MinnPost’s Daily Newsletter
The latest on the politics and policy shaping Minnesota.
Delivered straight
to your inbox.
Stay in the know.
MinnPost’s top stories delivered straight to your inbox Monday through Saturday.
WASHINGTON — When the Senate takes up the Obama administration’s so-called Buffett Rule on Monday, no one expects the measure to pass. Democrats would need several Republican defectors to break a filibuster, and there is simply no support for the high-income tax plan on that side of the aisle.
Both of Minnesota’s Democratic U.S. Senators will vote for the measure — Sen. Al Franken is a co-sponsor of the actual bill — one of the most high-profile policies President Obama has pushed this election year.
Obama’s plan would create a series of new high-income tax rates that ensures people who make more than $1 million a year pay a minimum tax rate of at least 30 percent, a rate much more in line with those paid by middle-income Americans. By the White House’s count, 22,000 households making more than $1 million paid less than 15 percent in taxes in 2009.
The Buffett Rule is so-named because the Omaha billionaire famously says he pays a lower tax rate than that of his secretary. Obama has been pushing the proposal since an August op-ed in which Buffett himself complained about the lower tax rate he pays, relative to the people who work for him. The president called for the plan last fall when the so-called congressional “super committee” was trying — and would eventually fail — to craft a deficit reduction plan.
Obama revived the Buffett Rule in his State of the Union address and has been on the offensive ever since, betting that even if Congress rejects the plan — which it will — voters will embrace it come November.
Democrats from the president on down have said the plan is less about directly paying down the federal deficit than it is about making the tax code fairer — those who make more money would pay taxes at a rate similar to middle class Americans, they say. Right now, about one-quarter of millionaires have a lower tax burden than many in the middle class, according to White House projections.
“We should have a principle in our tax code that those people who make more than $1 million a year shouldn’t pay less as a share of their income in income tax than middle class families,” Council of Economic Advisers chairman Alan Krueger said last week.
Small businesses
Republicans have adamantly opposed tax hikes, and have argued that the Buffett Rule will unfairly hurt small businesses that file tax returns like individuals.
The GOP is working to contrast their preferred tax policies with the president’s. Just Sunday night, likely Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney began outlining the details of his tax plan, which includes a 20 percent across-the-board income tax cut. In Washington, House Republicans are scheduled to take up legislation this week that provides a 20 percent tax cut for up to 22 million small businesses. Republicans have argued that it’s a necessary measure meant to stimulate job growth. Two Minnesotans, Reps. John Kline and Chip Cravaack, are co-sponsors of the plan.
Republicans have also accused Obama of falsely masquerading the Buffett Rule as a deficit reduction measure, when the plan would raise only $46 billion over 10 years, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation (the current deficit is around $1.3 trillion). They’ve charged that Democrats are pushing the plan for purely political purposes.
That’s true, to a point. Obama used the Buffett Ryle to try and apply political pressure on Republicans last week, giving three speeches focused solely on the plan (two of them, not coincidentally, in the swing state of Florida). Democrats see it as a winning issue — a Gallup poll released Friday found 60 percent of voters support the plan, so there’s no doubt that politics play a key role in the heavy emphasis Democrats have placed on the Buffett Rule this year.
But the White House worked to dispel the idea that the Buffett Rule is more about politics than policy. Officials call the $47 billion figure significant in its own right, and point out that the plan would actually raise even more revenue — $160 billion over 10 years — if the George W. Bush-era high-income tax cuts are continued (they’re due to expire at the end of the year).
“The Buffett Rule is first and foremost a principle of fairness in the tax code, but it does raise a nontrivial amount of revenue,” Krueger said.
On Twitter, Minnesota Democrat Amy Klobuchar put it another way: “That’s not chump change.”
“There are others who are saying, well, this is just a gimmick,” Obama said last week. “Just taxing millionaires and billionaires, just imposing the Buffett Rule won’t do enough to close the deficit. Well, I agree. That’s not all we have to do to close the deficit. But the notion that it doesn’t solve the entire problem doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t do it at all.”
Devin Henry can be reached at dhenry@minnpost.com. Follow him on Twitter: @dhenry
The “Buffet Rule” is dishonest
The Buffet Rule would impose a 30% tax on people making at least $1 million. People who make that kind of money don’t earn a salary generally, they earn their living via dividends and capital gains, like Buffet does, and pay the capital gains tax of 15%.
In effect, Obama wants to double the capital gains tax to 30%.
Buffet said he wants his secretary to pay a low rate like he does (she made over $200,000) but she pays the wage earner tax rate on her estimated $200-500,000 salary which currently tops out at 35%. But average families earning $30-40,000 only owed 6% last year. People making $50-75,000 only owed an average 12%, while those making $75-100,000 paid an average 13%.
So those who pay the current capital gains tax of 15% already pay a higher rate that the average income taxpayer in this country. More importantly, doubling the capital gains tax is not only couterproductive in a weak economy where you want to encourage investment, but it would only increase revenue to the government by about $5 billion a year. At that rate it would take 250 years for it to generate enough revenue to eliminate the $1.5 trillion annual budget deficit even if it was all dedicated to deficit reduction, which of course, it wouldn’t be.
This is all about satisfying your envious base and their math-challenged friends to vote for the party of envy this fall.
Mr. Tester please show me the evidence not the theory
Some people may be math challenged but they aren’t reality challenged.
Just like you Mr. Tester I learned that a lower capital gains tax was good in Econ 101 but that was in 1968 and the rules of the game have changed. Capital is much more free to move than it was in 1968. Unlike hard sciences economics is highly dependent on the rules in place at the time. If it weren’t private ownership and collective or public ownership would produce the same results and they don’t.
In brief Mr. Tester your rationale is an excellent example of how you are being “played” by the moneyed interests. You haven’t learned the economy is global. Money goes where it can get the highest return and that isn’t necessarily here.
Oddly enough if you want to become less reality challenged perhaps you want to review the tax rates when the US was at its most productive. Even going back to Regan rates would be useful.
I also don’t suspect that Mr. Buffet is suggesting anything that is seriously going to hurt his ability to make money and he is pretty good at it. Gosh maybe he knows something you don’t, hard to believe I know.
Only in the Tea Party…
would you furiously pry open the lives of the poor (who get $6k a year from the gov’t) to make sure they don’t spend that pittance on drugs or junk food, yet blindly hand over $150,000 a year to the wealthy without ever asking them to prove they created a job. Honestly, that unique Tea Party combination of stupidity and immorality is astonishing!
Money goes where it can get the highest return
and gets taxed the least. We need a president who understands that if he really wants to create jobs and not just get re-elected by playing the envy card with the masses.
No jobs
We already tried the “job maker” tax break. It didn’t work. In fact, it failed spectacularly. Let’s repeal it.
Small Business Taxes
I understand the desire to not put an additional tax burden on a small business. S-Corporations, Sole Proprieters, etc. have business income pass through and treated as personal income which could inhibit their ability to apply that business income to capital improvements or other expenses down the road.
Perhaps someone with an accounting background can help me out – why can’t the tax code be changed for S-Corps so only the draw or salary taken by the owner is taxed at the personal rate, leaving the rest of the business income to be taxed at the (presumably lower) corporate rate. This would seem to separate the job creators from the non- job creators. If a sole prop or partnership reached the level of business income to make it worthwhile they could convert to an S-Corp, which is not that difficult to do. Could this be a work around?
It IS chump change
The math makes it easy to realize what an incredible joke the “Buffett Rule” is. Let’s accept the estimate that it would raise $46 billion over 10 years. That’s $4.6 billion a year.
How much is $4.6 billion? It’s how much money the federal government borrows EVERY 26 HOURS!
So, okay, implement the Buffett Rule, and you’ve taken care of the deficit for Tuesday.What’s your plan for the other 364 days this year?
Either Amy Klobuchar is lying when she says “That’s not chump change,” or she’s not bright enough to understand the math.
Mr. Droogsma it’s the equity issue not the income
The argument is changing a regressive tax code back to a progressive one.
We are never going to compete with the low taxes and the high return in less developed countries. If you think we should Mr. Tester you are really misguided. In case you haven’t noticed we are a developed nation. Compared with other developed nations we do rather well. As a matter of fact several of the high taxed developed nations I believe had better growth than we did. Business thinking and investment for many investors is short term and the long term risks of high return investments in developing countries may not be well understood – or profits are so large that capital can be lost in the next revolution.
Those have benefited most from our system of property rights have benefited the most – they should contribute more and they have the ability to pay. It isn’t class warfare it is freed warfare, because I have certainly met many people with money who have no class. I think they are Conservatives.