Buffett Rule doesn't necessarily make for the best policy

The "Buffett Rule" is a campaign gimmick... a handy banner that Obama can wave in his attempt to stir up class "warfare" among his entitlement voters.

From the far-right news outlet... CNN...

... like most campaign planks, the Buffett Rule doesn't necessarily make for the best policy, at least from the perspective of many tax experts.

The Joint Committee on Taxation, which analyzes tax legislation, has estimated that the "Paying a Fair Share Act" would raise $47 billion over 10 years, or an average of less than $5 billion a year, assuming the Bush tax cuts expire.

That wouldn't do much to help reduce federal deficits. In recent years, annual deficits have ranged from several hundred billion dollars to more than $1 trillion. And if the rule were to serve as a replacement for the AMT, as Obama has proposed, it wouldn't come close to making up for the $1 trillion-plus in revenue that the AMT is expected to generate over 10 years.

What's more, the evidence that the Buffett Rule is correcting a big disparity in the tax code is not so clear cut.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/09/pf/taxe ... ?hpt=hp_t3

From the perspective of a campaign issue... the "Buffet Rule" is perfect fodder for uninformed lefties. It has a catchy name, an irresistible "share the wealth" populist promise and a questionable outcome. Much like Obama himself.

But considering how bad the debt levels are and how neither side had passed cuts in spending, should a little increase in revenue be better than none?

I know it goes against the GOP talking points, but sometimes you have to compromise.

FredHayek wrote: But considering how bad the debt levels are and how neither side had passed cuts in spending, should a little increase in revenue be better than none?

I know it goes against the GOP talking points, but sometimes you have to compromise.

The "Buffett Rule" has nothing to do with debt reduction. It has everything to do with class "warfare" and political pandering by the left who have been in a constant struggle with an imaginary demon they call capitalism. Why should a "little increase in revenue" be just the responsibility of the rich? How about revising the tax codes so EVERYONE pays a fair share? This doesn't go against the GOP talking points, it goes against sound economics. You should know that Mr. Hayek?

Just busting your chops a bit.

I realize it is all about class warfare. Obama wasn't willing to increase taxes on the rich when he controlled the Senate and House, but he is willing to campaign on it.

Of course its poor tax and budget policy and is pure campaign rhetoric. Complete tax reform is what is needed. The real problem is that the Buffet tax actually sells with enough voters to be effective. (maybe) I don't believe enough people comprehend the numbers we are facing, its all about politics, perceptions and demagoguery. And a few votes.

Joe wrote: Of course its poor tax and budget policy and is pure campaign rhetoric. The real problem is that it actually sells with enough voters to be effective. (maybe) I don't believe enough people comprehend the numbers we are facing, its all about politics, perceptions and demagoguery.

Correct. It sells with liberals. What does that tell you?

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: The "Buffett Rule" is a campaign gimmick... a handy banner that Obama can wave in his attempt to stir up class "warfare" among his entitlement voters.

From the far-right news outlet... CNN...

... like most campaign planks, the Buffett Rule doesn't necessarily make for the best policy, at least from the perspective of many tax experts.

The Joint Committee on Taxation, which analyzes tax legislation, has estimated that the "Paying a Fair Share Act" would raise $47 billion over 10 years, or an average of less than $5 billion a year, assuming the Bush tax cuts expire.

That wouldn't do much to help reduce federal deficits. In recent years, annual deficits have ranged from several hundred billion dollars to more than $1 trillion. And if the rule were to serve as a replacement for the AMT, as Obama has proposed, it wouldn't come close to making up for the $1 trillion-plus in revenue that the AMT is expected to generate over 10 years.

What's more, the evidence that the Buffett Rule is correcting a big disparity in the tax code is not so clear cut.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/09/pf/taxe ... ?hpt=hp_t3

From the perspective of a campaign issue... the "Buffet Rule" is perfect fodder for uninformed lefties. It has a catchy name, an irresistible "share the wealth" populist promise and a questionable outcome. Much like Obama himself.

400 people have more wealth than 150,000,000 of us..Let that marinate for awhile- 400 people have more money than 150,000,000 of us!

It is definately Class Warfare and I'm not ashamed to say it. I wanna go to war on those greedy bastards, they went to war on us to get ALL THE MONEY!!

Do you understand that you unemployed stupid *ss?


Yeah, its war

Jesus Christ! I wonder how many times you have to be hit on the head before you turn around to find out who's hitting you? It's moron America on full display @285Bound.com, and I gotta laugh at the "sensable" people that chime in with misinformed, slightly softer, more reasonable sounding, incredibly ignorant bulls**t.. So stick a fork in me, I'm done here, I just can't waste my time with people that don't even know whats going around around them...I need a higher level of discussion..

VL, Consider this (I know wasted effort,) economies with more progressive tax systems like France tend to have higher unemployment. Maybe when you penalize the job creators, they move elsewhere or decide not to risk thier capital if they know the Feds are going to take more of it than they earn?

Those 400 will choose to buy tax free municipal bonds instead of opening up a new manufacturing facility with their wealth or hire tax accountants to find them the new loopholes Congress likes to create.

Fred..If I was your nieghbor we wouldn't talk politics and I think we'd get along just fine..The tax system in France is not the reason thier economy is stagnant, in fact to say that is absurd..But how bout those Rockies? My sorces within the organization have indicated to mme that Tulowitzky is not too popular in the Clubhouse right now, aparently he has Pete Rose syndrome and wants everybody to prepare for game the same way he does..Don't expect him to be a good manager some day

He promised to tone his s*** down, but we'll see what happens

Vice Lord wrote:
[snip]

Jesus Christ! I wonder how many times you have to be hit on the head before you turn around to find out who's hitting you? It's moron America on full display @285Bound.com, and I gotta laugh at the "sensable" people that chime in with misinformed, slightly softer, more reasonable sounding, incredibly ignorant bulls**t.. So stick a fork in me, I'm done here, I just can't waste my time with people that don't even know whats going around around them...I need a higher level of discussion..

Try here... http://www.cpusa.org/