Linswritings

Archive for the ‘Tax cuts’ Category

According to The Hill article, Warren Buffett said that Obama’s plan to tax the rich was not his “Buffett rule.” He also said, not so fast about taxing him. Buffett said he advocated a tax hike only on what he termed the “ultra-rich,” making a distinction between his suggestion and Obama’s proposal to raise taxes on millionaires. It isn’t [my idea] to have the rich pay more taxes. It’s to have the ultra-rich pay more,” he said on Bloomberg Television Friday.

Buffett explains that what he was talking about would probably apply to 50,000 people out of 310 million in the country. It would simply mean that if you made tens of millions of dollars, and your tax rate was 16 or 17 percent, you would start paying like the person who made $100,000 or $10 million who paid normal tax rates.

But he also called Obama’s bill a “stimulus plan” and added that he doubted he would agree with all of it. Obama has called for higher tax rates on millionaires as part of his proposed deficit-reduction plan. His proposed tax increase, called the “Buffett rule” in a nod to Buffett’s call for higher taxes on the wealthiest Americans, would apply to those earning annual incomes of $1 million or more.

However, Buffett estimated that raising the tax rate on ultra-rich multimillionaires would raise about $20 billion and go a long way to
solving the deficit issue.

But Buffett is not too keen on raising his taxes. What Buffett actually wrote was he would raise rates on “taxable income” for those making $1 million or more while those making $10 million or more should have “an additional increase in rate.”

From his op-ed: “For those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate.”

The key to Buffett’s plan is “taxable income,” and as we all know Buffett probably has a hundred accountants to make sure all of his money is not shown as “taxable income.” This is just another farce from progressives.

Advertisements

Are you still one of the 43% of the people who approve of what Obama is doing? If so, my question is why? Do you agree on class warfare – tax the rich and make them pay their fair share, which they are doing now. Are you really for a president who wants to raise taxes and spread the wealth – to whom? Not to you and me but to all of his political buddies.

Recently, Ed Morrissey of HotAir shares with us that Obama is threatening to veto any bill that isn’t “balanced” with tax hikes. What makes Obama think that tax hikes is the answer to the problems we are having economically? Raising taxes will kill the economy. The “rich” won’t buy and won’t hire people because their profits will be cut.

Ed Morrissey continues these thoughts with the idea that his deficit reduction package can’t clear the House and the jobs package can’t clear the Senate. So what does Obama do – threaten to veto any bills that don’t include tax hikes or as he says a ‘balanced’ between taxes and spending cuts.

Then Obama has the audacity to say, “This is not class warfare, it’s math. The money’s going to have to come from some place. If we’re not willing to ask those who’ve done extraordinarily well to help America close the deficit, the logic, the math says everybody else has to do a whole lot more. “

This is unbelievable!

However, Ed Morrissey continues in his article with saying that this rhetoric is unsurprising.  Obama has been making this same exact argument for years, starting in the 2008 campaign, but accelerating last year.  Obama made the exact same argument  — and veto threat, too — just before caving in December 2010 and agreeing to extend the Bush-era tax rates.

The threat is as empty as the rhetoric.  Let’s say for argument’s sake that the House and Senate passed a bill that accomplished significant deficit reduction through entitlement reform without Obama’s John Edwards-like Two Americas tax policy.  Does anyone believe that Obama would veto a bill backed by both a Republican House and a Democratic Senate?  Would Obama really want to make himself look like the least bipartisan political leader in Washington DC?  There isn’t a chance in Hades that he would veto such a bill, even though getting such a bill to the White House would have almost as small a chance in the first place.

With even his own party insisting that they’re not going to bite on more spending and higher taxes, Obama’s already starting to isolate himself on economic policy.  He issued this warning in a sad attempt to impress a few people on the Left with his “leadership,” but issuing empty threats isn’t real leadership.  It’s an expression of political impotence.

I’m sure you have heard Barack Obama claim to have passed the “biggest middle-class tax cut in history” many times since passing the Porkulus package which he called “Making Work Pay.” He says that the $800 per year that was not taken from withholding taxes is his infamous claim.

But according to Ed Morrissey from Hot Air, he found that Glenn Kessler at the Washington Post tested out this claim and end up calling it a “whopper.” If he meant that by reducing the dollar amount you take home is a middle-class tax cut then okay that sounds  reasonable. However, the White House official response was that Obama wasn’t talking about dollars at all!

So what does he mean by that statement? According to an administration official from the White House, “The point the president was making that is there is not a tax cut that has been enjoyed by such a broad section of the population.” According to a report that said that 95 percent of working families received some kind of tax cut under the Making Work Pay provision in his stimulus bill.

WTF? What does that mean?

If we go by his accounting methodology, another President could pass a tax cut that reduces liabilities by $5 per person and allow it to apply to every American, and that would beat Obama’s dubious “record.”  Small wonder that, as Kessler writes, the MWP cut went “largely unnoticed” by the American public, which was just a gimmicky rehash of George Bush’s “rebate” in early 2008. It was too small to matter in terms of economic growth, and the temporary nature of the cut meant that no one could do any long-term planning based on it.

The proper measure of “biggest tax cut” should be based on GDP, with adjustments for inflation.  Kessler ran the numbers for tax cuts over the last 50 years, and Obama didn’t even come close. Once again, Obama is talking from both sides of his mouth and nothing is making any sense at all.