Vast Majority Of Americans Favor Buffett Rule's Millionaire Tax: Poll

Nearly three-quarters of Americans say they support President Barack Obama's proposal to tax households making $1 million or more at the same or higher rate as middle-class households, according to a recent poll from website Daily Kos.

The poll found two-thirds of Republicans also support the so-called "Buffett Rule" –- named after famed investor Warren Buffett, who proposed increasing taxes on wealthy in a recent op-ed in The New York Times. But the measure faces stiff opposition. After Obama unveiled the Buffett rule earlier this month as part of a proposal to cut the national deficit through a combination of tax increases and spending cuts, Republican leaders derided the plan as "class warfare."

The report’s findings parallel the results of a Gallup poll released earlier this month, which found that two-thirds of Americans favor boosting taxes on households earning more than $200,000 per year.

One demographic is even more supportive of the Buffett rule than the national average. The under-30 set is overwhelmingly in favor of the proposal, according to millennial advocacy group, Our Time. A Facebook survey of its members found that 80 percent support the measure.

But even if the Buffett rule makes it past hostile opposition, it would likely only make a dent in cutting the deficit, according to The Atlantic. If tax rates reverted to pre-Bush-tax-cut levels, they would bring in 4.5 percent of the 2009 national deficit, The Atlantic's Daniel Indiviglio writes.

Approximately 60,000 people fall under the Buffet Rule, according to The New York Times, and raising their taxes would generate about $13 billion in revenue over the next decade.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a billionaire himself, told NBC's Meet The Press on Sunday that the Buffet Rule and the anecdote that Buffett used to popularize the proposal is "theatrics", according to The Hill. Buffett wrote in an op-ed in The New York Times last month that he pays a lower tax rate than any of the other 20 people working in his office.

Bloomberg countered that if Buffett had made less of his money through investments he would be paying more in taxes, according to The Hill. The mayor proposed a 2 or 3 percent tax increase on all households instead.

But if passed, the Buffett Rule would likely have little impact on the rich, If lawmakers increased the tax rate for the wealthy, they wouldn’t likely hire or spend less, just as it wouldn’t likely stall growth, experts told The Huffington Post earlier this month.

Comments

[cvnchichay]

10:38 AM on 10/04/2011

Warren Buffet may have paid a lower income tax PERCENTAGE-WISE than his secretary. But who do you think structured his finances such that that happened? Wasn't it Warren Buffet himself? And if it were somebody else, you cannot convince me that he/she did it without Warren Buffet's permission. The man is simply disingenuous.

[portabello]

03:08 PM on 11/04/2011

It's a matter of where your income is from. Capital gains taxes, where the rich really make their money, is 15% if you hold your investment for a year. My effective tax rate at $100,000 was 19% last year.

It's simply a matter of where you earn your money, not how you structure your finances.

[Stanley Scott]

09:35 AM on 10/02/2011

Why didn't he call it the Soros tax after his billionaire buddy? There are mre rich democrats than republicans they just hide their money in off shore accounts to avoid being taxed!

[John Bays]

03:20 PM on 10/01/2011

When you are talking about 4&1/2 % of the national debt you are talking about a lot of money. It is sort of interesting that Republicans call the amount insignificant but when they put their own plans out there to cut social programs - the same amount suddenly it becomes the way we can pay our debt and save the economy while preserving the wealth of the "Job Creators". Remember the Democrats tax and spend while Republican administrations outspend Democrats almost 3 to 1 but cut taxes on the Rich while getting us into two wars.

[rarriagaz]

09:25 AM on 10/01/2011

Republican leaders derided the plan as "class warfare." Yes, OK and if this is so which side are the Republican leaders on? The few that hold over 50% on the United States wealth? Or, the rest of the nation residents? Why is it that in the United States, which is considered the richest country in the world, A family of four with both parents working two jobs cannot make ends meet every week?

[John Bays]

06:30 PM on 10/01/2011

Because - starting with Ronald Regan - {the only US President who - post retirement - took pay and benefits from our retired military} the Republican Party has waged war against the best interests of our country in favor of the wealthiest. Regan began the destruction of unions/collective bargaining/ and the middle class. Republicans will not be satisfied until 90% of the country is struggling while the "Rich" sit on their largesse {thanks to the destruction of progressive taxing} and everyone waits for the trickle down.Think we may need to go back to the tax rates imposed by Eisenhower (a Republican) 91% on exceptional wealth at the top end. We live in a rich country that cannot pay it's debts because of tax rates that favor investment income {the rich} over the earned income - wages of {working people}. It's supposed to be a government of the people isn't it?

So when did it become a government of the wealthy/by the wealthy/for the rich?

[pepper1311]

04:20 AM on 10/01/2011

I would agree a 2-3% increase across the board would be better. remember Bush (41) did that and then the Clinton boom took off.

[sidecarman]

02:23 PM on 09/30/2011

buffet is just another fat cat corrupt rich guy. he must have another motive for his statements. he must think he will have imput in the process if he kisses up to obama. just like the ceo of ge.

he need to break and confiscate by taxes the wealth of all the rich. including buffett. the richer they are the more corrupt

[sidecarman]

12:13 PM on 09/30/2011

100% tax on income over $500k and 100% tax on wealth over $1mil.

this includes buffet. remove the wealth from the wealthy and then remove them from the country

[rarriagaz]

09:27 AM on 10/01/2011

This idea is lunacy.

[Mharley vet]

12:09 PM on 09/30/2011

There is a loophole for hedge funds that should be closed. It should be taxed as income and not as a capital gains tax. That is all. I do not support capital gains being raised, just the tax code seriously reformed.

[Michael Tuller]

10:46 AM on 09/30/2011

"Eat the rich."

[sidecarman]

12:30 PM on 09/30/2011

they are too fat to eat.

[Loyal Whig]

06:34 AM on 09/30/2011

Warren, It's easy to be for higher income taxes when you don't pay any taxes at all.

[bthechangeyouseek]

09:18 AM on 09/30/2011

oh that old argument. That's been debunked. Everyone pays taxes, but there are those under a certain level of income that receive a refund based on our tax code.

Who knew that GE, Exxon, Bank of American, Boeing, and others would have much in common wit the poorest in our country when it comes to the tax code.

[nlkennedy]

01:10 AM on 09/30/2011

I thought America was a democracy. How come in this instance, when Americans speak overwhelmingly in favor of a change in tax law, they are considered Marxist-Thugs?

Whenever a Con doesnt agree with the sway of his nation, every one around him becomes a Marxist-Thug.

Pretty selfish. Then again, so are the low taxes on the rich when we are in a depression. Makes sense to me, now.

[framefiller]

12:14 AM on 09/30/2011

Yes, millionaire's and billionaire's should pay more tax than they do right now. When people like Warren Buffet can ask for more taxes to be assessed then all of them can pay additionally. The Tea Party Republican's have tunnel vision about revenue to government, and they can only see that cuts in federal government will serve their purpose. A balanced approach to our nations finances would be a more reasonable approach, but the Tea Party Express Republican's are neither balanced or reasonable. Obstructionism is the guiding light and now they will live and die with this approach. The problem here in the US is that Tea Party Express will take all of us with their misguided economic's, and the rest of the world will soon follow. This extremely dangerous position for the US to be in because wars in this world are generally fought over economics.

[Cincity Cin]

11:25 PM on 09/29/2011

If the rich get to pay less taxes then I want to pay less taxes. I promise that if I get to pay less taxes I will spend my money in America. So if I pay more then they should pay more.

[pinegrove]

08:01 AM on 09/30/2011

Let's not forget the Corporations here either. I want Congress to pass loopholes for me to allow me to write off my Utilities, Transportation costs, food, lodging, etc. I'll bet I can show a "loss" if they give me enough loopholes.....

[PatrickforO]

11:05 PM on 09/29/2011

Of course we do. Reasonable people are quite aware that it costs money to live and do business under the rule of law in a republic like the United States.

[Bruce Fenton]

11:03 PM on 09/29/2011

Who on planet earth would ever answer yes to a question about supporting anyone being taxed for anything without first asking "what are the taxes for?"

Better yet, how about we ask if the taxes are so morally right that they warrant being seized by force as they are for a particular cause.

[PatrickforO]

11:14 PM on 09/29/2011

Does your comment mean that I don't have to have my taxes to go to the $650 billion annual military budget? The futile $40 billion annual war on drugs, which we lost as soon as we declared?

The top 5%, have managed to amass $40 trillion between 1985 and current date, while we sheep have docilely fallen prey to the corporate propaganda apparatus. Example: If the government tries to do something to help Americans, such as implement single payer healthcare not tied to work, we have been trained to fear it as horrible bad terrible socialism. And if Amazon works people 11 hours in 100 degree heat and only pays them for 8, well, so what? That is better than unions, which are horrible bad terrible socialistic organizations that are bad, very bad for business.

With the People United ruling our GOP packed Supreme Court has basically opened the door for corporations to purchase our election process outright, so you can see the power elite making their play now: Issa's bill to gut the US postal service instead of simply giving them flexibility not to put that $5.5 billion annual payment into their pension fund, which is already good into the next century. Also note the new budget the House has proposed; cuts to job training, college grants, anything that helps Americans, but not a WORD about the bloated military budget.

[pinegrove]

08:03 AM on 09/30/2011

I disagree with your bio, but I am in total agreement with your writing....

[Bruce Fenton]

08:30 AM on 09/30/2011

I dont think its morally right to have taxpayer money go to the 'war on drugs' or the $650 billion military budget - no.
But dont mistake other programs as "government trying to do something good". Who is "government"? Most likely you mean elected officials. Sadly, most were not trying to 'do good' but to do more of the same- favors and perks to cronies.
Where did the $700 billion "health care" package go? Right into the pocket of well-connected executives at big phama, big insurance - exactly the people Michael Moore & other supporters of the so called health care bill were against.

I'm with you on stopping the war on drugs and Afghanistan & Iraq. But we should also stop waste and corruption in other areas -- even if its under the guise of helping people.

[ace56]

08:04 AM on 09/30/2011

Yes, they morally right. How many times have you ever heard a millionaire agreeing that we should raise taxes?

[Bruce Fenton]

08:31 AM on 09/30/2011

I said we should ask if the taxes are morally right before saying yes.

What I mean is lets ask where the money is going first --- no, not all taxes are morally right-- in fact, most are not.