globalization that is close to destroying our country. I love the self-righteous ones who say millions of jobs lost... are of course the fault of the victims! NAFTA destroyed Mexico and the United States. Well, it destroyed the lives of Mexicans and US citizens. Out of control global capital is insane, and it amazes me that anyone can pretend otherwise. Even when we bail the psychopaths out, they continue their destruction. That is a sure sign of psychopathy.
BINGO!! You got that right!!
I'll let you know when I get that far in the book that I am reading, - "the President's Club" by Nacy Gibbs & Michael Duffy. So far some of the things that I read about Kennedy and Nixon remind me of what we are experiencing with O'Bummer.
....BUT, we are definately worst off with Obama than we have ever been.
While this might be true the rest of your post is based on ZERO facts. The question really is: "are we worse (as opposed to worst) off BECAUSE of Obama and are we worse off than we would be had we continued the failed policies that got us here" Answer ... NO! and your solution is to go back to the policies that caused our current problems? ... Nice Logic! Use your brain knucklehead.
Tell us how this President is the worse President this Country have ever had with concrete proof instead of BS that no intelligent person in this world believes. Question: Who got us into this mess in the first place,a hole so deep that Jesus Christ would have a hard time getting us out of. Who promise JOBS,JOBS for everyone in November 2010 and than after the election punk your stupid ass. Who started two wars without paying for them and kill thousand of our fine young men and women without a tear or any afterthought of what they had done to this Country. I can go on and on with FACTS not alot of racist BS. I strongly believe you are not capable of knowing what a great patriot looks like or what take to be a great patriot. In years to come history will show future generations of how the first Afro-American President was treated with continuous racist comments that were not warranted from the white sub-culture within our society. This roy snipes are what your grandkids will read and see with your name at the top of this list, my, my, what a legacy to leave behind for them to see.
Obama have had wrong priority since he was in office. That is because his belief is fundamentally flawed. He believes too much in government. Governments do not create jobs but ruin them. Cutting deficit and getting governments' hands off economy should be his priority.
This could be true ... if we ignore all facts!
Hey lin talk with the workers at GM and see if they agrees with your comment,Um what did Romney/republicans/tea baggers stated--"SCREW THEM"
You FELL for it!! Aren't you the naive one. Lets' see...........
[1] GM say they're going bankrupt because , due to the world recession, people can't afford to buy their cars, right?
[2] Obama gives them a mega bailout
[3] Within 1 YEAR – Hey Presto! suddenly EVERYONE, recession or not, can afford to buy their cars
[4] Within 2 years they have $2 BILLION surplus AND they have repaid the loan !!!!!!!!!!
Come on! Even a terminally baffled Democrat should be asking questions here! Look up – see those flying pigs?
There is no "economy that will last" so long as the global megabanksters continue to wreak havoc worldwide with financial markets. Consider the sanitization of these terms, which really mean that a few thousand people are enriching themselves at the expense of 7 billion human beings. The Buffet Rule is inconsequential unless it points to the direction of controlling the global mega-psychopaths destroying real commerce between humans on this planet. Politicians now think their job is to convince us to put up with this nonsense, instead of battling it on our behalf.
Fareed you are wrong principals do matter and fairness is a principal worth having in the long run.
Its about equality Fareed. If the rich get breaks here then it signifies that it is a much more widespread problem in other areas. Not just taxes. In all fairness the rich don't know the definition of the word and often flaunt it. They live in Madonnas material world. They have every right to spend their money how they please. There are consequences for everything though. You know how it is said 'Dont bite the hand that feeds you.' Who feeds who here?
Romney says "he" saved the Olympics. In reality, the American taxpayers saved the Olympics. In every facet of their lives, the rich have the same pretense, that they are the "ones" and no one else matters or contributes. Put them on a desert island with nothing and they will perish.
the white american sure they are not envious , maybe are but not all, but black and spanish people and special the manitos sure they are 100% envious, why really I don't know.the black people we know for their past but that happen so many years ago, but they don't forget and don't forgive don't matter their social status soon or later they will go to open theirs mouth and remember what the white people du with their ancestor , and the spanish people everything is about money I Am spanish but I don't have the same ideas my fellows keep for centuries, they love come to this great country they pay thousand of dollars anyway they do anything and when they are here start hate the american they racist ajfeqywe2134 you know I hear both groups the way they thing about the white people, I know they are racist i know they are so many things , but I don't care I came to work and for so many years a work, I make my life in this great country with my family, one thing when spanish or black people start talk about racism they has to don't forget in our original countries the racism exist too, and racism and no job are very but very bad combinations and that are the reality of our countries .
romerosky, when you get followed in the store by security at the mall when you know you can buy those fools out of their house and home, then you know your not in your "lily white" world anymore and it's not about the money, but the dignity, something you never had to endure since you live in your "gated (racist) community".
That's right Wimpy, you go man. Only minorities experience racism, they're the only ones that can detect racism, especially black people. They know as soon as they enter in the door who's racist and who's not. Especially that middle age white man he's a racist for sure. That's right Wimpy you tell it like it is and you tell your children so they can tell their children. Keep that cycle of disguised hate going...Go a head Wimpy you sound like you know all about racism let us know how people are thinking because you have that power...Come on Wimpy tell us on this blog who's the real racist, well?
Anyone who, in the context of this conversation, explicitly or inplicitly infers that the Laffer effect comes into play is grossly misinformed. I would hope that they would pick up an econ book.
"Conservatives say If you don't give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. As for the poor, they tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them too much money."
Funny how the same people with run both stories and expect us to believe it. The rich are now and have always been the most destructive force on this planet. Look up the definition of psychopaths... and thy name is Richie Rich. Richie Riches of this world destroy everything for everyone every few decades. Once a century if we hold them down. More if we don't. What would happen if we put them in mental health care facilities where they belong?
"The "Buffett Rule" tax on millionaires has become Obama's bumper sticker. The proposal is reasonable..."
In Zakaria's opinion it's reasonable. Sensible people people think otherwise.
In terms of effect, the Buffett Rule is so senseless that it's only value is symbolic–as a symbol of the envy and vindictiveness people like Obama have for individual success.
Goodness, the "elite" brought you Hiroshima. Nagasaki. Four Mile Island. Chernobyl. Global financial meltdowns every century. World War I. World War II. Wars on Terrorism. Global unemployment and harrassment and humiliation for those left out of the job market. Stock bubbles. Housing bubbles. Overproduction. Inflation. Deflation. I'm pretty intelligent. I can see where all the "elites" have ever brought us is trouble looking for a place to happen. We shoulda stayed home on the farm and not followed the siren call of the global mega-psychopaths.
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with my comment, but individual success also brought you personal computers and cell phones.
Anyone who, in the context of this conversation, explicitly or inplicitly infers that the Laffer effect comes into play here is grossly misinformed. I would hope that they would pick up an econ book.
I took economics in college... macro and micro. Everything the "elite" has ever said is a bald faced lie designed to line their pockets and impoverish everyone else.
GOOD NEWS!
I'm not gay any more! Wait. I take that back
I was an Obama supporter... no more.. the economy is dead and gas and bread is through the roof.. no opportunities.. even the illegal mexicans are going back to mexico
Do you really believe the illegal Mexicans are going back to Mexico? Do you know any who returned? I am acquainted with many illegals in Texas and New Mexico... and they aren't going anywhere. This is bogus nonsense designed to convince U.S. citizens that there really isn't a problem and the feds really don't need to do something about it. Congress recently authorized 30,000 drones for use in U.S. airspace by our military and homeland security. For use against citizens. For use against citizens. Lest you think they will be used to protect our borders... let me say it again... for use against citizens.
To say nothing of the "Camps" springing up all over America! And they sure as he11 aren't just dog pounds. Well said , Sir.
I refuse to believe the myth of the job creating millionaire investor who is shackled by hefty taxes. I believe in profiteers, I believe in profits derived from reducing the bottom line not by innovation. Which is why I believe in heavily regulated capitalism.
lol. Would somebody tell this Zakaria that just because they pay him for his opinion, it doesn't make it any more insightful than the rest of ours. I get the sense that Zaki believes he is handing out treasure. Somebody should tell him to settle down or no one's going to take him seriously.
finally this obama's pet is barking on his master. i mean...finally !
if u keep posting such genuine thoughts, we would continue to love u.
Be it for him or against him. But if u act as his PR, u had it.
Tc
xoxo
I must be day dreaming when I make this statement that I totally agree with his assertion that 'Buffet Rule' is just a political gimmick. Obama actually does not care about solving any problem. His aim is to get reelected and he knows that divide-n-rule is the only way he will be able to get reelected. He has tried to pit poor against rich, black against whites, businesses/owners against employees and so on. The list doesn't end. I used to think that Obama is not experienced & not so smart but now I think he is evil. I am sorry for this outrage but that's how I feel.
BULL!!!!!!!! IS THIS THE BEST YOU CAN COME UP WITH???? God how sad, know wonder this Country going to hell in a hand basket when you mis-informed credulous yahoos are given a soap box to stand on.
I don't completely agree with this assessment. The Buffet Rule makes complete sense...we are sick of the inequity in the tax laws; however, Obama should capitalize on the austerity programs of Europe not working, We need more stimulus, not less or we'll wind up like Europe! In fact, Obama made statements to that effect soon after the Europeans enacted them...so did Bill Clinton.
Why is it that both Democrats and Republicons are so dead set against a fair tax system? The government would be so much better off with a flat rate tax, that everyone pays equally regardless of income level. They would have far more tax revenue than they do now, and it would be 100% fair to everyone. But I know it will never happen because in spite of all the BS you hear about equality and fairness, things have never really been equal or fair. And I'm sorry to say they never will be until we get rid of the people in our government who prevent it. The Democrats and Republicons in Congress. Now is the time to vote Independent people...
In a perfect america I would have agreed to that. But some people just can afford it. A person who cleans the street can not afford to pay the same tax rate as a doctor and still feed his or her family.
flat tax. that is one solution. the other is get all the long term politicians out of washington. the president only gets to serve 8 years total, but these yahoos who spend a life time in congress and senate have no set terms until they get voted out! giving themselves raises and benefits is obsurd! the best solution? when a representaive is elected them make minium wage. when they prove to the people the have done a good job, re-elect them and let the voters vote for thier raise.
Zakaria, you are wrong on this. Your analysis is a bit off.
When it comes to personal income, some guys often have a choice in the matter of either handing over a good part of their earnings directly to the government ( in the form of taxes of course ), or they can try their best to take advantage of everything possible in order to keep their money out of the hands of the government. Certainly that doesn't come as a shock to anybody. But perhaps what many people may not be aware of is that some guys (who of course have done reasonably well for themselves) have designated private charities where they can make tax deductible donations, and thereby have some direct influence as to who will actually benefit from their hard earned cash, versus the government who may squander it on goodness knows what things.
A true patriot will always support their country because it would be a shame, if not a crime, to do otherwise. But to support the government to the same extent can be an entirely different matter. And if the President were to ask someone, like Bill Gates for example, to perhaps reallocate some of these cash flows to the government during hard times, I see no reason why he wouldn't at least try to oblige. It doesn't seem like such a big deal, to me anyhow. And it won't by any means result in adequate enough government revenues to balance out expenditures But it certainly might at least look impressive from all sides.
Is that wat you are doing BEING A GOOD MOSLEM PATRIOT.
Oh yes, just like Osama Bin Laden alright. Keep up the good work Neko.
Well the filthy rich are doing absolutely fantastic these days and America is very nearly "Mad Max" so the whole "trickle down" thing doesn't seem to be working.
Exactly! Some of us have been saying that over and over for the past 30 years since St. Ronnie was in the White House. There's a ton of evidence that nothing ever "trickles down". It always seems to trickle up.
I don't give a RA how much taxes it takes in. The MAIN POINT with me IS that everyone pays the same percentage........... PERIOD. The tax code is all screwed up... FIX IT. Stop the wealthy(incl corps) from zeroing out. Again, lets balance this thing.. This "jobs" excuse setforth by conservatives is BALONY. Everybody gives jobs- I hire barbers, grocery handlers, mechanics, etc etc etc. GET IT DONE.
Okay, one more time: Buffet Rule, billions of dollars. The United States in debt trillions of dollars. Your justification that this is really a good thing, priceless. Thank goodness my generations missed "new" math.
Yes, you are the one who is more sensible. We shouldn't bother to fix anything unless it will save trillions, the rest is pocket change. Any great ideas to save a trillion dollars in one shot? No? Darn, I guess our hands are tied and we'll just have to wait for some of those trillion dollar ideas.
Understand KFC...Your part of that "new" math generation, or maybe your after that generation, yikes! Again, to save a billion when your paying a trillion isn't even paying the INTEREST on the trillions! Do you know how much we are paying daily on interest, look it up. Then report back to me...Hint, use Google. Geesh!
I will not support raising taxes for anyone, nor will I support the destructive nature of separating and dividing people in various economic classes.
Ask anyone in poverty, and the lower and middle economic classes if they would like to be wealthy when they get up tomorrow morning, where they could pay all their bills, drive a new car, own a house, put food on the table, send their kids to school, be able to pay their medical bills and take an annual vacation. I will bet everyone who reads this that 99.99% will sign up within minutes.
So here we are with a President who attacks the very people we work to become. This means only one thing. He not only despises the wealthy, but he despises you and me for striving to be more financially secure. I do not want a President who works against me, my family, my friends and my co-workers. I want a President who says, yes, I support your efforts to become rich. Because to do so means you have gotten and education, formal or not, worked hard and are helping your fellow Americans by the fruits of your labor. The last thing we need is a President who has become the enemy of the People. That is exactly what we have in Barack Obama.
What are you talking about? This is a case of "We're spending way more than we take in." Yes we need to make a lot of very difficult cuts, but people who can afford to pay more should pay more.
What?!?!?!
Maybe it's time we appoint the brightest and most innovative business leaders to run the Country because this current version of "democracy" we have is a destructive joke.
Zakaria misses the point of the Buffett rule. Obama knows he won't get it, and i gives another opportunity to use class warfare as his theme. So for him the Buffett Rule is very important – as he has no record to stand on.
There is indeed class warfare, but it is conducted by the wealthy against the rest of us. For them too much is never enough.
Obama's rhetoric has been invest, invest, invest. The problem is that his actions in the stimulus and in his tax reductions (yes, not extending the Bush tax cuts is a tax reduction ) has been to consume now using money borrower from China. Now that we have nearly borrowed our last dollar, what do we have to invest with. The answer is that we will all have to sacrifice in the short run - 5 to 10 years – to make the investment necessary for our children and grandchildren to thrive.
President Obama: Concentrate on these four things before leaving you leave office in office in November Mitt Romney being your successor. They are the following: 1. Immediately bring back all our soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan. 2. See that the best V.A. care possible is made available to the tens of thousands of soldiers who have post traumatic stress disorde; traumatic brain injuries; multiple amputees victims; and the many other soldiers with a variety of injuries. We lose one soldier to suicide every 80 minutes of each day Mr. President. That is 6,500 suicides a year! 3. See to it that families of unemployed veterans are offered adequate monthly compensation while unemployed these veterans are provided with government funded job training. 4. Last but certainly not the least, publicly apologize to the American people for failing the nation; for your failed leadership; and for your failure to acknowledge that you were not qualified to run for President since you were born in another country!
Joe Clark, you're an idiot.
right on
One U.S. veteran attempts suicide every 80 minutes.
According to Department of Defense statistics, there were 309 suicides among active-duty and reserve troops in the military in 2009, compared with 160 in 2001.
Why does everyone act like $47 Billion is not a lot of money? Sure, it's not going to solve the debt crisis itself, but we'll only be able to solve that with lots of little things (spending cuts AND increases in revenue). If there was a silver bullet, I'm pretty sure we would have figured it out by now.
Since when is voicing your opinion aboout a subjuct you feel strongly about a bad political move? Oh yea, when you are liberals. Let's review:
On the campaign, liberals believe in public education, then send their kids to private schools.
On the campaign, liberals believe in the sacrament of marriage between a man and woman only, then demand gays have equal rights.
Liberals believe name-calling is worse than 99% of crimes then elect a president who sat in a curch every Saturday that spewed out the worst of racial hate.
Now, on the campaign, liberals don't think they should voice their opinion that the rich be taxed at a higher rate yet support the Buffet rule.
What in the world are you talking about?! You'd better increase your meds!
Nice.....
Legalize Marijuana and you save $60 billion a year as opposed to the $47 billion over 12 years from the Buffet rule.
Zakaria, you're usually right-on in your opinions most of the time but not now.
You seem to have forgoten that even though these programs you think are sensible and should move the US forward, it would not make sense for the President to push them because of the opposition. They will oppose anything that makes sense unless their own guy gets in. So I don't blame the President for finding ways to put them on the defensive just to make it a fair fight otherwise the Repubs would always be on the offense against him and he can't fight back if all he's doing is to defend sensible positions.
It's too easy to sit there and expect the President to be the only one carry the load while the Repubs work to get him out of office. One hand cannot wash itself. For the country to move forward, it will take two. Even if all the Repubs do is stand aside and not oppose EVERYTHING! In the end, I'd rather see no progress if it's a fair fight than to have the Repubs oppose their way back to the White House because of their opposition.
All i want for christmas is the economy to keep growing.
Very good commentary – sad that many people want to focus on class warfare. We spend too much and our politicians don't tell the truth. People need to wake up.....
Shocking!!!!
CNN decides to finally tell the truth about Obama!!!!
Obama is so full of crap it's and people actually believe his LIES!!!!!
Fareed is only against the Buffet rule because it will hit him personally in the pocket.
Wat to go JGBNYC – I couldn't agree more! Cheers.
the-crucible.weebly.com
Be more.
The comments suggesting that what should really be called for is to treat all income (earned, dividend, or capital gains) the same are correct. That would add back in the fairness that is currently missing from the tax system. I ask those that claim that this would stifle investment – what investment? The _vast_ majority of capital gains are earned by people who don't invest in companies in any meaningful way, but purely in exchanges of stock that is often decades removed from actual investment in the companies that issued it. These purchasers don't directly assist either the companies or the economy – they just gamble on the market. Arguments that their income via capital gains has already been taxed through corporate taxes on the companies in question has _no_ validity. That argument with respect to dividends paid out has some validity, but can easily be addressed by allowing the companies to deduct income paid out as dividends from their taxable income. Nor do these "investments" spur job growth – with capital gains taxes at a current all-time low, there is no job growth due to investment. Whatever job growth exists is happening (as always) because of increased demand, and those that call the wealthy "job creators" are being purely disingenuous.
millionaires/billionaires should be allowed to keep 100% of all their theft as long as the front lines of public use projects and imperial capital wars (for them and zionists anyway) are manned by them and their children.
this should do super for obama, the latest face piece and signature for the big time thieves.
blah blah blah,,,,such a weak and tired response, come up with something new, will ya
Many find it hard to connect with Mitt. I’m an independent who connects just fine with Mitt Romney and looks forward to voting for him. I connect with Mitt Romney because I have worked hard to earn a living, I graduated on top of my class in high school and college through dedication, I’m a small business owner with whom tax cuts would go a long way to expand my business and employ more people, my family is my priority and there are hard times but we always stick together, I’m devout in my religion of choice and live an honorable life, I don’t smoke / use drugs / drink alcohol, I may be awkward at times but my friends are loyal and life-long, and frankly I am frustrated with a President who has demonstrated clearly his inability to get this economy on the right track and who is incurring more and more debt for my children and grandchildren. These are a few of the reasons I connect very well with Mitt Romney.
This Carole completely agrees with Carol100 !!!!!
Carol100 – THAT is what I call an really EXCELLENT comment! If we could give ;='likes' I's give you 50!
If the Buffett rule is the only popular way to restore progressive taxation, so be it. Americans are so hoodwinked they're continuing to let the rich take their livelihoods away in plain sight, and if it takes something as simple as making the billionaire pay the same rate as his secretary, so be it. It isn't envy, it is survival. College, medical, retirement expenses have gone beyond the reach of all but a few. The money is there: 2 trillion in the coffers of the Fortune 500, locked away while hundreds of millions have a diminished lifestyle while working harder and harder, trying not to fall behind as fast. Pundits love to comment, but while chatterers chatter, the rich have taken the country while we slept.
Yes the gain would be small but you missed the political point. People feel the tax code favors the rich. People feel that the Buffett rule is fair. If a congress member votes against it they can campaign against him/her. Hopefully they can replace that member and have a more favorable congress next time.
"In the midst of the economic crisis, Warren Buffet said that his strategy was to invest in America. That's the Buffett Rule Obama should follow."
Didn't Obama try that with his Infrastructure Jobs Bill? What happened with that one? Oh yeah...
Investing in America means more stimulus, which the Republicans do not like and will block...Talk to the Republicans...They are the problem.. stopping "Investing in America"= Stimulus
Investing in America means more stimulus, which the Republicans do not like and will block...Talk to the Republicans...They are the problem.. stopping "Investments in America"= Stimulus
Greed is not good, Greed is what costs us most in our lives, Greed Sucks.........Buffet Rules!!!!!!! " Go Big O " Charles Bowen Solomon Stone
Oh wow!!! For he second time in my life, I find myself agreeing with Mr. Zakaria. I never thought that would happen for a second time. Mr. Obama's Buffett Rule is not only bad for Mr. Obama; but it is also pure stupidity on his part. HE has spent so much time talking about this bogus idea that he has forgotten about ALL the other important issues affecting America. Campaigning 24/7 is NOT governing!!!
Maybe this all has to do with the fact that Mr. Obama, other than attacking everyone that does not BOW to him and/or kiss his ring, has NO REAL record to run on.
Are Mr. Zakaria and other Mr. Obama butt kisser, so called journalists, starting to see the light?! PLEASE DON'T HOLD YOUR BREATH!
This country has a REVENUE problem in addition to a spending problem. Revenue is down by 5% of GDP below where even Reagan worked to keep it. By comparison, spending is about 5% of GDP above the ideal revenue target. The GOP persistently lies to the American people by refusing to acknowledge that REVENUE is a huge part of the problem. President Obama has CONSISTENTLY said that BOTH spending AND revenue need to be addressed. Until the GOP is willing to hold an HONEST discussion that acknowledges there is BOTH a spending AND revenue problem, the deficit will never be addressed.
The "Ryan Budget" FAILS to address to address the deficit. For all its destruction of the middle class safety net, including destroying Medicare, it FAILS to reduce the deficit because all the money stolen from the middle class is immediately handed over to the ultra-rich in the form of MORE tax breaks. On top of that, both Ryan AND Wall Street Mitt have stated they want to INCREASE the massive waste of money that is shipped over to the Pentagon. The Pentagon hasn't been able to audit its own books in decades, and Wall Street Mitt wants to rain MORE cash down upon them.
The problem is Zakaria is an idiot. He was for the Iraq war. He should be sweeping floors, not writing columns.
Our country is in trouble...."All hands on deck" We need gov't and the private sector working together to fix our problems. Private sector cannot do it alone, the gov't cannot either. What we do not need is MORE tax breaks for the rich. We the people need the break..
War is costing us billiions by the week. Let's get out of these horrible wars and spend our money here. When I mean here, I do not mean giving it to the rich.
It is not "class warfare" to try to readjust the percentages the wealthy are paying so that they can contribute to America. We already know that everyone does better when the tax rates are adjusted so the tax burden does not fall so heavily on the poor and middle class. If anything the rich have been waging a war on the American worker. And it's not about "envy" either. No one is saying people should not be able to get rich. Get rich all you want. But we have to have a society where everyone has the chance to prosper, not just like now where you have to be born into wealth to prosper. The tax code should be simplified, no doubt. However, that is too much heavy lifting for Pres. Obama right now. The Buffett rule is a step in the right director and has people talking about the inequity that the rich people like Romeny and Kock bros. have purchased. The GOTeaP simply will not consider, at this time, any tax code modification that doe snot mean the end of our country as we know it.
I respectfully disagree with Zakaria on this one. There's little evidence that trickle down economics has produced a stable, growing economy over the last 30 years. The wealth disparity in this country is as high as its been in the last 50 years. The middle class is seeing their income shrink and even life spans are shrinking for the first time in the last 100 years. Giving billionaires more billions doesn't work.
At the very least, we should revert the Bush Tax Cut and restore long term capital gains from 15% back to 25% – if not higher. It's wrong that some trustfund millionaires end up paying a far lower tax rate than the rest of us. As a working stiff, I paid approximately 53.5% in combined taxes, excluding sales tax. Yet, the richest men in this country paid 15% – or less if they didn't realize all of their gains this year. Mitt Romney paid, what, 9%?
People working hard, trying to save a few bucks for retirement, paying off an underwater mortgage shouldn't be kicked under the bus to support our government while the billionaires are given a free pass.
That's not fair.
These guys forget what Sir Templeton did some 25 years ago. Move to the Bahamas and quit USA, because of the high taxes.
Well good. We don't need the greedy to live here and suck the nations blood while moving money over seas like Romney anyway.
So, we can be sure now that Fareed Zakaria is now making over a million a year or close enough to get there soon. No one wants to pay taxes but the question is this tax fair? I say "yes". The country needs more revenues to make ends meet and the only people have the money and are making over a million can afford to pay. Besides during the Reagan and Clinton years the millionaires were paying a whole lot more then now. But the people making million and over can get tax breaks if they invest in hiring new people and jobs then they can be given incentive. Basically have the rich invest to hire more people and jobs instead of moving money over seas to offshore bank accounts like Romney having his money in Cayman Islands instead of investing here at home. He amkes over 20 million a year and only pays less then 12% but is able to keep his money in Cayman Islands. He should pay more or else invest here in hiring more people in the US.
Besides the point is not to raise revenues to pay off the big debts with the small amount can solve our problem but instead in order to make big cuts we have to show the people on the low end of the scale that the sacrifice will be shared. The cuts will have to be instilled but along with some revenues from the people making a lot. It looks more fair for all. Otherwise will will have riots in the streets just like Greece. Both have to take place cuts and revenue increases.
You are completely off base and wrong on this issue, Mr. Zakaria. In order to make big spending cuts, which is what is needed, it is justified for the millionaires to pay extra which they have been dodging so far with the help of Bush tax cuts. You have not gotten the point that Mr. Obama is making. GOP walked away from the big compromise of 4 trillion just to save a few dollars for the millionaires. Most of that was cuts. They could have compromise with accepting the 45 billion increase but get the rest in cuts. But GOP has failed this nation during Bush/Cheney and now with new GOP house majority.
Mr. Zakaria, your sounding like a card-carrying GOP member everyday.
Mr Zakaria,
IYes, the amount of money it brings in is not staggering (nor is it trivial). However, the runaway mugging of America by the top 1% is something that needs to -stop-. This country will not survive if a higher and higher percentage of the GDP is funneled into the very rich's pocket. You need to put your foot down and reverse course before things are so far gone that revolution is the only answer. And that's exactly what will end up happening, history is a testament to that.
Besides, you can't invest in America when the Republicans are blocking everything you do and demanding cuts across all previous social investments.
Fareed, thanks again for an insightful, logical proposal. We need more journalists like you.
I suppose Fareed makes more than a million a year, that is why he doesn't want the taxes to increase. Otherwise when we are pinching pennies out of welfare checks and cutting food stamps, the amount of money that this initiative will bring is not at all trivial. The top one percent have to contribute , too, we cannot pay all the taxes. They travel on the roads and runways built with our tax dollars, they use electricity, water and the postal service , too. If they give them a bigger break in China, let them move to China.
Fared, 5 trillion debt 2.2% 1st qtr. GDP......Wow what a great recovery! Fareed I think you are ready for MSNBC , we could eliminate Matthews and slide you into his slot. You are a natural ,
Thank you, Fareed Zakaria, for this cogent commentary.
Israel needs to be the focus.
We are in danger from Iran, and the USA owes Israel big time for what happened to us in WW2.
Al queda needs to be maintained, to keep the Americans engaged in anti terror activities, else Israel might suffer..
If Osama was a burger, America would have found him sooner…
So if Buffet rule is bad how do you correct the income inequality problem? That problem predates the current Depression. This problem goes back to the 1980s? A rising tide doesn't raise all boats. You sound more and more to me like someone with degrees from Yale and Harvard instead of an advocate for the people. What do you care about income inequality when it is not a problem for you?
You are right, he is personally biased against the Buffet rule because it will hit him in the pocket also.so he uses his forum to lobby against it for his personal gain.
Fareed, you're a hopeless and shameless Keynesian. On Sunday's GPS you stated the US economy is "projected" (another word for estimated) to grow at 2%, due to the trillions in Fed stimulus, while Euro zone GDP is expected to contract due to austerity measures. Technically there had been no austerity in the EMU. European banks have been and will be printing Eros and twisting arms of private bond holds from months, if not years, to come. We have seen actual austerity in the UK, which explains why we're also seeing a rise in the British Sterling. The US Dollar, by the way, continues to decline in value against the world's major currencies, which is why you will, despite your Keynesian dreaming, continue to see declines in the consumer-based US economy. Your show is a true source of entertainment for followers or Austrian economics. Keep the laughs coming!
Austrian School? I am never ceased to be amazed at the length greedy right wingers will go to justify greed. The Austrian school is cover for discredited laissez faire greed. I guess you did not notice what happened when regulators stopped regulating lending and allowing no doc loans? There is laissez faire policy for you. Austrian school is a right wing creation that ignores macro economics and empirical scientific method. It is the equivalent of the bible to explain humanity on Earth. It is entirely devoted to study of the individual and individual greed and believes selfishness is the only force that drives the economy. Another equivalent is Ayn Rand or libertarianism. If you chose to examine the world as it is instead of some fiction that has never existed your solutions might actually be helpful.
hmmmm! Americans are more divided than i thought! Myopic and sentimental at that. Slowing sliding into irrelevant losers. Keep going. We are watching
Where are you from? Planet of the apes? hmmmmmm!
I am happy that Fareed cannot fool ALL Americans.. I was scared of that while listening to him. You are a smart American.
Fareed –
Don't try running for national office, you don't seem to see the bigger picture.
Obama has been playing the long game from the very beginning, and his political advisers know that DC has been screwing the middle class for decades. But they also know that economic security IS national security. There has to be a national consensus for SHARED sacrifice in the long run or we will keep spiraling downward as the plutocrats use their puppets to protect their interests.
The Buffet rule is the key to that consensus – no one is going to accept cuts to their interests if the richest among us get to keep doing all the smart things Romney has done to park his money in offshore accounts, structure his income as capital gains and pay his kids from his foundation tax free. In short, as Obama keeps saying, budgets need to be balanced with smart cuts AND smart revenue increases. It has to BE fair, and it has be SEEN to be fair, or no one will accept it, short or long term.
Stick to foreign affairs, Fareed, you've missed the bigger picture domestically.
Fareed, On the Buffet's rule. I think you are wrong. Your math on the amount of taxes to be collected with the Buffet rule is incorrect.... Secondly you are missing one side of the accounting. You praise Pres. Obama;s stimulii and spoke against austerity measures as Europe has been doing. I agree with you on these. However where is the revenue side of the Accounting..Where would the funds come from to inject stimulii and to prevent austerity measures??
In addition you speak your opinion in an arrogant way.."President Obama should do this and should do that" As a journalist you should not be speaking so partially. From your report I sense a bias and I firmly believe that you personally fall within that "BUffet Tax Rule" hence the bias..Since you left out the revenue side of the economics just like Republican's do your report is senseless. Obama is doing the best :Using stimulii instead of austeriies and 2. He is trying to raise revenue through taxing the rich instead of the poor to pay for the stimulii which benefit all especially the rich. According to you the Republicans are totally off, with their "one sided idea of budget cuts only", forgetting about revenue..Sorry Fareed you are biased on this one. You were not qualified to discuss this matter....
The Buffet Rule would fund the federal government for 11 minutes.
What could Buffett and Ahmadinejad both soon have in common ? Radioactive a$$e$.
There is a lot of bad math going on in this post regarding does taxing captail gains or dividends at a higher or lower rate increase or decrease revenue? On a short term basis revenue, taxable revenue on gains would decrease but if you were taxing dividends revenue would increase. If you had 100 shares in a company and a dividend of 1 dollar a share, it produces 100 dollars of income. Changing the tax code does not impact the profit made my the company. If the tax were increased from 15% to 30%, 15 dollars of additional revenue is generated. However, on the flip side an investor has bought the stock with the expectation of a certain revenue stream. Let us say each share is worth 10 dollars, for a total capitalistation of 1000 dollars. With a 15% tax rate, the after taxes revenue stream is 85 dollars. If you increase taxes to 30%, the revenue generated per year is now 70 dollars. You would need 121.4 shares to make your 85 dollars. X=85/.7. This means you will not value the company at 10 dollars a share. The value based on nothing else changing is now 8.23. X = 1000/121.4.
The end result is that changing the tax rate on dividends would drop the entire stock market by 20%. This would wipe out most capital gains for an entire year as there would be less capitail gains and a lot more capital losses put on the books. Since 401K plans depend more on the value of the stock instead of the dividends generated, this would hit the middle class harder.
Now what happens when you only increase capital gains? This is harder to quantify because many growth stocks have value without a dividend. I suppose one could take the capitlzation of the entire market and compare to the total dividend generated. After all I believe that stock has value because people believe it will generate a dividend or they believe someone will buy it who willl leverage for a dividend. So what happens when capital gains are increased from 15% to 30%. Let us say a companys stock doubles from 10 dollars a share to 20 dollars a share because its dividend increased from 1 dollar to 2 dollars. Someone wants to cash out their 100 shares. And they make a cool 1000 dollars. After taxes they have 850 dollars. But now the governement takes 300 dollars. So to make 850 dollars of profit, I actually need to have bought 1214 shares. So for someone who valued a stock totally on capitail gains, this would also amount to a haircut of about 20%.
So to determine the impact one would have to ask what value of a stock is due to dividend and what to gains. My over simplified math cannot predict that. I believe that there would absolutely be a hit to the market if either rate is increased as it will take more shares to increase revenue be it a dividend or a capitail gain. Regardless, I think I have shown the potential impact on the middle class. Obama is not so much different then the Polish peasent who asks the Djini for the Mongols to invade Poland three times so that the Russians can get hit six.
I really do wish Sarah Palin would weigh in on this "Buffet Rule". We need her guidance now more than ever.
Congratulations Fareed - This is the first piece of yours that I have read that indicates that you are not a wing of the Obama spin machine. You can actually be a free thinker when you put your mind to it.
If it's bad politics to support the Buffet Rule, then it's infinitely worse to oppose it, especially the way the Republicans are. They are constantly *supporting* an unfair tax structure, in A/B comparisons against vital programs for women, students, the elderly, and the poor.
The problem is that it cost us taxpayers twice as much to have the government run and do things vs the private sector. When you do not have to worry about profit and loss and where the money is coming from, it invites waste in vast inefficiencies. The best thing the government can do is get out of the way.
"Aspirational, not envious" ???
Have you seen OWS?
The OWS folks are just the "other 1%".
Every morning I wake up, face west and say a prayer for John McCain, thanking him for his gift of Palin.
"Over the years voters tend to support a government that focuses on creating opportunity rather than one that tries to reduce inequality." Fareed is using pretty good with his observations but this time, he is missing the point. Somebody has to pay more. Revenue has to go up and spending has to be cut–not either or. While the "Buffet rule" alone will not raise enough revenue, it is one step in the right direction. Taxing the wealthy does NOT hurt job creation–and that is not a theory. There is no relationship in history that shows with any consistency at all that lower taxes on the weathly creates jobs. Rather, what we can see is the more desposiable income the masses have, the more demand, and the more growth and job creation. If someone has to pay more, the place to start is at the very top.
It might be a bad rule. It would be better and simpler to make the tax on income the same whether you work for it or get it by investments. It is good politics though. It irritates me that Romney pays less of a per cent than me and it irritates the majority of us who could really use the 15% or so break that Romney gets and doesn't need.
We need much more than the Buffet Rule. All income should be taxed and anything of value, such as stock, as well. It's immoral to let a few people, like Romney, to benefit from lower tax rates on sources of income that the rest of us will never be privileged enough to take advantage of. The truth is that the greedy rich write the laws and the corrupt Congress passes them dutifully, even the Corporate Democrats. Obama has been a real disappointment, the Republicans should be pretty happy with him passing the Bush Tax cuts while leaving the poor and middle class on the chopping block for potentially massive cuts to our safety nets. I'm sure my comments will make just about everyone upset, but it's the truth, like it or not!
If you or I had started investing, even modestly, at age 21 and continued to do so, we could be benefiting from the lower tax rates on investment income.
James, sorry, but you don't seem to understand the situation very well. Capital gains are double-taxed. They are taxed at 35% at the corporate level, then an addition 15% of what's left is paid by the individual owners. That's an effective tax rate of 44.75%. Meanwhile, you have to be at least well into the upper-middle class to pay even a 10% tax rate on regular income. What's truely "immoral" is that we have about 45% of Americans paying zero or negative income taxes (e.g. they receive as much or more from their income tax "refund" as they paid in in the first place.) I'm single and make well above average household income (I'm an engineer) and my effective tax rate is consistently around or even less than 10%, so I hardly think that Mr. Romney is paying "less than his fair share" at 44.75%.
vbscript, You are leaving so much out of your argument. 1. Most of the fortune 1000 corporations do not pay anywhere near the 35% rate in actuality and while the Corporate tax rate is high in America the myriad of "special tax deductions have actually made corporate tax collections in the US to be by far the lowest in the developed nations. GE for example paid 0 dollars in income taxes last year.
As for Capital gains by a double taxation ...hardly. as the corporate world has so often argued a corporation is a person. "THAT PERSON" paid his taxes....you as a stockholder are not THAT PERSON, you have no liability for THAT PERSON'S ACTIONS. You pay taxes on dividends, just as an employee pays taxes on his salary. But capital gains taxes give you an out year after year after year because you don't have to pay taxes until you sell so as your investment appreciates year after year you have no tax responsibility AT ALL. Even though you can borrow against it. In fact you can hold that stock until you pass away bequeath it to your son, and he can avoid paying any taxes at all!! Other than corporate taxes, you manage to receive the benefits of compound income which makes that 15% more like 5%.
Secondly that 44% that you said are not paying "income taxes paid substantial FICA, state taxes and most likely property taxes.
But the bigger problem is that middle income Americans are growing poorer by the minute, their salaries are microscopic in comparison to their parents. They are paying less in taxes and that is because they are getting a much smaller slice of the economic pie since the 1920s, while in the meantime the wealthy are getting fatter and fatter like any pig at the trough.
I do believe we need tax reform, but if Mr. Buffet is so willing to lend his name (and his secretary) to this cause he needs to put his money where his mouth is. Why wait for a law, when he could pay his "fair share," by taking no deductions today? Just get the bill and pay it.
I have always admired Mr. Buffet, but I do think this endorsement is a little silly on his part.
He doesn't even have to claim no deductions to do that. He can just write a check to the Treasury for however much he feels is his fair share whenever he wishes to do so. You can write a check to put towards the national debt whenever you want to. It's just that most of the people on the left aren't actually willing to put their money where their mouth is.
This article's assertion that Obama has anything to brag about regarding the state of the economy is just as ridiculous as its assertion that the austerity measures are the cause of Europe's problems. The reason Europe's economy isn't expanding is because the Eurozone nations are *having to bail out members who are defaulting on their debts.* If it weren't for the austerity measures, the problem would be even worse, as the debts would be larger. Europe's problems were caused by 20+ years of heavy socialism leading to enormous debts on the parts of several member nations. When the recession came around, it compounded with their already high unemployment and high deficits, leading Iceland and Greece into default and Italy, Spain, and Portugal to the brink of it, while dragging down the entire Eurozone in a desperate attempt to bail them out to keep the Euro from collapsing. Meanwhile stateside, our "growth" is artificial. Yes, when borrow money and spend it, technically speaking, the economy grows... usually by less than the amount that the debt grows, as has been the case in the last few years. That "growth" isn't real though, it's just borrowed from future production. That's like a person making $50,000/yr claiming that their income grew by 20% for the year because they borrowed $10,000 and spent it. They may have spent like they made $60,000 in that year, but that's just borrowing from future years when that money will have to be repaid. It doesn't work any differently at the national level, other than that most people seem content to ignore it there, while they have a harder time ignoring calls from the collections agencies on their personal debt. We will have to repay what we're borrowing right now through future taxes and I can assure you that doing so will not lead to economic growth.
The fact that not one representative or senator in either the house or senate (including his own party members) voted for Obama's budget and his ideas goes to show you how savy he is economically.
Abso-blooming-lutely!
Sorry, if bringing tax rates for the obscenely wealthy up to 21st century levels loses Obama that 1% of the vote (and frankly, I doubt they'd be voting for him anyway) it's not going to matter one little bit.
I disagree, I think it illustrate two very stark positions between the democrats and republicans. The republicans clearly favors the rich, the military and are willing to completely wipe out the social, regulatory and environmental programs. Worse, they are unwilling to compromise in terms of taxes.
I aggree, it is pure politics but it is a good since Mitt Romney is one of the recipients of the said benefit.
I am for smaller taxes, I also believe in a flat tax program with exemptions for the very poor. I think everyone should be treated the same under the law regardless of income. Remove most or all tax exemptions. So I am not in favor of higher taxes but I also believe in compromise, so if I have to pay higher taxes so be it for the good of the country.
Compromise means listening to the other side once in a while. Always raising taxes without any thought to lowering them or making the government more efficient, is not compromising. And it certainly isn't leadership.
Obama is no Bill Clinton. And has no chance, unlike Bill, of getting this conservative's vote.
I I just love the 'pay your fair share' types who want to have the smallest 'share' possible for themselves. Hypocrites just like Obama.
"trivial sum of money" is one of the stupidest statements bandied about by pundits and politicians that I've ever heard. If you are in hock up to your eyeballs or lose your job, what do you do? You get rid of cable, back off on the internet, cancel the newspaper, etc. Each of those is a "trivial sum of money". But when you add them together it's not so trivial anymore. Really? 4.7 Billion dollars a year is trivial? Where does trivial end? 10? 15? 20 billion dollars? Is that why we maintain oil and farm subsidies? Because the 50 billion dollars for those is "trivial"? I'm sorry, but someday I want someone to explain to me why the 60 bucks it costs to put a tank of gas in my car is not trivial, yet 4.7 BILLION dollars a year is? That is the kind of thinking that got this country into this predicament. It's time to stop this Moron Math for accounting.
gggg,
Your analogy would be more equivalent to eliminating the purchase of one stick of gum (or less) per year,
The Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest five percent of Americans cost the U.S. Treasury $11.6 million every hour, according to the National Priorities Project. Between 2001 and the current projected end of the Bush tax cut extension, tax cuts for the wealthiest 5 percent will cost the U.S. Treasury $1.184 trillion. If extended through 2021 as gop lawmakers propose, the total cost will exceed $3.2 trillion.
2% is really not that bad for an economy of our size. The fact that people actually believe that cutting the capital gains can generate revenue is just proof that people can be talked into literally anything.
Lower taxes just means more jobs overseas and doesn't help revenue or the economy.
Waiting for daddy to die, then putting his money into the stock market that cruelly benefits from outsourcing middle-class jobs overseas, and then collecting the dividends on the investments and paying a very modest tax rate...none of that is indicative of hard work, as today's Republican party folks like to argue. The "Buffett Rule" is not a cure, but it is a good first step toward fairness in our country.
Fareed, you have misused the word "corrupt". Show me a law (any law of the United States) that is inherently "corrupt." Even a law that most people might agree is a bad law can't be "corrupt". A law might be used by corrupt people for corrupt purposes, but a law in and of itself can't be corrupt – it is, after all, a law passed legally by representatives of the American people.
Fareed has quoted Clinton's so called re-election successes with an oportunistic economy and society, which was a far cry from reality after witnesssing the .com bubble bust and his fanni and freddi fiasco that eventually led to the housing bubble! Noone has forgotten that Clinton ratified NAFTA on Dec. 8th ,1993 with a totally controlled Democratic congress that resulted in the closing of more factories and outsourcing more jobs than all other U.S. presidents combined. Obama literally can not win on the issues and he knows it! It really makes no difference which way he goes as far as a stratedgy is concerned! The race card approach is as good as any options that are available to the president! ...ABO
It sounds as if the liberals are already making excuses for Obama's demise. The president fumbled the ball on the economy and persued a health care plan instead that nobody wanted. ...need I say more!
Fareed,
Totally agreed. As a person of Russian descent, I know where the envy and calls for "equiality" trapped Russians during the Red Revolution. People like Buffett did support the Revolution on the onset, but then there fell victims of envious and angry crowd. When I see a successful person, my impulse is to find out how he got to where he is, and if I am able to reach the heights he did. To give all people an opportunity instead of cutting it from ones who has become successful, is they key to a prosperous nation. Although, I am very appreciative of what President Obama did in the most difficult four years for this country and I voted for him in the last election, this battle against rich make me feel eirrie and uneasy, if this is what his next fours years are about, I will bail out and vote for Romney. I still hope though that Obama will change the course and will run on a positive note.
I apologize for the typos above.
Wouldn't it be nice if people actually cited their sources? I mean, if you wanted to prove your point, why not do it factually? But instead, you all criticize each others opinions and say google it. Why should I prove your point? Man up and cite so we can follow your train of thought!
Americans know Obama's attack on the 'rich' will soon be an attack on anyone with a decent paying job and some investments. The Buffet Rule won't make a dent in the deficit. Taxing the 1% won't be enough. A war between the 99% and 1% won't work. It's going to be a war between the bottom 80% and the top 20%. The top 20% are the people who are going to see Social Security become a tax and not a pension fund. The top 20% are going to see cap gains go thru the roof because the tax takers are jealous of anyone with investment income. The Buffett Rule is code for income distribution. CNN can harp on and on about this or that minority vote but the 2012 vote is going to come down to tax payers vs tax takers. See how the Dems can handle retirees freaking out that Obama is coming for 40% of their dividend checks.
The "Buffet Rule" is a case of Nero fiddling while Rome burned. Pass or don't pass it. It doesn't make a hill of beans to the real problems in the long run.
We need new political leaders, all 535 plus of them. We need term limits and a line item veto for the President.
Disagree. It is about fairness and having skin in the game not a piddle of money. As long as the 0.01% can lower their tax rates by manipulating the politician, they will and ignor the real economic problems. Once they see the jig is up, they will either come to the party and help or leave the country for the Caymans. Either way the other 99.99% of us will be better off. The longer we let them use the US economy as their private piggy bank the more they will drive up the deficit to fill their off-shore accounts.
Politically this is exactly where Obama wants to be. Knowing this will never get traction he won't offend the rest of the 1%. It doesn't touch the corporations where he has shown zero interest in affecting any change even though GE pays zero in taxes. He has authored no changes in taxes that would generate jobs beyond window dressing 10 cents on a dollar.
Fairness. The Buffet Rule is about perceived fairness. Many Americans have come to believe that the system is "stacked" against them, in favor of the privileged 1% (whoever they may be). Generally, most Americans are willing to sacrifice if they believe the system is fair, and that everyone is "pulling a fair share".
In his article, Fareed did not mention the word fairness, a word that resonates in all cultures and is central to the "Buffet Rule" debate. I am surprised. I did not think that his handlers could make such a mistake.
I agree with Fareed, i don't know much about politics... In order to build a house... we need to start with basement etc. Main concern for people is Economy and Jobs. As you mentioned, Buffet Rule talking more on fairness and inequality. That's not concern for people right now. if you see from house perspective, furniture in a built house (= Fairness and inequality). We need to look and support a person who has interests build and strong economy and job market. Considering comparison between 47 billion vs 45 trillion... i feel that McCain slogan is good for america which "cut expenses". I don't have voting right, not belong to any political party, came from Asian country.
Fareed, Fareed,
Obama says he doesn't want you anymore and to please stop calling
"Zakaria: Buffett Rule is bad politics for Obama" ...especially when Buffet owes almost a billion dollars in back taxes!
Fareed – You were correct; the Buffett rule will raise only a trivial amount of money relative to the huge debt. You were wrong, however, to trivialize it as just a political issue. It is not now and has never been just an issue of either money or fairness. it is a moral issue of great importance to the future of this nation. The tax systems in place now and being argued over are nothing but subsidies for the rich, many of whom are now contributing millions of dollars not only to keep these susidies in place but are demanding even more tax breaks for themselves; and they refuse to identify themselves. This is not just a money issue or a fairness issue; it is a morality issue that needs to be discussed as a serious problem for the future of democracy in this country. A nation ruled by a few with all the money is not a democracy, it is an oligarchy.
A formidable share, I just given this onto a colleague who was doing slightly analysis on this. And he in actual fact purchased me breakfast as a result of I found it for him.. smile. So let me reword that: Thnx for the deal with! However yeah Thnkx for spending the time to debate this, I really feel strongly about it and love studying extra on this topic. If potential, as you turn into expertise, would you mind updating your blog with more particulars? It's extremely helpful for me. Big thumb up for this blog put up!