Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Report: Just $31B from Buffett rule tax on rich

Posted 2 years ago on March 20, 2012, 5:01 p.m. EST by Dell (-168)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I guess you've got to come up with another plan besides tax the rich to solve your problems.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TAXES_BUFFETT_RULE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-03-20-13-02-33

51 Comments

51 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

ok here's another plan. Same plan, with even higher rates.

Between 1945 and 1980, top tax rates were between 70% and 91%. During that time we paid Great Depression and WWII debt down from 120% of GDP to around 30%, built a nationwide infrastructure, put men on the moon, had a huge thriving middle class and the longest sustained period of stable growth in history.

You repulsive Conserva-troll.

[-] 1 points by NOAMISRICH (28) 2 years ago

The Rich didn't pay 90% in taxes! You can't find a tax return out there showing a millionaire back then paying 90%. The Rich had more tax deductions back then. It wasn't any better back then, only the liberals think so.

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

You are correct! Top effective rates were only around 50-60% back then. : )

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by ibanker (-99) 2 years ago
  1. No one ever paid that level of taxes despite the top tax rate
  2. Causation and correlation are different things. Dont confuse them. We did not succeed as an economy because of taxation. We succeeded because we were pretty much the only developed country left (mostly) unscathed by WW2 while Europe was totally down and out. We had huge manufacturing capacity due to the war and our soldiers returned home and joined the various factories to work. And we had no competition in the world.

So please...

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

1- Correct, I clarified that below. The "effective" rate was in the 50-60% range.

2- Agree. There were many other factors. That does not mean that there was not some degree of causation though. Or, at the very least, those high tax rates didn't do much harm. No matter what the tax rates, people will always look to do better for themselves/get wealthier. People are not going to stop working because the top tax rate goes up from 35% to 40%. No more did they stop working when the top effective rates were 50-60%. The wealthy kept working and getting wealthier.

The WPA provided millions of jobs after the Depression. To help boost the economy and put people to work on infrastructure projects. The government invested in people and the country. The Hoover Dam, built during the depression, put thousands of people to work. How about NASA. Government investment that resulted in lots of great innovation. These are just a few examples. Of how government invested in it's greatest natural resource - human capital. For things that we still enjoy the benefits of today.

Of course, like any investment, it costs money. Money from - scary word alert! - taxes.

Does the government always make good investments that pay off? Does Wall Street?

The issue with raising taxes today is not so much for investment, but, paying for what we have already spent - $14T. We are where we are. I do not think it is unreasonable for the wealthy to pay higher tax rates, the ones who are most capable of contributing, to "pay it backward", to help alleviate our national debt.

Tax rates needs to be put into perspective. Over the past many many decades, tax rates have been much much higher. And the wealthy still worked. Investors still invested. The country thrived.

Pres. Clinton raised taxes 31% to 40% (marginal rates). The economy grew jobs a a really good pace, a better pace then when Pres. Bush-2 lowered rates.

There is little evidence that shows that raising tax rates/higher tax rates is going to cause the economy to go into some kind of tailspin.

Taxes under Reagan were higher than what is being proposed by the Buffet Rule. But you would think Pres.Obama is asking for every wealthy person to cut off a limb for goodness sake! As if this tax increase proposal is a fate worse than death! Really, the reactions are quite ridiculous. Why?

I think it is shameful and indefensible that the wealthy would be so disagreeable to higher taxes. Men and women in our military give their lives for our country. Perspective.

[-] 0 points by ibanker (-99) 2 years ago

Well April, I have not come across a single economist/historian who has attributed the immense economic progress of America post WW2 to taxation. Not a single one. In fact I have never come across a single economist/historian who has attributed the success of any country to high taxation. I sure have come across the opposite though; examples of socialistic countries raising taxes and severely impacting the growth of the economy. It is only in OWS forum where people actually are all worked up about this correlation because it helps justifies your cause. There are 3 types of lies- lies, damn lies and statistics.

You cannot in any conceivable way pay off the $14 trillion debt by raising taxes on the rich. Even a 90% top tax rate won't really help.

Sure, taxes have been much earlier in a earlier time but those conditions do not exist today. for one, there were more tax loopholes and no one had to pay that kind of tax. For another, earlier there were not many countries where doing business was as conducive as US; today there are many. Movement of capital across countries has become much easier too.

Also once again, the economy did not grow during Clinton's time because he raised taxes. Sorry.

Again, comparing military to rich people; just dont see the connection.

Finally, if you are really interested in finding if taxation ever helped the economy grow, I would suggest you do this.

We know that

GDP= Net Exports(NX)+Consumption(C)+ Investment(I)+Govt. Expenditure(G)

For each of those high taxation period, find the contribution to GDP due to each of these factors and find the one that is dominating. If G dominates, we can say that govt expenditure drove GDP and therefore we need to tax more so that the govt can spend more.

I challenge you that you will not find any such correlation from the data.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

No no no. You are painting my argument falsely.

I did not say - The economy grew because taxes were higher.

I said - Taxes were higher and the economy grew.

This suggests that higher taxes will not prevent the economy from growing.

I already said the top "effective" tax rates in the past were 50-60%.

Globalization is a factor. But many many countries are in debt today. So we are all pretty much in the same boat, no?

I did not say, nor did I mean to imply, that taxing the wealthy is the one and only answer to reducing the debt.

Other countries/socialist countries - much much different situations than our own. Not a comparison. Different government, different laws, different cultures, different resources etc, etc. So many other factors that are not comparable to our situation. You cannot make the argument that because X socialist country raised their taxes and now they are in a shit load of trouble resulting in Y, Y would therefore happen if we raised taxes.

But -

"Taxes are the price we pay for civilization" ~ Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

and - the wealthy have gotten ENORMOUSLY wealthy over the past few decades -

"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, 1916- 1939

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

so tell me how 3 billion a year added revenue gets us out of a 16 trillion dollar hole? this is simple math - I know you can do it.

[-] 3 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Because super low tax rates on the wealthy are indefensible. It's a little thing called social responsibility and fairness.

Top "effective" tax rates:
1960- 55%, 1970-59%, 1980-51%, 1990-34%, 2000-24%, Mitt Romney 2010 - 15%

Because it is designed to achieve an effective rate of at least 30% for those making over $1MM. (Don't worry. I know your such an empathetic person, but they'll survive).

That is still far lower than in the past, even after the Reagan tax cuts. And a 20% capital gains rate is still far below 28% under Reagan.

Because it's socially irresponsible to continue policies that helped lead to 1% of the population owning 43% of the wealth, and the bottom 80% owning only 7% of the wealth.

Because it's socially irresponsible that one-half of all Americans earn less than $26,000 per year and that wages have declined over the past 10 years while profits are at an all time high. CEO's, who 30 years ago earned an average of 40 times the average worker's wage, today earn 343 times the average worker's wage.

The top effective rates should be even higher.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

So the real issue is that you want to take from one group to give to another? How is that fair?

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

"Taxes are the price we pay for civilization" ~ Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, 1916- 1939

$14T of debt. How would you say that's going to get paid? You don't think wealthy people, who have gotten ENORMOUSLY wealthy over the past few decades, should contribute something here?

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

April, to pay off the debt we would have to collect every dollar ever printed. I don't know who ever thought up this system of debt, but it is impossible to pay off the debt.

The budget/ debt system needs to be replaced with an unlimited hour- coin credit system where debt never occurs.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

It took 30 years to pay down WW II debt to a "managable" level of 30% of GDP. But we did do it. It is possible! I agree, it will likely never by paid down to zero. And it will probably take more than 30 years to pay down to the 30% of GDP this time around. But we should be working to pay it down.

Federal debt has breached 100 percent of GDP twice since 1900: during World War II and in the aftermath of the Crash of 2008.

Federal debt exploded during World War II to over 120 percent of GDP, and then began a decline that bottomed out at 32 percent of GDP in 1974. Federal debt almost doubled in the 1980s, reaching 60 percent of GDP in 1990 and peaking at 66 percent of GDP in 1996, before declining to 56 percent in 2001. Federal debt started increasing again in the 2000s, reaching 70 percent of GDP in 2008. Then it exploded in the aftermath of the Crash of 2008, reaching 102 percent of GDP in 2011.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

An impressive list of information April. Would you like to be the leader of a lobby group !

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Not really. I kinda prefer working independently. : )

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

Well, I like your style.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Thank you.

Sweet.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

Since the 80's reducing taxes became a favorite campaign platform. No one likes taxes or government. It's part of the capitalist campaign to keep their profits. Badmouthing government. And now that the government is in such a mess the accusations fit. And the capitalists have all the money.

With an hour- coin system there would never be government debt again.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

The wealthy people do pay in fact they pay the majority of the taxes while 47% of people pay no Federal taxes at all.

It seems to me the real issue here is that you are concerned that somebody got ENORMOUSLY wealthy while somebody else didn't. America is about freedom and liberty not about trying to equalize outcomes.

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

so breaking news yesterday by the AP - the so called Buffet rule Obama is waving around brings in only 31Billion dollars over 11 years. How does 3billion a year solve our problems? Please advise.

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

$31Billion is just the beginning, my repulsive little conserva-troll friend.

The Bush tax cuts added $3T to the national debt. We're going to have to have all that back. Then we'll need another $4T for the Bush wars. That's right. The wealthy are going to have to cough up at least $7T. To pay for all those crappy Bush policies.

“I think a good chunk of the Republican caucus is either stupid, crazy, ignorant or craven cowards..." - Bruce Bartlett, former domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan.

http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/07/bruce-bartlett-chunk-of-gop-either-stupid-crazy-ignorant-or-craven-cowards/

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

WHAT!!!! well the rest of your fantasy is just that - so get with reality or stop wasting out time.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Yes, I know. It's difficult to face the truth after your brainwashing by FoxNews. Your deprogramming will take years.

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

So this will put us on track? Go for it! don't forget the world is different than it was 60 years ago . Genius!!!!

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Right on, Mr. Smarty Pants. The world is different than 60 years ago. That's what I've been trying to tell you. I think you finally got it. : )

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

right - manufacturers no longer have to put up with union extortion, high taxes & oppressive regulations, they can move overseas. Hence the jobs available in the US are far different than 60 years ago.

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

High taxes? What high taxes? Where? You're really delusional.

Effective corporate federal tax is 25%, competitive or lower than other OECD nations. 300 major companies paid an average rate of just 18.5 percent between 2008 and 2010.

What a bunch of crybabies - oppressive regulation. Boo-hoo-hoo.

Have you heard of financial deregulation? That worked out oh so well.

You don't like the idea of unions working to make sure people are paid living wages? That's fine. You'll just find yourself paying more money for social services like welfare, government healthcare and foodstamp programs for those that don't have a living wage job to pay for those things themselves. Add another $1T more dollars that the wealthy are going to have to cough up to pay for this as well.

Why are you such a repulsive conserva-troll? Were you traumatized as a child? Did someone drop you on your head? Have you been treated for mental illness? Really. There is something very wrong with you.

[-] -1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

When you can't get your ideas across you resort to name calling.

Here in the US it's not the government's roles to suspend people's liberty and right to to live and make money and that's what you want to do. There is no evidence that a large government sector makes us richer. In fact, it is just the opposite.

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Liberty and freedom does not mean "free ride".

Evidence that a large government sector makes us poor? Show me?

Define large government sector? You mean based on how much money it collects? Like Revenue/GDP? That has been somewhat constant since 1945. Have we not gotten "richer"?

Revenue/GDP was much lower in the 1800's. Should we go back to the 1800's? Are our lives not immensely better now when we take for granted our (relatively) clean air, food, water, safe medicines, all of our technological advances that make our lives better in so many ways, that the government is involved with in thousands of ways that we take for granted with every step we take. (Did you know there is a little thing of a double safety lock on your microwave that is mandated by the government so the door doesn't accidently open and radiation damage you? I suppose you think that kind of government intrusion is horrible. I bet we didn't have that kind of regulation thing in the 1800's. Not just because there weren't microwaves! But because people were pretty much left to fend for themselves. And I don't think it was always pretty).

Maybe we should we go back to living in small communal tribes? Take care of everything ourselves! Taxes could be really low then!

(Notice no name calling?! Sorry 'bout that. Dell has a way of getting on my last nerve sometimes! It happens. I will try to stick to the facts!)

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

The wealthy aren't getting a free ride. They are incentivized to work hard and take risk and they do and they receive monetary compensation for that. It is not the government's money to take it and make decisions with it.

Large governments concentrate power in one place that breeds corruption. Just look at what is happening in China with their banking system. This has happened over and over in history. They also make poor investment decisions. We don't need to review Solyndra or the XL Pipeline, but how about shale gas. The Federal Government had nothing to do with this technology and didn't want it to happen. It was the force of one man, that made it happened and now we are going to be an exporter of energy in less than 10 years.

To quote, Noble prize winning professor Milton Friedman: The greatest advances of civilization, whether in architecture or painting, in science and literature, in industry or agriculture, have never come from centralized government.”

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

so I am a repulsive troll. yet your presidents proposal ont ax increases doesn't scratch the surface. tell me your tax proposal ? The buffet rule calls for 3B per yr. how does that help us?

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

I already told you. It's just the beginning. It should be much much more. But being that the Repulsicons control the House, this is probably the best we can hope for. For now.

Get a grip on yourself. You're starting to write like crap again.

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

the Buffet rule is Obama's plan which has no chance of passing. So what are you saying - if they doubled the Buffet rule what - we'd get 6 - 10 billion more in revenue. How do we solve the other 900billion of the annual budget deficit?

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

If it's not going to pass then what you are worried about?

Here's $100B. I know you'll just love this.

http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/summary-of-the-stop-tax-haven-abuse-act-of-2011/?section=alltypes

ok, tax the wealthy aside (for now), how do you propose we pay off $14T?

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

I'm not worried. I'm just amazed at how people eat up this tax the rich stuff and class warfare. Dont get me wrong - tax havens are not good nor are loop holes etc. Those are created by GOVERNMENT by the way to induce behavior to their liking. The govt is like the puppet master using carrots & sticks instead of having one low fair flat tax for everybody. They want to manipulate behavior viia the tax code.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Ta-da! We agree on something!

Taxing the rich, I understand will not do a whole lot to reduce the debt. But every little bit helps. It needs to be at least something, because surely entitlements will need to be "touched" at some point. And in principle of "fairness" if wealthy people aren't asked to contribute something there will be angry freaking mobs in the streets. Surely you can at least see this point?

Besides the fairness principle, extreme amounts of wealth concentrated in the hands of the few is dangerous.

"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, 1916- 1939

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

the 1% already pay 40% of ALL taxes. did you know that? fair is a flat tax. or take a look at the Ryan plan - two brackets 10% & 25 % & eliminate the loopholes.

[-] 1 points by elf3 (2506) 2 years ago
[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

I already pay property taxes to the tune of 8K per year.

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

yea - another link of nothingness.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

No comments?

[-] 1 points by elf3 (2506) 2 years ago

we don't need to tax the rich we just need to tax land and stop taxing payroll or businesses - see why watch the video in the above link. Land pays for itself and increases in value in time - taxing it at a 6 percent rate would re-align the economy and world and create economic harmony.

[-] 1 points by elf3 (2506) 2 years ago

Land is the word's single biggest commodity this explains how Wall Street is hoarding it and holding it for ransom and using the government to keep it that way by taking tax off of land and putting it on payroll and the working class as well as entrepreneurs.

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

huh?

[-] 1 points by elf3 (2506) 2 years ago

tax land 6 percent - stop taxing pay and business and commodities and goods (though you would have to grandfather a few retired generations / fixed incomers first - only fair) - this took a while to sink in but when it did it makes complete sense - the video/film explains it better (Housing for Ransom)

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

so only land owners would pay taxes?

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

oh yea - that's over 11 years lol! So Obama's Buffet rule raises 3 Billion a year - Tell me how that fixes anything lol!

[-] 1 points by Rebdem (71) 2 years ago

it doesnt its a waste

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

so whats the objective of implementing the Buffet rule?

[-] 1 points by Rebdem (71) 2 years ago

political polls to make him look good to the poor