It's generally called the Buffett Rule -- a proposal to close an existing loophole that allows some millionaires to pay a special lower tax rate than most of middle-class families. It's named, of course, after billionaire Warren Buffett, chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, who, as you may have heard, has a secretary who pays a higher tax rate than he does.
Rachel joked on the show last night, "I think it might stick better with people if they call it the 'Romney Loophole' rather than the Buffett Rule." That certainly makes sense -- Mitt Romney pays a 13.9% rate on the millions he receives every year from his former vulture-capital firm, despite the fact that he left Bain Capital several years ago.
Today, President Obama had an entirely different name in mind (thanks to reader F.B. for the tip).
For those who can't watch clips online, Obama said this morning:
"I'm not the first president to call for this idea that everybody has got to do their fair share. Some years ago, one of my predecessors traveled across the country pushing for the same concept. He gave a speech where he talked about a letter he had received from a wealthy executive who paid lower tax rates than his secretary, and wanted to come to Washington and tell Congress why that was wrong. So this president gave another speech where he said it was 'crazy' -- that's a quote -- that certain tax loopholes make it possible for multimillionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10 percent of his salary. That wild-eyed, socialist, tax-hiking class warrior was Ronald Reagan.
"He thought that, in America, the wealthiest should pay their fair share, and he said so. I know that position might disqualify him from the Republican primaries these days but what Ronald Reagan was calling for then is the same thing that we're calling for now: a return to basic fairness and responsibility; everybody doing their part. And if it will help convince folks in Congress to make the right choice, we could call it the Reagan Rule instead of the Buffett Rule."
I don't imagine the change would help -- though it's fascinating in its own right that there are no differences between Reagan and Obama on the issue -- but it does pose an additional challenge to the proposal's conservative detractors, many of whom are already struggling to come up with a rationale to explain their opposition.
Leave a Comment:
I think it is easy to explain their's and my opposition. Pay for what you use. I wish the president would really talk about fair. There is a very simple way to determine who is paying their fair share. Pay for what you use. If I don't use it then why should I have to pay for it. I am not rich and I think that making the rich pay the lazy to stay home is one of the most stupid ideas in history. President Obama and his friends might seem genuine if they would practice what they preach. However, it seems that all the rich ( accept President Obama and his Friends. ie GE Solyndra on and on and on) should pay higher taxes.
Just like Obama care, if it is so good, why is it that the first thing that the Obama administration did was give out wavers to all of their friend ( including Buffett).
Liberalism : ideas so good they have to be mandatory.
So when, and if, you get expensively sick or a natural disaster wipes out a libertarian’s entire neighborhood , then you just go broke ? Hope it ain’t me ?? So…is the only reason libertarians are against war is because it wasn’t your idea, and not because of the destructive and avoidable lost of human life ??
@chemdmd
So let's see. I'm not using any of the debt rung up during the Cold War. So I guess I don't have to pay for that. I was against the Iraq war, so no paying for that either. There isn't a current epidemic, so I guess we shouldn't be paying for the CDC. ...Etc.
Republicans - Party before country.
Provide any evidence that this actually happens and that it happens as something other than at the margin of error rate.
Additionally you do not seem to understand the purpose of taxation chem. The reason why you are asked to pay taxes is as part of the social safety net structure. You have to pay as a collective whole for the collective benefit of society. The basic argument for why taxation exists as a compulsory measure (as opposed to an optional measure) is because too many people will opt out of payment if it is made otherwise. By asserting that people only pay for what they use you are essentially stating that the social safety net structure be dismantled. Which is fine- you can certainly make that argument- but then you must realize what this means is that you will no longer have public schools, roads, police, firefighters, national or local public forests or parks, libraries, etc. unless you are financially able to pay for them. And since they are no longer being subsidized by the masses this will mean for you to drive on a highway you will have to spend so much money per mile. I do not have an estimate, but it would more than likely end up being something like 10$/mile and that's assuming the federal government subsidizes the construction of the roads. Additionally you would no longer have a military AND you- a supposed medical doctor and chemist who cannot spell (sorry, but seriously?)- would lose all of your research and grant money.
chemdmd- is that short for 'chemically medicated'?
Because your syntax is impenetrable.
Now that Santorum has exited the stage, I shall leave it to others to make sport with the two words above. . .
The GOP is the “ winner at the big fake-you-out poker meet “. But is later proven to have been cheating and now doesn’t want to give anything back. They know they have gamed the system, but when it comes to ( what’s-fair-is-fair ) discussions, their answer is, “ Finders keepers, losers weepers “. More like little brats, really !
The Buffett Rule is one of Obama's buffet of proposals that would never get passed in Congress. The rich are the job creator's not the middle class. Even if the federal gov't took away all their income it wouldn't put a single dent on the deficit. Gimmickry and class warfare in full effect is what it is. Imagine if 60% of Americans are millionaires, what would Obama then do? Would he still think it's unfair?
Imagine if I could crap gold! How rich I would be then! The Bush tax cuts have been in place for a DECADE and Bush had one of the worst records of job creation of any post-Depression President! How much money do we have to shower down on these mighty Job Creators before they deign to, you know, CREATE JOBS! Trickle down economics is a lie. It has never worked. It never will work. Only the delusional and the stupid still think it does.
So after 12 yrs of tax cuts for the job creators, where are the jobs. By the way Cindy, how do I get on the GOP talking points mailing list too?
It's a lot better than what we're in right now. $6 trillion in added debt but nothing to show for. Where are the jobs? Another 4 yrs of Bam is another $6 trillion in debt. That would be fun.
Umm Cindy PBO has only spent about $2.8 trillion. The remainder added to the debt has been because of a. the tax cuts, b. the wars, and c. the recession. You do understand this?
Do you have any evidence that the Buffet Rule will increase job losses? Do you have any evidence that no jobs have been created? Do you have any evidence that if you tax the upper percentage of income earners that this will pay nothing on the deficit or debt? Provide evidence for your assertions.
We should have voted for Hillary Clinton back in 08. Voter remorse - bigtime.
Cindy
This job creator bilge is getting a little old. Not all rich people are job creators although some job creators become rich. Most rich people are like Mitt Romney. They spend their days clipping coupons and cashing checks. They haven't created a job in years. The strength of any first world economy is found in its middle class. When the middle class is spending money jobs are created to meet their demands. When the middle class is not spending jobs are lost because businesses don't need employees to meet non-existent demand.
Let me give you a little example of how the economy works. I own a little company. Our business has improved the last couple of years. Increased demand. Recently we added a new employee, not because my taxes are low, but because I needed another employee to service my clients. Low taxes had nothing to do with my decision to hire another employee. Demand did. Take economics 101 some time and figure it out. Better yet, have a productive idea and start a business.
So do you have evidence to back up your claims Cindy? I did not ask what your opinion was about Clinton nor was that relevant to the conversation. I asked you to provide evidence of the claims that you are making. Still waiting
So let me get this straight. If I support this idea, than I am essentially a Reagan supporter??
I am not really sure if I am okay with that...I am sure the difference is Obama actually believes this and will actually put it into practice as opposed to just paying the "poor need rights" angle lip service while advancing a conservative agenda.
I keep hearing the argument that we have to lower taxes on the rich to unleash the job creators, but my guess is real job creators will just make more money if we raised their taxes. That is what happened in the period between WWII and GWB. My parents paid really high taxes, but then again they worked hard for their money. I think the current generation of idle rich Republicans are just a bunch of slackers. :)
Lets call it the "Obama Tax"
When are Democrats going to start calling out Republicans for the Fascists they really are?
Where are where are all the jobs? Oh, yeah - waiting for "MITT" to be elected. Then I guess we will SEE all the jobs. If you believe that - I have a bridge to sell you that will reach the moon.
The motivation for business owners to earn money will far outweigh the "trouble" they will have paying higher taxes. As with any business - they will adjust their processes and plans to account for the current market and cost of doing business.
I can't see how having to pay more taxes will result in LESS people trying to earn money. However, I do see the country getting stronger because of a larger revenue stream. We are a capitalist society in which people will take risk to make it. The people who are affected by this RULE have ALREADY made it. They ALREADY have an income over $1M annually.
From someone who hasn't made $1M in my entire lifetime - I think it is extremely insulting to suggest that because someone has made it - they have NO obligation to pay the same percentage as those still trying to make it.
I used to lean republican - NOW I'm so disgusted by the actions of ALL republicans across this country who continue to argue the same old policies and continue to adopt laws that effect the bottom rung of our society while at the same time telling women that they are TOO STUPID to make their own choices when it comes to health care.