iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

'Buffett Rule' Would Impact Small Fraction Of American Taxpayers

By ALAN FRAM 04/16/12 10:35 AM ET AP

Buffett Rule Tax

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama's proposal to impose a "Buffett rule" tax on the rich is generating enormous political wattage, but the plan itself would directly affect only a tiny fraction of Americans.

Only around 210,000 taxpayers – a bit over 1 of every 1,000 – would face higher federal taxes if the measure were enacted, according to an estimate by one respected bipartisan research group.

In addition, while Republicans say the plan would be a job killer, only a small proportion of businesses would potentially be subject to the tax, according to data from a 2011 Treasury Department study. These firms make disproportionately large amounts of money, but many of them don't employ any workers.

Republicans, calling the Buffett rule a political sideshow designed to distract voters from the economy's problems, seem certain to round up enough votes to block the bill when the Democratic-run Senate votes on it Monday. But Democrats are eager to hold repeated votes on it this election year to demonstrate that they favor economic equality while Republicans prefer coddling the wealthy, so it's unlikely to disappear soon.

Following are some questions and answers about the proposal and its potential impact:

Q: What would the Buffett rule do?

A: Citing complaints from billionaire Warren Buffett that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary, Obama says everyone earning at $1 million a year or more should pay at least 30 percent of their income in taxes. He has been vague on details.

Monday's Senate vote will be on legislation by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., who would impose the 30 percent tax on people making at least $2 million annually and phase it in gradually for those earning at least $1 million.

Q: Isn't the top income tax rate already 35 percent?

A: Yes, that is the rate owed this year on salaries over $388,350. Yet very few people pay that rate because they get to subtract credits and deductions. In addition, some sources of income like certain dividends and capital gains – more common among upscale earners – are taxed at a lower, 15 percent rate.

As a result, households making more than $1 million in 2011 owed an average of around 25 percent of their earnings in federal income taxes and payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare, according to the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan group in Washington that studies federal taxes.

Q: How does that compare to lower earners?

A: On average – and that is the key – the rich pay higher rates. The center computes that families earning $30,000 to $40,000 owed an average 6 percent of it in income and payroll taxes last year. People making $50,000 to $75,000 owed an average 12 percent, while those making $75,000 to $100,000 paid an average 13 percent.

Q: Then what's the problem?

A: The White House says it's not the averages that bother them. It's that thousands of individual million-dollar earners pay lower rates than millions of middle-income workers.

Citing Internal Revenue Service data, the White House says 22,000 households making more than $1 million paid less than 15 percent of their earnings in federal income and payroll taxes. That includes 1,470 such families who paid nothing in federal income taxes.

Q: So where does Obama's 30 percent figure come from?

A: White House officials said last week that they want no household earning more than $1 million a year paying a smaller portion of its income in taxes than the middle class. While the term "middle class" is imprecise, IRS data show that the administration would come very close to that target by imposing a 30 percent tax on the highest earners. Out of around 27 million taxpayers who earned $50,000 to $100,000 in 2009, only around 2,000 ended up paying income tax rates of 30 percent or more.

Q: Overall, how many taxpayers would have to pay more if the Buffett rule becomes law?

A: The Tax Policy Center projects that there will be 438,000 households earning $1 million or more annually in 2015, the year they examined to give presidential candidates' tax plans time to be enacted and take effect. Of those taxpayers, the center expects around 210,000 to face higher taxes if legislation like the Senate Democratic bill becomes law. That is just over one-tenth of one percent of all 169 million taxpayers.

Q: What impact would the Buffett rule have on businesses?

A: The Buffett rule would apply to individual income tax rates. It would not apply to the taxes that corporations pay, although Obama has separately proposed to increase taxes on some corporations including some that do work abroad.

Yet the proposal would still affect thousands of companies, from the local bakery to hugely profitable law firms, whose owners pay individual income taxes on the earnings, not corporate taxes. Republicans say taxing these companies would snatch away money they could otherwise use to create jobs – a damaging move with the economy still laboring to recover from the recession.

Q: Are there many of these companies?

A: In a paper last August, Treasury researchers analyzing tax data found that around 35 million individual tax returns reported some business income but just 331,000 of them – about 1 percent – were for earners making $1 million and up.

Out of those 331,000 business taxpayers earning at least $1 million, just 200,000 were employers, the study found.

Those 200,000 high-income employers accounted for just 5 percent of all employers filing business earnings on their individual returns. But they reported $189 billion in business income – a disproportionately huge 50 percent of all business earnings reported by such employers.

Republicans say it would inhibit job creation to tax away those large firms' earnings. Democrats argue the figures show how few high-earning taxpayers actually hire people.

The Treasury figures were for the 2007 tax year, the most recent available.

FOLLOW MONEY

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama's proposal to impose a "Buffett rule" tax on the rich is generating enormous political wattage, but the plan itself would directly affect only a tiny fraction of A...
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama's proposal to impose a "Buffett rule" tax on the rich is generating enormous political wattage, but the plan itself would directly affect only a tiny fraction of A...
Filed by Emily Cohn  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 18
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
11:01 AM on 04/17/2012
My question is how many of those posting opposition to this tax actually make over a million dollars a year or are you just hopeing your numbers will hit on the jackpot?
10:19 AM on 04/17/2012
This is not generating any positive "wattage" as the article suggests but rather condemnation for the stupidity of the proposal. Significant waste of time and a waste of the public's and the Senate's time. It's called "pandering to the masses". It accomplishes nothing but tries to demonize or "tar" and opponent. It's beloved by the liberal press as if offeres lots of Blogging opportunities to repeat nasty falsehoods and foment their latest joy: class warfare. Pretty sad waste of time or resources and playing solely on the emotions of the less educated .
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
stuart100s
I started with nothing, & still have most of it.
02:08 PM on 04/16/2012
It is far easier to explain than that. "Do as I say, not as I do." That is the shortest and easiest explaination of the Buffett rule.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JDH1950
12:58 PM on 04/16/2012
The aleged outrage is the result of propaganda. Like the AHA, the facts are spun by the "wrong" (I refuse to call them the "right) to create a diversionary flag around which the mutants can be counted upon to rally.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jaye4412
Proud Liberal Marine..
12:00 PM on 04/16/2012
Now, I don't know all of the details, but truly find this very hard to believe...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
fenom23
05:23 PM on 04/16/2012
what part of this is hard to believe? the part that poor people won't suddenly become rich? or the part that this is just despicable politics?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
David Engage America
11:55 AM on 04/16/2012
Summing up a recent panel discussion concerning the Buffett Rule, Howard Gleckman of the non-partisan Tax Policy Center writes that "We pretty much agreed that imposing a minimum tax of any kind is an admission of policy failure. If the president thinks the rich don’t pay enough, he ought to restructure the tax code so they do, not stick on yet another Band-Aid." http://bit.ly/IGp8od

Gleckman is right, Implementing the Buffett Rule won't change the core problems of our tax system, especially when estimates from the Tax Policy Center show that on average millionaires already do pay a 29% tax rate, which is higher than the average American family. http://bit.ly/yyLJDp
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jkelling0822
12:07 PM on 04/16/2012
This WOULD restructure the tax code... and "As a result, households making more than $1 million in 2011 owed an average of around 25 percent of their earnings in federal income taxes" Read the article before you start posting rhetoric
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
David Engage America
01:59 PM on 04/16/2012
Actually, it wouldn't restructure the entire tax code. It would just add another tax on top of an already complicated tax code.

Also, I am not just posting rhetoric. Everything I said, including that on average millionaires pay a 29% federal tax rate, is based on facts put forth by the truly non-partisan Tax Policy Center.

You can find the links to the articles I am taking my facts from below.
http://bit.ly/yyLJDp
http://bit.ly/IGp8od
10:24 AM on 04/17/2012
He didn't post rhetoric. He posted real information and sound economic reality and concensus that go far beyond the pathetic little piece trotted out by the media hack. You need to learn to do more thoughful review before insulting your obviously intellectual superior.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
B Powell
Accurate fact trumps loud emotion, always.
03:51 PM on 04/16/2012
He's spoken about the desire to restructure the tax code, but you know who DOESN'T like that idea? The Republicans, because it would become more fair, close loopholes, and make the rich pay a more fair ratio compared to the rest of America. This is the only thing Obama can put on the table, because the No-Publicans already vowed to make the President fail, and thus, America fail, because of their ignorant ideologies and loyalties to the wealthy over the average American.
11:45 AM on 04/16/2012
"....federal income taxes and payroll taxes for Social Security..." Too general a statement! Social Security taxes are capped at somewhat over S110,000 (adjusted annually) so that no SS tax is paid on income over the current limit. And this in a discussion much focused on those earning ove $1,000,000 (nearly $885,000 of which are not even touched by SS tax)!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
stuart100s
I started with nothing, & still have most of it.
02:11 PM on 04/16/2012
You do know the benefits are also capped for those contributing the highest burden to soc sec, just as for the fed tax reciepts.