Why wouldn't Dems support this?

Yes, it's a pure political move by the Repubs, but it will at least generate some revenue which is better than none.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/15/republicans-unveil-their-buffett-rule-allowing-americans-to-pay-more-to-uncle/?google_editors_picks=true

President Obama’s proposed “Buffett Rule”-- which would force the wealthiest Americans to pay higher taxes to help cut the nation’s deficits -- has met its Republican match.

Republican lawmakers have introduced their own “Buffett Rule” that would allow billionaire investors like Warren Buffett who say they’re not paying enough taxes to voluntarily give more money to the federal government.

Under the legislation, authored by Sen. John Thune of South Dakota and Rep. John Scalise of Louisiana, taxpayers can donate at least a $1 to the Treasury fund for deficit reduction when they file their federal income tax returns starting next year.

“If individuals like Warren Buffett or President Obama are inclined to donate their own personal money toward paying down the federal government’s debt, they ought to have that right to do so voluntarily,” Thune said. “This bill would make it easier for those wealthy individuals who feel they are currently under-taxed to pay more to the U.S. Treasury above and beyond their current obligations, without raising taxes on America’s job creators."

But according to this Fox News story, the Dems won't support it...

The Republican version of the “Buffett Rule” has little chance of getting past a Democratic-controlled Senate or the veto pen of the president. But supporters are still seizing on its message.

Why not? :pop

Perhaps because sending in additional money to the IRS doesn't require legislation. Last year people voluntarily sent in approximately $2.75 million to the treasury. Anyone can do it at any time. (Obviously, $2.75 million couldn't keep Boehner in golf balls for a year, but it's a nice gesture--that didn't require any additional legislation.)

And it still doesn't address the fact that the 1%'ers aren't paying their fair share.

LadyJazzer wrote: Perhaps because sending in additional money to the IRS doesn't require legislation. Last year people voluntarily sent in approximately $2.75 million to the treasury. Anyone can do it at any time. (Obviously, $2.75 million couldn't keep Boehner in golf balls for a year, but it's a nice gesture--that didn't require any additional legislation.)

And it still doesn't address the fact that the 1%'ers aren't paying their fair share.

Why not make it easier for them to do it on their IRS tax return instead of sending in another check elsewhere? I'm sure it will get even more money.

And saying the 1%'ers don't pay their fair share is just regurgitating talking points and shows you aren't interested in a serious discussion. They already pay a major share of the total income tax burdon. If you just said they could pay a bit more, I might take you seriously. But saying they "aren't paying their fair share" is a joke.

pineinthegrass wrote: And saying the 1%'ers don't pay their fair share is just regurgitating talking points and shows you aren't interested in a serious discussion. They already pay a major share of the total income tax burdon. If you just said they could pay a bit more, I might take you seriously. But saying they "aren't paying their fair share" is a joke.

Nice try, not all talking points are like what we get from FOX news, some are actually true, and this is one of them. It's no joke, right now the very wealthy are richer than the top 1% have ever been in our nations history......and that's in adjusted dollars. Why? because they have been pandered to, and given tax breaks, and loop holes, and tax cuts so their effective tax is very low. The Republicans seem afraid to raise taxes on the wealthy.....I wonder why that is? Are they being blackmailed? or intimidated? How is it that the wealthy have become the protected class in this country? And along comes someone like Cain who wants to make our tax code even more favorable to the richest Americans and hurt the middle and lower class disproportionately. If Republicans aren't waging class warfare, then it surely is a good facsimile of it.

Then be the first one using the buzz phrase to define what a "fair share" of the tax burden would be instead of parroting the main campaign slogan of the party of Democrats for 2012.

Accepting your point for the purpose of discussion, why do you think it has happened? I can tell you that I think it is the inevitable consequence of the inherent corruption that comes with having a central government, and the sole solution lies in dismantling the power over the domestic affairs of the citizens of the states that the federal government has usurped for itself over the last century, but I'm more interested in why you think the problem as you see it has developed and how we prevent the problem from recurring if / when it gets solved.

What is a fair share? Paying 50% of their income to the taxman?

Or 1% of the people paying 50% of the revenue from income taxes? That doesn't sound very fair at all, in fact neither do.

But I do agree that the new GOP bill is just posturing, you have always been able to pay more. But so is Buffett, he could pay more himself or encourage fellow billionaires to pay more federal tax voluntarily. Instead Gates and Warren have been encouraging the big money "evil" capitalists to give more of their actual wealth to charities instead of wasteful goverment programs.

PrintSmith wrote: Then be the first one using the buzz phrase to define what a "fair share" of the tax burden would be instead of parroting the main campaign slogan of the party of Democrats for 2012.

Its a constantly moving goal post. There will never be a definition of "fair share".

The top 1% get wealthy because they will always have unrealized capital gains that keep growing whatever the tax rate is. It is not unique to this country either.

The so called 99% will consume and take on too much debt like they always have.

If you re-distribute all the wealth equally, it will eventually flow back to those that originally had it, away from the consumers, and back to the investors. - Jim Rodgers.

SS109 wrote: What is a fair share? Paying 50% of their income to the taxman?

Or 1% of the people paying 50% of the revenue from income taxes? That doesn't sound very fair at all, in fact neither do.

But I do agree that the new GOP bill is just posturing, you have always been able to pay more. But so is Buffett, he could pay more himself or encourage fellow billionaires to pay more federal tax voluntarily. Instead Gates and Warren have been encouraging the big money "evil" capitalists to give more of their actual wealth to charities instead of wasteful goverment programs.

'FAIR SHARE' is the biggest con of a talking point the left ever created! And no, you won't get an answer. They are like sheep repeating it but they have no idea what it is or what it means. I would LOVE to hear a liberal on here tell us ALL what the FAIR SHAIR of taxes means. Anyone?

The funny thing is that if the top 1% paid ALL of the taxes in the US, but still made over $1 million dollars, the left would still call them greedy and say they were not paying their FAIR SHARE. The Left will never be happy as long as there are very successful people in this country.

archer wrote: Nice try, not all talking points are like what we get from FOX news, some are actually true, and this is one of them. It's no joke, right now the very wealthy are richer than the top 1% have ever been in our nations history......and that's in adjusted dollars. Why? because they have been pandered to, and given tax breaks, and loop holes, and tax cuts so their effective tax is very low. The Republicans seem afraid to raise taxes on the wealthy.....I wonder why that is? Are they being blackmailed? or intimidated? How is it that the wealthy have become the protected class in this country? And along comes someone like Cain who wants to make our tax code even more favorable to the richest Americans and hurt the middle and lower class disproportionately. If Republicans aren't waging class warfare, then it surely is a good facsimile of it.

The effective federal income tax rate paid by the top 1% is 22% (2010 numbers). The middle 20% pays 4.8%. So the top 1% pays 4X the tax rate, and pay it on a much higher income.

As a result, the top 1% pays 29.9% of all income taxes. The middle 20% pay 6.2%. In fact the lower 60% pay just 5% of all federal income taxes (due to the lower 20% getting 2% back).

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/57xx/doc5746/08-13-EffectiveFedTaxRates.pdf

How can you say that isn't a fair share? If it's not fair, what should it be?

You mention loop holes and tax breaks. Specifically, what loop holes and tax breaks do the top 1% get that no one else gets?

And no, I'm not opposed to raising the rates a bit. Going back to the Clinton rates won't kill jobs, IMO. Not that it will cure the huge deficit.

Just please stop saying the top 1% don't pay their fair share. My guess is 99% of people who say it don't know the facts and don't know what they are even talking about.

I think the whole question needs to be turned on its head myself. Before we start figuring what a fair share of each taxpayer is or is not, we ought to first answer the question of what percentage of the annual production of the nation is a fair share for the federal government to consume on a continuing basis. Can we find some common ground in this regard before we get to bickering amongst ourselves as to who should be paying whatever percentage of the GDP is decided upon?