Obama Calls On Congress To Pass 'Buffett Rule' Tax

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama is calling on Congress to increase taxes on millionaires, reviving a proposal he first pitched last September that aims to draw sharp election-year lines between the president and the Republican opposition.

The plan, scheduled for a vote in the Democratic-controlled Senate on April 16, stands little chance of passing in Congress. But it is a prominent symbol of the efforts the president and congressional Democrats are making to portray themselves as champions of economic fairness. Republicans dismiss the idea as a political stunt with little real effect on the budget.

"We don't envy success in this country. We aspire to it," Obama said in his Saturday radio and Internet address. "But we also believe that anyone who does well for themselves should do their fair share in return, so that more people have the opportunity to get ahead – not just a few."

Obama calls the plan the "Buffett Rule" for Warren Buffett, the billionaire investor who has complained that rich people like him pay a smaller share of their income in federal taxes than middle-class taxpayers. Many wealthy taxpayers earn investment income, which is taxed at 15 percent. Obama has proposed that people earning at least $1 million annually – whether in salary or investments – should pay at least 30 percent of their income in taxes.

The push for the Buffett Rule comes as millions of Americans focus on their taxes with the approach of this year's April filing deadline.

It also draws renewed attention to the effective tax rate of Republican presidential front-runner Mitt Romney, a millionaire who is paying 15.4 percent in federal taxes for 2011 on income mostly derived from investments.

By contrast, the top nominal rate for taxpayers with high incomes derived from wages, not investments, is 35 percent.

In his remarks Saturday, the president encouraged listeners to pressure their members of Congress "to stop giving tax breaks to people who don't need them."

While the plan would force millionaires and billionaires to part with more of their money, Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that if enacted, legislation reflecting Obama's proposal would collect $47 billion through 2022 – a trickle compared with the $7 trillion in federal budget deficits projected during that period.

Obama also renewed his call for ending tax cuts for taxpayers earning more than $250,000. Those breaks, enacted during President George W. Bush's first term, expire at the end of this year.

"Today, the wealthiest Americans are paying taxes at one of the lowest rates in 50 years," Obama said. "Warren Buffett is paying a lower rate than his secretary. Meanwhile, over the last 30 years, the tax rates for middle-class families have barely budged."

The new effort comes just days after the Senate fell short of the 60 votes needed to advance Obama-initiated legislation that would have ended $4 billion in annual subsidies to oil and gas companies. Two Republicans voted with Obama and four Democrats voted against him.

In the Republican address, House Speaker John Boehner challenged Obama to get behind energy proposals backed by House Republicans, sustaining a GOP drive to blame the administration for high gas prices in an election year. Boehner called for more oil and gas production in federal lands and for a freeze in new regulations over refineries.

He criticized Obama for pushing the anti-oil subsidy bill and for pressing Senate Democrats to vote down an effort to jump-start an oil pipeline project from Canada to refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast. He said Obama, in a meeting with congressional leaders a month ago, had shown a willingness to embrace some House Republican energy ideas.

"It was a new sign of hope, but unfortunately, only a brief one," Boehner said.

"The pain at the pump is an urgent issue for hardworking taxpayers and it deserves the same urgency from leaders here in Washington," he added.

Comments

[g9]

12:03 AM on 04/04/2012

And what is wrong with this idea ?

[dtairtime]

02:07 PM on 04/03/2012

I wonder if Obama means we all get to be massive hypocrites and use tax attorneys, hide our assests and do anything we can to avoid paying even one extra cent like Buffett does.

(I'm not saying people should not be allowed to take all the deductions they can but this man goes to extremes to do so, then belittles others who do the exact same as him.)

Or maybe it means we can own companies that fial to pay their taxes and the government has to sue to get the money from them.

[mm3264]

10:42 PM on 04/02/2012

Fantasiawave1 on Apr 2, 2012 at 06:13:39
“mm3264 --- have it noted also that these rich people also donate a lot of money to charities and organizations besides they are the ones who can create jobs since they have the money to do it. Why punish them----they give to help others and I am sure their list is long, taxing them higher will just make them "hide" their money in other countries where it will do this country no good. They could also leave this country if it is made hard for them and go somewhere else to live and still make money but none of it will be given to America and its needs.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The top 10% pay 70% of the taxes, but they control 93% of the wealth. They should pay 93%of the taxes. They don't! Those that control only 7% of the country's wealth is forced to subsidize the rich and pay 30% of the taxes.
They haven't created a job in 11 years. They'll hide their money? Well when the government finds it they can be jailed. They'll move out of the country? EFF them, who cares. we have one of the smallest income tax rates on earth. EFF them, if they don't want to contribute fairly, nationalize their businesses. You'll only have to do one company and the rest will collapse like dominos.

[Michael J OConnell]

01:59 PM on 04/02/2012

Simple economics. 1) To spur sustainable economic growth we need to get money into the hands of the consumers -- they drive 70% of GDP. 2) Reducing taxes on the consumer while increasing them on the wealthy accomplishes this. 3) Having the Fed print money or the US borrow more from China and rebating it to the consumer accomplishes this. 4) Selling more goods to foreign countries AND sharing more of the profits with the workers accomplishes this.

The GOP is against 2 and 3 and is loath to increase worker benefit in 4. Besides, we haven't run trade surpluses for a very long time and don't have the means to do so today.

I would love to hear the GOP solution. We know that putting even more money into the hands of the wealthy doesn't work. So what's is it going to be???

[dtairtime]

02:14 PM on 04/03/2012

What you say would be true IF the welathy were a stagnant group who have no options on where to invest and no ability to change what they do to avoid any increases in taxes.

That is the issue here. We can raise the taxes on the wealthy and likely the government would end up with lower revenues. That has been proven to be the facts on taxation and the wealthy.

Why not do it so the wealthy CAN'T avoid paying more? The ONLY way that can happen (and has been proven in our history to be successful) is through higher wages.

The way to accomplish that is by using simploe economics - supply and demand. We do this be lowering immigration (lower labor supply) and increasing tariffs/trade barriers which makes locally produced goods lower in cost (increase demand for labor).

Your way won't work unless you think the wealthy are inherently lacking in intelligence and will just sit at home and say OK, I'll pay lots of extra money rather then move it off-shore or place it in trusts/foundations like Bill Gates does (another hypocrite).

[ecitjc]

12:56 PM on 04/02/2012

Ok let me get this straight Obama want his Buffet rule on money that has been taxed

1) When it was earned and more then likely taxed at 35%

2) Then it was taxed when the big bad corporation made a profit

3) When it was paid to the stock holders or bond holds at 15%

So Obama who has already collected a minimum of 50% tax on the same money would like to tax it more. Not seeing that an investment in company by buying stocks or their bond allows that company to invest in new products and new jobs. But if what he means is that the total tax colleted would not exceeded 30% he maybe on to something, so we tax the income 15% the corporate tax at 10% and income form investment at 5%, he might just be on to something

[mm3264]

10:47 PM on 04/02/2012

1) didn't happen
2) if the corporation makes a profit it gets taxed
3) if they choose to give some to stockholders the stockholders should have to pay a full income tax, not 15%.

Why aren't workers given the same tax rates as shareholders? The corporation was already taxed on their profits, right? Well that wouldn't work because we can't have the American middle class getting the same tax breaks as the Republican elites.

[stephen284]

02:21 AM on 04/03/2012

You don't understand economics, the monetary system, or taxation.

You do realize that 30% of $50,000.00 is the same as 15% of $100,000.00?
The "rich" pay far more in taxes than you ever will; they also use far less government services. Percentages only confuse the uneducated,

Screaming that a rich guy only paid 15% on $10,000,000.00, but you paid more in taxes because you paid 30% on $50,000.00 is simply not correct. The "rich guy" paid 1.5 million dollars in taxes, while you paid $ 15,00000. See, the "rich guy" paid 100 time more than you did. That doesn't sound fair to me. Would you like to pay his actual tax rate?

How about everybody pay 10% on whatever they make? That would be fare, but those now getting more in government services would get less. They simply want more for less. The "rich" pay far more than you know. It's simply easier to point a finger at them and say they are the problem.

[ecitjc]

08:30 AM on 04/03/2012

well how much money have the worker invested in the company, I guess if the workers want to earn less per hour, pay more for their health care and invest the rest of their wages in company stock then they could pay 15% tax on their investment income, But No they just want the same tax rate without taking any risk

[rp2par]

12:54 PM on 04/02/2012

Another slap in the face to U.S. Veterans.

Obama's father served in WW II, really?

He said so in a speech. Here is an 18 second video:

CNN News clip : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fv4jnlkxOaw

Is he a compulsive liar? Were there no reporters who checked or double checked these statements and called the party on this? They did for everyone else. Why not him?

Like it or not, here are the facts:

Barack Hussein Obama Sr. (Obama's father) Born: 4/4/36 Died: 11/24/82 at the age of 46. He was 5 years old when WW II started, and less than 9 1/2 yrs old when it ended.

Lolo Soetoro (Obama's step father) Born: January 2,1935 Died: 3/2/87 at the age of 52.

He was 6 years old when WW II started, and 10 years old when it ended. He must have been the youngest Veteran in the war.

It appears this guy doesn't know how to tell the truth -- or he doesn't care about telling the truth! -- or perhaps he doesn't know when he isn't telling the truth (which is also a very scary angle). Talk about STOLEN VALOR !!!

The CNN clip of Obama is surprising. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that this lie wasn’t uncovered, questioned or debated before the Nov. 2008 election.

Oh well, he must have just "forgotten" the facts, again.

Or perhaps he really doesn't even know the difference between truth and fabrication?

[womanwithstixs]

03:35 PM on 04/02/2012

His grandfather (whom he lived with since he was 10 years old) fought in WWII. Obama has referred to his grandfather, Stanley Armour Dunham, as his "father" multiple times in books since neither his biological father nor adoptive father were major influences in his life.

[rp2par]

06:41 PM on 04/02/2012

I was not aware of that womanwithstixs. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

[DA5050]

03:40 PM on 04/02/2012

I think you just called the pres., a ba*****.. Is that legal ?{;/

[Italianamerican]

12:47 PM on 04/02/2012

This is so wrong in so many ways. All I can say is if Capital gains taxes up to 30% I will no longer invest. That includes in the US treasury bonds and state bonds. I already paid tax on this monsy already and to keep demonizing those who invest which includes many seniors and middle class Americans in what is truly unfair in our nation.

[mm3264]

10:57 PM on 04/02/2012

Take your $7 and pu it in the bank and get your 1/10th of 1% interest.

[Sue Halpern]

11:49 AM on 04/02/2012

Yes, yes, yes for this bill. How can the Republicans in good consciousness vote against it? Shame on them if they don't. Shame, shame, shame. Oh, I forgot, do Republicans really have a conscious?

[shaterra]

12:12 PM on 04/02/2012

you can count on the fact they will vote against it. their corporate constituency demands it.

bigger than taxing individuals is demanding that corporations pay their fair share, they suck the most money out of the economy.

corporate sponsored loopholes and drains on the economy have not helped the majority, evidently unconstitutional. then again, what do republicans know about constitutionality.

[ecitjc]

12:58 PM on 04/02/2012

Oh we do, which why we think less goveremtn is better , shame on those who think the goverment should take care of all their needs

[shaterra]

01:37 PM on 04/02/2012

There are some basic needs that government, ie, the collective will of the electorate, should take care of. Rather than just putting money in for no reason as the right seems to think it should be, it is a collective pool of cash intended to provide some basic necessities. A healthy and well funded regulatory system that protects us from the domestic enemies. A state of the art education system that is available to everyone and doesn't waste money on political actors that become teachers and then indoctrinate their students on wrong headed ideals. A health care system without middle men to take our healthcare money and convert it into hookers, mansions trips to foreign lands and political influence.

The right wing are conservatives who wish to conserve a totalitarian system where the top .1% control the bulk of the economy for their own greedy desires and keeps the rest of the people enslaved to debt.

The sad part is that those people think they are practicing christianity.

[RepublicanTexasHammer]

11:44 AM on 04/02/2012

Help me get this straight: the same president who couldn't garner a SINGLE vote for his budget is imploring the congress to pass other legislation?

November is coming...

[Sue Halpern]

11:51 AM on 04/02/2012

And which party voted against it?

[Italianamerican]

12:48 PM on 04/02/2012

The budget went down 0-414 so I would say everybody voted no.

[greenery]

10:25 AM on 04/02/2012

Let's see if he could go one day without wanted a new tax on some group....let's see if he could go one day without blaming someone...let's see if he could go one day without trying to pit one against another...never happen

[redonthehead]

09:46 AM on 04/02/2012

Before naming a tax after good old Warren, shouldn't Warren's company pay the billion dollars that they owe in back taxes?

[clark8642]

10:00 AM on 04/02/2012

So call it the Koch rule. Doesn't really matter. We should also refuse to pass any new legislation extending the Bush tax cuts for any of us until we have cut spending sufficiently to end our chronic deficits.

[Ken Koziol]

09:44 AM on 04/02/2012

I don't mind paying my fair share as long as obama does not give it awya to the lazy.

[shaterra]

09:48 AM on 04/02/2012

I agree, no more corporate welfare or bail outs to corporate criminals that engage in fraud to destroy the US economy.

Help the poor get out of their situation so they can enjoy the dignity and well being of being a relevant part of the economy.

[rp2par]

10:54 AM on 04/02/2012

There are many 'poor' who have no desire to "get out of their situation". They have enough to get by and not do anything for themselves, their neighbors or their country.

In essence, their employer is 'us' and they collect wages for doing nothing.

I know a guy who is a drunk. He got fired from his job because of it. He got aid of some kind (sorry, don't know exact source) and he was required to help out at a food distribution facility for the needy. You should have heard him complain!!

[Michael J OConnell]

02:00 PM on 04/02/2012

You do mean Wall Street, right?

[Ken Koziol]

02:08 PM on 04/02/2012

No I mean welfare

[Bob Macfarlane]

09:38 AM on 04/02/2012

In my entire working life, I never worked for a poor person except when I was working for myself. Even working for myself I was working not to be poor.

[shaterra]

09:51 AM on 04/02/2012

we should all be businesses, then we would have real rights as opposed to the way the system is set up now.

It only takes about $20 and a signature to start a business. Go out and start a business. Then you can show a loss for your first five years and get tax breaks for being a failed business. Once you can start showing a profit, you can get tax breaks for being a successful business.

[lbpatt]

10:20 AM on 04/02/2012

You really don't much about business, do you?

[greenery]

10:26 AM on 04/02/2012

so do it...stop whining....invest your hard earned money and hope for the best

[Enzzo]

09:33 AM on 04/02/2012

Rob from the rich and give to the poor.
Vote buying.
Barry at his finest.

[mm3264]

11:08 PM on 04/02/2012

Demanding that someone pay their fair share is not robbing them and let's not forget they have the option to leave. America love it or get the EFF out.

[mavah]

09:29 AM on 04/02/2012

If Buffett or any other wealthy person thinks they should pay higher taxes no one is stopping them. They can add as much as they want to their bill. Meanwhile, a tax hike isn't going to change anything as long as the government won't stop squandering money. The fact that the government can print all the money it wants while having to borrow as much as it does is going to take this country down. And the constant bashing of the wealthy is just one of the way this administration continues to work to divide the people along another line - we are now divided due to class, race, religion, culture - what next?

[clark8642]

09:38 AM on 04/02/2012

There is some truth in what you say. After the Congress reduces spending enough to eliminate our chronic deficits then, and only then, should it consider legislation to renew the Bush tax cuts, which expire at the end of this year, for any of us. If there are no spending cuts then no there should be no new tax cuts for any of us. Our grandchildren are tired of us redistributing their wealth.