Yesterday’s AP “factcheck” (9/20/11) of Barack Obama’s speech about raising taxes on the super-wealthy cleverly debunked an argument that Obama didn’t make. No one is saying that all millionaires pay a lower rate than their secretaries–Warren Buffett drew attention because he said he did, and there are undoubtedly other multi-millionaires in the same boat. As Dean Baker observed at Beat the Press today (9/21/11):
President Obama made a simple and true statement in his speech on the budget Monday. He said that there were millionaires and billionaires who pay tax at a lower rate than middle income families.
Many news outlets went to town to point out that on average millionaires and billionaires pay tax at a higher rate than middle income families. Of course this is not what Obama said. He was pointing out that some of the richest people in the country (Warren Buffet was his model) get most or all of their income as capital gains and therefore only pay taxes at the 15 percent capital gains rate.
Baker recommends a piece in today’s New York Times (9/21/11) that was more factual than AP‘s factcheck:
In 2009, 238,000 households filed returns with adjusted gross incomes of at least $1 million. One-quarter of them paid an effective federal income tax rate of less than 15 percent, the data shows, and 1,470 paid no federal income tax at all….
Though the group is small, the dollars are large. For the top 400 taxpayers, the effective federal income tax rate has dropped from 29 percent in 1993 to 18 percent in 2008. The average adjusted gross income of those 400 households was $271 million. By comparison, households with $50,000 to $75,000 in income paid an effective rate of 15 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
But the AP piece has legs–a Slate article noted: “But as a general point, Buffett is wrong: In aggregate, richer earners do pay higher rates.” The link goes to the AP factcheck. Again–Buffett was talking about himself and others like him. It would not seem to be a hard concept to grasp, but for whatever reason there are reporters who seem interested in protected the super-wealthy.
In other tax news:Fox‘s Bill O’Reilly has apparently threatened to quit working if his taxes go up. Let’s hope Congress considers the enormously positive political and social effects this could have on American life.
” Fox’s Bill O’Reilly has apparently threatened to quit working if his taxes go up”
talk about your fundamental win-win situation…..
and you claim that you want accuracy in reporting with this story? What a sham
why, James?
Maybe the most important thing we can all get out of these accusations of “class warfare” is …. what is the hierarchy. There is a pipeline of money, a cash-mane, like a water main that starts at the top …. but it does not trickle down, it trickles out, it trickles outward into the hands of political operators, the lowest and most common of which are voters.
Somehow in the distribution of that money, and the brainwashingly repetitive stories that justify it democracy is lost, and now with the advent of the Internet threatening that behind the scenes the noose is closing … so it will be useful for a lot of people to think where they fall on that spectrum of taxation, in the group that can enforce its will or the group that is ignored? Is it so simple as Millionaires and over, versus Thousandaires and under ????
Oh please oh please oh please raise taxes, Mr. President…. if for nothing else than to get O’Reilly off television. ((crossing fingers))
If we are having class warfare, it is between David and Goliath and David’s stick is broken. God Bless Elizabeth Warren for putting this silliness in its place.
Yes, why James?
What everybody knows is that Buffet does NOT pay lower taxes than his secretary.The whole argument is stupid.If Buffet took a salary he would pay the top tier..period.He lives in a tax base that is similar to a retired person(living on investments).When his secretary retires on her buffet stocks- she will slip into the same “class”.Of course she does not pay the 35% (or take the risk)he does on all his corporations but that is beside the point isn’t it?Really the statement he made has become fodder at schools like Wharton.They are doing whole classes on it.To quote one prof “It is startling that a man who has spent his life achieving so much ,seems to have no understanding of our tax structure”
Along the same lines BAM is fudging math with twisted facts for the sake of class warfare, directed at those who don’t understand these matters.For instance….If i was worth 200 million ,and was paying 35% on my corp, that would be one payment (that the president seems to of forgetten about.) Fair enough i suppose.(You see already the glaring misinformation I hope.)Now If i took no salary but invested in things that the GOVERNMENT deems acceptable – than i may see my personal taxes drop.Now why does the government allow these investments you may ask if they only are there to give billionaires a dodge?Obviously there is something in it for the government.For instance if i buy US savings bonds(lets say 40 million dollars worth)I will see a saving on the other end.Obama for his game would not mention that.He would simply point out the fact that my taxes dropped, while everyone else’s stayed the same.So you see this entire argument is ridiculous.We all know what percentage the top 10% are paying of the total.We all know what the bottom 46% are paying.The real anger is that more of the money is owned by less.
Clinton this week said that America likes success as long as it is fairly arrived at.I think he is wrong or at least did not take it long enough.i think the left does NOT like personal success.They believe all of it is made on the backs of others.They believe in government ownership, and redistribution of that success.The difference is stark between right and left on this.Of course Obama is a very rich man, and will use whatever tax shelters are legal to protect his money once out office.Will he see that as morally wrong?Of course not.Will he pay above the rate the government imposed on him at least for the sake of appearances?Of course not.Will he now return the lands he acquired in those fraudulent land deals he bought prior to becoming the president ,that gave him a tax abatement?Of course not.After his term is up-He will get monstrously rich on the lecture circuit.This is how the hypocrisy goes.His daughters will see only the best schools.He will receive the best healthcare and pensions.Bla bla bla
As far as Bill O…. you know he is enjoying the stir he raises by tweaking the noses of the liberal mindset.Sad news(for some) is he will be around to tear down the liberal house of cards.So will Rush.Really he did not mean it so calm the jets.
“Now If i took no salary but invested in things that the GOVERNMENT deems acceptable â┚¬“ than i may see my personal taxes drop.Now why does the government allow these investments you may ask if they only are there to give billionaires a dodge?Obviously there is something in it for the government.For instance if i buy US savings bonds(lets say 40 million dollars worth)I will see a saving on the other end.Obama for his game would not mention that.He would simply point out the fact that my taxes dropped, while everyone else’s stayed the same.So you see this entire argument is ridiculous.”
________________________________________________________________________
This makes no sense at all. The only point you seem to be making is that there are certain investments that have attractive tax consequences. Big revelation there, doc. Got any opinions on whether water is wet?
_______________________
“Will he pay above the rate the government imposed on him at least for the sake of appearances?”
________________________________________________________________________
Trotting this out again. Please explain how exactly you think one can send in more than their 1040 says they’re ‘sposed to. Furthermore, it is illogical to be dismissive of somebody and their argument simply because they aren’t voluntarily paying more tax than they should. If you wanna paint it as hypocrisy, feel free. But which of the following– and these are abstract, mind you; I’m not saying one side here is or isn’t smart/stupid– but which does it make more sense to listen to: a brilliant hypocrite, or a non-hypocritical imbecile?
_________________________
“Will he now return the lands he acquired in those fraudulent land deals he bought prior to becoming the president ,that gave him a tax abatement”
________________________________________________________________________
I think the Big Lebowski said it best when he said, “What in God’s holy name are you blathering about?” You really think that the Republican Party, with the resources it controlled and what it stood to gain by trotting out a fraudulent land deal during the election, simply missed on this one? Seriously? You best stick to medicine, doc.
Well John you should really read up on his land swindle.If your asking did i think they would nail him- of course not.By the time that came up in the election there were so many distasteful things about this man that were known(Rev wright), that it was like a storm crashing around him.And with the press leading the way all was forgiven(ignored)Of course once he was president the curtain really came down.Revisit it.It is a hoot.
When i said will he pay the rate the government imposed on him I think i was saying will he take all deductions and strive to keep his money in places most advantageous to him and his family….or will he simply avoid that “dodge” and pay the government the most he can?You already know the answer.And more than there being certain tax investments that have attractive tax consequence ,I hope i implied that the attractiveness cuts both ways.As one would believe seeing government sets the rules of the game.
A brilliant hypocrite or a non hypocritical imbecile?Great great question.First understand that I consider Obama a hypocrite of slightly above average intellect.So I guess that is a third category.Give you a fourth.An honest man,not a hypocrite,who is blessed with brilliance.I can’t tell you who that is.I do hope for the best we can get toward that ideal.
@michael e: How ’bout you present some proof to back up this land swindle you allege? That’d be a refreshing change– actually presenting some kind of source for your dodgy claims. So the argument that the Republican Party whiffed on this is that there was so much other stuff? Gee, that’s an… entirely unconvincing argument, and it disturbs me that you buy it.
John Tony Rezco’s handling of Obamas Buffer zone in the land deal has more than a whiff of tax fraud in the wind.As far as i can see not being assessed is not only fraud ,but against the law and any number of statutes.There have been several anti Obama books that have dealt with this in detail.That you know nothing of it shows how well this has been sanitized ,and ignored ,and NEVER spoken about by the left.I don’t know of any investigation of worth into it at this time.Though there is talk that one will commence at the end of his time in office.Fair enough I guess.I suppose he is the president and that is that.
As far as did the Rs whiff on it?Um no they didn’t really.They certainly threw it out there though it was late in the game.Like everything else it did not stick.The press was ignoring so much, and sanitizing so much that though the Right had more negatives against Obama than has ever been in a basket for one side -it just didn’t register.I mean in those times to elect a black president with a muslim name ,who had zero qualifications for the job, and mountains of questionable radical acquaintances…..who’s political career even was an unmitigated disaster ,shows you the strange landscape.I mean even within the Dem party Hilary was a far better candidate. So in political terms it was a waste of time,and fell by the way side.May I say though- that though Obama pulled every trick in the dirty bag of politics to get to the top, without regard to right or wrong.;since getting there, he has been exemplary as a family man ,and politician free of major scandal.At least so far ,or of what little we know
You know, just because someone writes it in a book, doesn’t make them the voice of reason. Especially an anti-Obama book. You found anti-Obama stuff in an anti-Obama book? Kudos. Again, quite the revelation.
There’s another, far more realistic and reasonable, view of why it didn’t make the mainstream Republican attack arsenal: because it didn’t amount to anything. A guy buys a swath of property from his neighbor? Yeah, I can certainly see how that just screams tax fraud. Any more “evidence” you’d like to trot out?
This discussion seems to fallen off the rails. Is or is there not a real unfairness about the distribution of
income in this country ? If so , what is the overall and future effect to our growth and development as a
country ?
michael e, I beg you, please proofread your posts. Periods require a space after the period to denote the beginning of the next sentence. Your posts contain several errors in capitalization, spacing, spelling and punctuation. In fact, I counted 20 such errors in just the first paragraph of your first post, so many that some of your points become difficult to discern.
Okay fine so Buffett was talking about himself. So then the next question has to be, why is it that on average wealthy people pay a lot more of their income in taxes than Buffett? It must be that he has arranged things in such a way that most of his income is not subject to the ordinary income tax rate, as well as the Medicare payroll tax. I think virtually all his income is capital gains and perhaps he owns tax free municipal bonds.
So what is Buffett proposing to remedy this alleged problem? Not increasing the capital gains tax rate as far as I know. Instead he wants to increase the tax on ordinary income, of which he has very little.
In other words his remedy to the alleged problem that he pays a lower rate than his secretary would have no effect on him but would increase a bunch of other people’s taxes instead. Lefties always like to throw the word “hypocrite” around. Does that apply here? And why is anybody paying any attention whatsoever to what this phony says other than as a case study in typical liberal hypocrisy?
This video explains why Buffett REALLY wants high taxes and it has nothing to do with “fairness”:
http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2010/12/video_why_super.php
Sorry patsy6.I am a bloody mess .Usually writing with one hand, while doing six other things.I don’t spell check, or proofread here.Im sure there are a million misspellings, though I am a pretty good speller.Your point is noted.I will try……..to take a second to proofread.
God damn it Gerald A ,there you go talking sense again.
” Fox’s Bill O’Reilly has apparently threatened to quit working if his taxes go up”
talk about your fundamental win-win situationâ┚¬Ã‚¦..
Is there an online petition arguing this? Big potential …
is there a right wing opinion out there that is not a direct quote from an episode of rush or hannity? please, just one!?
I’ll second that one Joseph. What Buffet has been proposing for about 10 years is very similar to what Obama has proposed for 4 years. a reversing of the Bush cuts for upper incomers. The ordinary rates portion of same is only 4.6% (although the top rate has been cut in half over the last 30 years). The dividend portion of same is as high as 24.6% (39.6% became 15% – taxed at capital gain rates thanks to the Bush cuts), and I’m sure Buffet has plenty of dividend income Gerald.
Most of the wealthy also still pay themselves a payroll so they can salt away thousands more into deductible retirement plans (on our dime , of course).