Is the Buffet rule even worth it?

67 posts / 0 new

Comments

Quote chilidog:

I haven't looked at the data in your link, but since you're putting so much emphasis on the 2003 tax cuts and the wonders those did for the unemployment rate, I have to assume that the 2001 tax cuts did not do same wonders for the unemployment rate for 2001-2003.

So the question: what was so great about the 2003 tax cuts that was not so great about the 2001 tax cuts? Assuming no effects from the reckless bank lending that produced the housing bubble and no effects from the unsustainable military spending in that time?

2001 Tax cuts were passed June. Can you seriously not think of some strange event that happened that would have an opposing effect on Tax cuts.

It's not much, but it started the similar pattern. Passed in June, Topped in July, Started to decend in August.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 2:51 pm

No doubt the 4th quarter of 2001 wasn't good. But the 2003 tax cuts were passed in May 2003. GDP showed growth in 7 out of the 9 quarters from January 2001 to March 2003.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=161

The fact that the actual tax legislation was passed in June 2001 is somewhat irrelevant. The marketplace was anticipating the legislation at least in December 2000, and likely factoring it in July 2000. Which can also be argued about the 2003 tax cuts, although I don't remember tax policy being a huge issue in the 2002 midterm elections.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote chilidog:

No doubt the 4th quarter of 2001 wasn't good. But the 2003 tax cuts were passed in May 2003. GDP showed growth in 7 out of the 9 quarters from January 2001 to March 2003.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=161

The fact that the actual tax legislation was passed in June 2001 is somewhat irrelevant. The marketplace was anticipating the legislation at least in December 2000, and likely factoring it in July 2000. Which can also be argued about the 2003 tax cuts, although I don't remember tax policy being a huge issue in the 2002 midterm elections.

What does Capital Gains and GDP have to do with the statement regarding Jobs? The claim was Bush Tax Cuts did nothing for Jobs. I shown that they had the desired effect.

Perhaps you missed the event that torpedo'ed the 2001 Tax cuts. It had to do with a plane and a building.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 2:51 pm

From Isabel Sawhill: http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2012/04/17/the_buffett_rule_its_about_perceptions_of_fairness_not_policy_99621.html

If the Buffet rule affects very few people, does little to reduce the deficit, and adds a new layer of complexity to the tax system, why bother with it? The answer is that it affects the perceived fairness of the system which, in turn, affects the willingness of the middle class to pay their fair share. Eventually, to plug a gargantuan deficit hole, we are going to need major sacrifices from the middle class as well as from the wealthy as part of a comprehensive overhaul of the tax system and restrained growth of entitlements. But a precondition for that broader sacrifice is some sense on the part of the public that the deck is not stacked against them, that everyone does play by the same rules, that millionaires don't receive favored treatment while programs for the middle class and the poor are being slashed.

More relevant than the number of people who look like Warren Buffet is what has happened to the overall progressivity of the tax system. Back in the 1940s and 1950s the top marginal rate was above 90 percent. To be sure, very few people paid the top rate in practice but it symbolized a nation in which the very rich were expected to give back to a nation engaged in large collective projects such as fighting and winning the second World War and rebuilding the economy after the war with such things as the interstate highway system and the GI education bill. Even the Vietnam War, clearly less popular than World War II, produced a surtax on incomes to help pay for it.

As a matter of policy, we need to make the entire tax system less complex and more growth-oriented as well as fair. We need to broaden the tax base, lower rates, and reduce the deficit. We also need to consider a Value Added Tax as a partial replacement for income taxes on the middle class. It would not only relieve most people from ever having to file a tax return, it would also encourage saving and growth, and if refunded at the border, encourage exports. European countries rely much less heavily than the U.S. on income taxes because they all use the VAT as their major revenue-raising measure. But fairness matters, too. Behavioral experiments done by academic economists have shown that most people will choose a more rather than a less equal distribution of money when given a choice. This preference for fair outcomes is an outgrowth of our evolutionary history that rewarded cooperation and sharing because they led to survival.

The Buffet Rule is unlikely to be enacted. Its significance is more political or symbolic than substantive. It draws attention to the way in which the average citizen fares at the hands of a government that seems increasingly out of touch with their needs and overly influenced by the monies class. How this theme plays out over the coming year will help to determine who wins in November. That's why the debate about the Buffet Rule is important.

Coalage1
Joined:
Mar. 14, 2012 7:11 am
Quote Dominic C:
Quote Capital:
Quote Dominic C:

No you have shown consistently that you are a idealgue that twists facts and this is no different.

You consistently misrepresent data, facts, and use disingenuous debating tactics.

Go back to your cave troll.

P.S. It is spelled p-a-r-t-i-s-a-n you moron. Learn how to spell a simple word before you start challenging somebody's intelligence.

Stop whining like a little girl.

If you would like address what was posted for the reason it was posted, please do so, Either way, If I were you, I'd stop looking like a jackass when presented with facts.

M-O-R-O-N

Go back to your cave little man.

P.S. You have shown here that you are a far right win idealogue...anybody who has been here for a short while knows this.

You, on theother hand, decided to use a ad hom attack. What a little pussy that you can't take your own medicine.

Ya'll need to man up. Exchanging insults while hiding behind screen names is not very manly, not manly at all. Since we can't back up the shit we say, why bother to say it at all. It's absurd.

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 6:49 am

The 2003 tax cuts were merely a faster phase in of most of the 2001 cuts. Neither produced jobs at a faster rate than the previous trend.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 7:21 pm

The Buffet rule is an updated Alternative Minimum Tax.

No it will not solve our problems. Our problems will not be solved by any one policy, it will be solved by a hundred of them. The Buffet rule is one such policy but it is right both on fiscal and the moral grounds.

Look at the Ryan Budget. Does it contain only one way to screw the middle class? No, there are hundreds of policy changes that will kill the middle class by a hundred cuts.

The difference here is that Rep. Ryan wants to destroy the middle class, Pres. Obama wants to preserve the middle class. (Don't tell me that Mr. Obama wants to kill the Rich. This Buffet rule is nowhere that.)

olenzekm's picture
olenzekm
Joined:
Oct. 26, 2010 10:01 am

Sorry all Ryan is doing is what has to be done, cut back on some of the bloated federal programs that simply cannot go on in their present form into the future. They are too expensive now, and that is only going to get worse as the population ages. The Republicans have the guts to tell it like it is and propose some "tough love" which is desparately needed right now. The Democrats are the gutless wonders who refuse to face up to reality and would take the entire economy down if they had their way.

mauiman58's picture
mauiman58
Joined:
Jan. 6, 2012 5:45 pm
Quote mauiman58:

Sorry all Ryan is doing is what has to be done, cut back on some of the bloated federal programs that simply cannot go on in their present form into the future. They are too expensive now, and that is only going to get worse as the population ages. The Republicans have the guts to tell it like it is and propose some "tough love" which is desparately needed right now. The Democrats are the gutless wonders who refuse to face up to reality and would take the entire economy down if they had their way.

I'm curious Maui. Do you have an advanced degree in economics? There are some very intelligent posters on this site who actually know how the economy works and how our monetary system works. I know because I have fact checked so many statements from this site. I soak up as much of it as I can and it amazes me how many people who don't know anything about how the system works start arguing with those who do. I would think that you would actually look into it and become more familiar with real economics if you were that passionate about it. If you did you would find out that you are so off base on your assumptions that it isn't even funny. You can never learn anything if all you do is repeat right wing rhetoric or left wing rhetoric.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am

Not only that, but people who have been hearing the "conservative" bullshit for 35+ years and who have seen what happens when we give these douchebags the steering wheel. It's not 1980 anymore. You cocksuckers have a record.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote chilidog:

Not only that, but people who have been hearing the "conservative" bullshit for 35+ years and who have seen what happens when we give these douchebags the steering wheel. It's not 1980 anymore. You cocksuckers have a record.

Amen

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 7:21 pm
Quote Bush_Wacker:

I'm curious Maui. Do you have an advanced degree in economics? There are some very intelligent posters on this site who actually know how the economy works and how our monetary system works.

But to be clear... None of the proclaimed "intelligent posters" have advanced degrees in Economics. Maybe in BS, but not Economics. So there seems to be a hypocritical standard being applied here.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 2:51 pm
Quote Phaedrus76:
Quote chilidog:

Not only that, but people who have been hearing the "conservative" bullshit for 35+ years and who have seen what happens when we give these douchebags the steering wheel. It's not 1980 anymore. You cocksuckers have a record.

Amen

Religious zealot.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 2:51 pm

Yes I understand that your definition of "intelligent" really means "those who agree with me". The more someone agrees with you, the more intelligent they are. By those standards, I am proud to be an idiot.

mauiman58's picture
mauiman58
Joined:
Jan. 6, 2012 5:45 pm
Quote chilidog:

Never heard of "maui wowie?" That might be the problem here...

I think it's 'wowie maui', I mean from what I've read. But it might be a chicken & egg thing. Wowie maui was good for buds, whatever that means. Friends? I like buds, but the seeds of friendship must be nurtured, and given light to grow. Hawaii has a lot of light, organic light.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Federal tax reform should include moving toward taxing different types of income the same, such as taxing capital gains the same as income from work. This would include also taxing different types of income for Social Security and Medicare instead of just taxing work income. The current tax system in which investment income is taxed lower than work income distorts the economy. This encourages more money to flow toward investments and puts downward pressure on wages. By taxing different types of income the same the market place would more determine prices instead of specialized tax breaks influencing prices. This would allow wages to be higher than what they would be otherwise. With higher wages due to freer markets within the USA, there would be less of a need for safety net programs, reducing government spending.

Tax changes should also include gradually reducing itemized deductions. Current home mortgage deductions could be grandfathered in. The limit on home mortgage deductions for mortgages of 1 million or less could be gradually reduced over a number of years for new mortgages.

These kind of changes would work toward leveling the playing field for the working person and make Social Security and Medicare more solvent.

dseger
Joined:
Jul. 9, 2010 9:30 am

Currently Chatting

The world we're leaving for today's teens...

Without immediate global action on climate change, today's teenagers will be forced to live with the consequences of our inaction. The World Bank has issued their third report of climate change, and it says that global temperatures could rise by as much as 4 degrees Celsius by the time today's teens hit their 80th birthday.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system