Last Tuesday, President Obama laid out his legislative vision for the year ahead in his State of the Union address. One of the more interesting and intriguing elements of the speech was the so-called, "Buffett Rule." For those that may not know, the "Buffett Rule" is named after billionaire businessman and investor Warren Buffett. The president is proposing that all Americans should pay their fair share in taxes as a way to generate revenues to help bring down the deficit. The "Buffett Rule" would do just that. The concept of the "Buffett Rule" comes from the fact that Warren Buffett's secretary pays a higher tax rate than Buffett himself. According to the President, this just isn't right. Why should we expect someone in the middle class to pay more taxes than a billionaire? The president will most likely have a difficult time trying to convince some Americans that the "Buffett Rule" is just what America needs to help solve our economic and financial woes. Opponents of the rule will say that the president is trying to punish those who achieve financial success. In essence, punishing those who have achieved the "American Dream." Some will claim that the president is trying to wage class warfare, while others will say that such a rule will lead America down the path of socialism. Supporters of such a rule would say that those who can afford to pay a little more, should. The president doesn't want to punish success, and he flatly rejects the notion of such a provision constituting class warfare. President Obama simply wants to see the middle class in this country grow stronger by having more Americans sacrifice a little of themselves for the greater good of their country.
The President can say whatever he wants but he is clearly trying to gin up class warfare as a distraction to the economy and jobs situation, not to mention all of the campaign promises he has broken.
ReplyDeleteAs usual he is very good playing words on the uninformed. Let's take this quote for example-"Now, you can call this class warfare all you want. But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense."
You would be shocked at the number of people I have spoken with who actually think that Buffett's secretary pays more in taxes than him, as in more actual dollars, which anyone that is the least bit informed knows that is grossly incorrect.
As for Buffett, I about tired of hearing him run around saying he should be paying more taxes but rather than do so, he pays himself little salary so the majority of his income is taxes as capital gains from investments. He could easily make changes on how he is paid to increase his tax rate or just send in some extra but he chooses not to.
I don't know if the tax rate should be adjusted for 250K+ or not but let's not forget all the talk candidate Obama made using the 250K+ number for tax increases. After he took office, all of a sudden the numbers he was talking about for possible tax increases started falling; and directly in to middle class income ranges.
What I do know is that until the government is ready to stop wasting the hundreds of billions we already pay in taxes, I am not ready to give them a dime more. Obama's whole, Pay us Now and we will make cuts later is a crock. I don't trust the Republicans to cut out all the wasteful spending and I sure as heck don't ever to expect the Dems to do it, especially considering the amount of entitlement spending that goes to keep their voting base supporting them.
If Obama wants everyone to pay their share, maybe he needs to start looking at the ~50% of Americans that pay no taxes at all and are the primary beneficiaries of Government programs. Maybe if they start paying something, anything, would that not be their "fair share"? What about all the people who's tax "return" exceeds what they paid in to begin with because of all the entitlement programs in the tax code like EIC? If you are poor and get a 100% refund, fine, but to hand people cash they did not earn and can spend on anything they wish is dangerous not to mention just plain wrong.
Bottom line, if the govt can cut spending back to EARLY Bush era rates and still needs income, fine I would support tax increases but don’t stand up and tell me you need more tax money when you hand Solyndra 500 million to keep the key investors safe while everyone "in the know" was aware the company was near failure.