Talk:Buffett Rule

Definition of the Buffett Rule

I added a short paragraph including a definition of the Buffet Rule. The article just listed some opinions about the rule, but did not give a phrasing of the rule itself, at all. I think it is important to include a definition of it, because after all this should be an enzyclopedic article. So what IS the buffet rule? whitehouse.gov defines it as "No household making more than $1 million each year should pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than a middle class family pays." -- Daarribas (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I have not been able to find the supposed "Buffett Rule" actually defined anywhere, but by piecing together hints from various sources it looks as though it adds capital gains and net income from other sources together, and if the total adds up to more than a million dollars, you have to pay the greater of a) the existing tax rates; or b) 30% of that combined total. Another way of stating this is that if you get all your income from capital gains and it's over $1 million a year, you will pay 30%. If it's under $1 million you will continue to pay the existing 15% rate. 162.83.179.91 (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Reason for the Buffett Rule

The article says it is "to alleviate income inequality in the United States". Surely that can't be the reason for it because it would make only a small change - it could never alleviate income inequality. Isn't the reason to make taxes a little more equitable? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It gives reference #2, but it doesn't seem to be in the reference. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It is quite obvious, it is pandering to those that have no understanding of how our tax rules work. The WH can claim it is going to cure cancer, but in reality it is nothing more than an attempt to buy votes. Arzel (talk) 02:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

"Reaction" NPOV stuff

The POV tag was removed, for good reason since there is indeed no discussion about it. So, to start a discussion...both items in the "Reaction" section are from Republican congressmen who are obviously against the rule. This cannot be considered balanced without including positive reactions from legislators who agree with the issue. I don't have time to research and add refs at the moment, but I'm readding the POV tag based on starting a discussion. :) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 09:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Definition? Definition? According to HuffPost the essence of the Buffett rule is that "those making a million or more pay 30% tax"

The top 1% according 2009 tax data begins at $343,927 AGI (adjusted gross income).Just for comparison the top 10% of tax returns begin at an AGI of $112,124. As of 2010 there were 3.1 millionaires in the nation per the annual World Wealth Merril Lynch Report. Only 1407 millionaires paid no tax due,to business loses etc. If you are making $66,153 you are in the top 25%. It is reasonable to assume that the largest percentage of small busines employers are in the top 25%. According to the 2009 SBA Research Summary, 60% of lost jobs were from smaill businesses. The point is that small businesses are/were big employers. Any additional taxes will be further crippling. There is a list of possible additional taxes projected for the end of 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OpenToLearning (talk • contribs) 22:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

OpenToLearning (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)== For balance, I added the following. ==

First I added this. Someone else deleted it, but I put it back, as Forbes is a very reliable source on this issue:

"Buffet has stated that his secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does. Writing for Forbes magazine, Paul Roderick Gregory wrote, "How much does her boss pay this downtrodden woman? So far, no one has volunteered this information... The IRS publishes detailed tax tables by income level. The latest results are for 2009. They show that taxpayers earning an adjusted gross income between $100,000 and $200,000 pay an average rate of twelve percent. This is below Buffet’s rate; so she must earn more than that. Taxpayers earning adjusted gross incomes of $200,000 to $500,000, pay an average tax rate of nineteen percent. Therefore Buffet must pay Debbie Bosanke a salary above two hundred thousand... For all we know she earns closer to a half million each year... she is scarcely the symbol of injustice that Obama wishes her to project.""

Then I added this:

"In 2012, The Smoking Gun reported that Buffet's secretary had recently purchased a second home which included a swimming pool and a "professional PGA putting green.""

ThFSPB (talk) 11:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I just deleted the Forbes part, because a different writer from Forbes posted in the comment section that the original writer had gotten some of the facts wrong. The wikipedia editor who had removed it before was correct in doing so. ThFSPB (talk) 11:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Someone else just deleted that Smoking Gun bit, but I was about to. What Obama has said is that Buffett's tax rate is lower than his secretaries' tax rate, not that she's not wealthy in her own right. I'm sure Buffett can afford to pay his most important employees far above market rate for services. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

OK. I won't put it back. ThFSPB (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

A more honest Buffett?

" I think that on balance the Gates Foundation, my daughter's foundation, my two sons' foundations, will do a better job with lower adminsitrative costs and better selection of beneficiaries than the government. "

Buffett in 2007. http://www.cnbc.com/id/22199472/Warren_Buffett_to_CNBC_Giving_Money_to_Charity_Isn_t_a_Tax_Dodge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.108.61 (talk) 20:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Balance

It seems fine right now.

Proposed added sub-section to Reactions and Public Opinion

Ryan's argument that increasing tax on millionaires will "negatively impact job creation and investment" needs to be examined critically. It is presented here and elsewhere as a truism, but it strikes me as a fallacious Appeal to authority. What evidence is there supporting his claim? What are the alternative viewpoints? What evidence supports their claims?

74.93.227.193 (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Paula E.

Common sense. Businesses are less able to obtain startup capital if the risk/reward ratio is diminished. Those that do not understand it do not understand simple economics. Additionally, it reduces money turnover within an economic system. What you really want is an economic system which has low taxes and a fast turnover of money in the system. Arzel (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

CNN poll is flawed. It only used about 1000 people. Gallop poll is flawed as it only used about 1000 people as well. There are at least 311,591,917 people in the USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.169.93.118 (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)