Buffett millionaires tax to raise $47 billion: report

Comments (12)
Josorr wrote:

47 billion over 10 years?? It’s a drop in the bucket. If a 30% minimum tax on millionaires will only raise an additional 47 billion over 10 years, the wealthy are already being taxed pretty heavily. That much more won’t mean much to them. They’ll stay rich and maybe some of the poor who want something for nothing will be appeased.

Mar 21, 2012 10:12am EDT  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

@Josorr…I’m not sure I’d be willing to even call that a drop, unless the bucket is, say, the size of the Atlantic Ocean.

This is the problem with the Dems philosphy; they don’t understand (or refuse to speak to the realities of) the business/economic/financial realities underlying their initiatives. The truth is that taxing millionaires will not even begin to solve our fiscal problems.

We need structural reform on many levels that is much more akin to what Paul Ryan has proposed than Obama’s budget. But it seems half of the American public does not udnerstand this.

“Those dirty Republicans want to take away Medicare from the elderly”. No, they don’t. They want to fix Medicare in the face of a projected unfunded $60T liability that is forecasted to occur before I even reach retirement age; they want to fix the problems before they blossom out of control.

Dems social ideals sound nice and make for good soundbites that are easy to buy into, but they are not economically feasible. This ship is asinking and although it cannot be fixed immediately, it will take at least a decade to effect needed change, we currently DON’T HAVE A PLAN – is that what you call leadership?

…rather, misleadership in my mind.

Mar 21, 2012 11:07am EDT  --  Report as abuse
shredman wrote:

If Buffet supports this ‘Tax’, why is he spending 10s of millions fighting the taxes that he now legally owes?

Mar 21, 2012 11:31am EDT  --  Report as abuse
txgadfly wrote:

Just how stupid do you think we are?

Republicans are dead set against the “Buffett” tax, which would raise $47 billion over a decade, while supporting keeping the AMT which would raise $1 trillion from the same rich people? So Republicans are against a $953 billion tax cut for the rich? Sure they are.

Games and lies and lies and games. Anyone who believes anything put out by the Federal Government is an idiot. What we really need is to strip Federal benefits from liars, whether Civil Service or elected officials, retroactive to the date of the lie.

We also need financial transaction taxes for such things as “portfolio insurance”, debt aggregate sales and purchases, forward sales of anything at all, any kind of intangible or financial “swap”, or credit “insurance” transactions. Since corporations are now “people” and US citizens of flesh and blood are subject to worldwide taxation, the same ought to be applied to corporations, their foreign owners, affiliates and subsidiaries.

That would solve the deficit in a heartbeat, especially if we stop dead any foreign military deployments for, say, the next 100 years.

But instead you can count on more deception and lies and taxes on the working poor together with cuts in benefits. And rigged elections. Don’t forget rigged tax systems too.

Mar 21, 2012 11:35am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Radical_1 wrote:

Some people will believe anything! There’s NO WAY that the Buffett Tax will ONLY raise $47bil over 10yrs, as it also raises taxes on the GE’s of the US that pay 0% taxes or next to nothing now. This would easily raise hundreds of billions in tax money over the next 10yrs if not into the trillions. This is what the retarded republicans want you to believe as they don’t want to tax their voter base anymore than it is taxed now! Not to worry though as the American people are seeing right through them and most will be gone come Nov. We’re tired of the “PARTY OF NO”!

Mar 21, 2012 12:07pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
medic wrote:

Since some of us want to return to the social life of the 1950s, why not the tax rates of the 1950s?

Mar 21, 2012 12:36pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
tbirds71 wrote:

$47 Billion over a decade? With $1 trillion per year deficits ($10 trillion over the next decade), this amounts to less then one half of one percent of our deficit. This is proof that taxing millionaires is not the magic elixir to cure all ills that liberals think it is. Can we get to the real problem, which is spending, and stop all the “tax the rich” nonsense.

Mar 21, 2012 1:51pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
moonhill wrote:

I agree with tbirds71. This is just a drop in the bucket towards our debt. We have to get spending under control and the Democrats don’t have the guts to do it.

Mar 21, 2012 3:09pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
taxcorps2 wrote:

Diverse opinions abound, here and across the country, on what the real problem with the economy and tax system is, and what the fix should be.
Unless one is well versed in accounting and finance and has studied actual tax documents and laws in detail, how does one really know what the entire, real situation is? I am a registered Democrat, yet I see the logarithmic increase in Medicare spending, largely due to the influx of people with various health conditions who are much younger than 65 being enrolled in Medicare because of having a certain condition, then virtually all of their health needs are served under Medicare. I am a sole proprietor health care provider, and pay both the employee and employer FICA and Medicare payroll taxes on my earnings, yet Medicare minimally covers the services for my profession compared with other degreed, licensed health professions. I think neither of these situations is fair, but neither are really due to Democrats or Republicans, as far as I can see.
I also see that a large corp. such as GE paid zero in corp. income tax on the billions they made, while a sole proprietor with a very small business such as mine pays at least 15% on my bottom line. This point, to my knowledge, is more of a partisan issue, in that large corporations such as GE are generally Republican oriented and Republican supported.

Much of the economic issue is not or does not need to be partisan. Without some genuine effort on both sides of the aisle to get together and work out things in a reasonable manner, things will continue to go down hill for the middle and lower income majority, but very possibly and ultimately, for the wealthy also.

Sustained bad conditions for the masses have in history always resulted in a turnover of power, and that turnover does not seem to be a pretty scene. If nothing else, more poverty, lack of support for public education, are likely to lead to more crime, which can affect the wealthy just as it can affect anyone else.

Mar 21, 2012 3:15pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
anarcurt wrote:

Can we please just slash military spending? That’s the money pit.

Mar 21, 2012 3:55pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Jeepgirl wrote:

I don’t believe that even touches the interest on the National Debt.

We need to work on the massive National Debt. Get the nation back to work.

The news that came out today that they are going to ship the LNG from Alaska North Slope to Asia makes no sense when our country can use the energy.

Mr. President Obama’s decisions and results are just putting America further down as a nation.

In my honest opinion.

Mar 21, 2012 5:10pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Calibration wrote:

Now we know why Buffet proposed the tax in the first place!

Mar 21, 2012 12:10am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.