PDA

View Full Version : The Buffett Rule "will bring in less than $5 billion per year. ...



anatta
04-23-2012, 04:07 PM
The Buffett Rule "will bring in less than $5 billion per year. ... Enough to pay one week’s interest on the national debt."

Rob Portman on Monday, April 16th, 2012 in a column in Politico
Rob Portman says Buffett Rule would raise just enough to cover 1 week's interest on national debt
True
Share this story:

The U.S. Senate voted on the eve of Tax Day to reject the so-called "Buffett Rule" ensuring a minimum tax rate for millionaires and billionaires, but that didn't put the matter to rest. Democrats, who pushed the legislation, and Republicans, who blocked it, both believe that continued debate about taxes works to their advantage.

That debate includes the Paying a Fair Share Act, which was named the Buffett Rule for billionaire investor Warren Buffett, who has said he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. The bill would impose a 30 percent minimum tax on those whose individual adjusted gross income exceeds $1 million a year.

Democrats say the legislation is about fairness and shared sacrifice to reduce the budget deficit.

Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio, a director of the Office of Management and Budget under President George W. Bush, highlighted Republican criticism in a commentary for Politico on the day of the Senate vote.

He called the Buffett Rule a political gimmick and a distraction from real tax reform with little impact of consequence.

"For all the political chest-thumping surrounding this proposal," he said of the the Buffett Rule, "the new tax will bring in less than $5 billion per year. That represents 0.4 percent of annual individual income taxes paid — or enough to pay one week’s interest on the national debt."

PolitiFact Ohio had seen similar dismissals of the proposal, including the claim that it "raises virtually no money," but Portman's statement was weightier and more detailed. We asked his office how he backed it up. Press secretary Christine Mangi ran through the proof:

On March 20, 2012, Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation -- a nonpartisan body that estimates tax changes for lawmakers -- released a score of the Buffett Rule projecting $46.7 billion in additional revenue over 10 years, or $4.7 billion per year on average.

Individual income tax receipts in 2011 totaled $1.09 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and $4.7 billion is 0.4 percent of that.

The March 2012 CBO baseline of net interest spending in fiscal 2012 is $224 billion, which comes to $4.3 billion per week.

The annual revenue of the Buffett Rule -- $4.7 billion -- would pay that one week’s interest.

We followed the steps, checked the sources and confirmed the accuracy of Portman's figures.

We also found that there is more worth knowing.

In projecting future revenue from the Buffett Rule, the Joint Committee on Taxation followed its standard practice of using a "current law" estimate, which assumes that temporary tax cuts or increases take effect as planned under current law.

Under the current law baseline, the so-called Bush tax cuts, which were extended in 2010, would expire at the end of this year. That scenario that would result in hundreds of billions in additional revenue from taxpayers, and the $47 billion would be on top of that.

A "current policy" estimate, on the other hand, refers to what the revenue numbers would look like if the current rules continued -- if Congress again extends the Bush tax cuts, as it is generally expected to do.

The current policy estimate says that if the Bush tax cuts are extended, then the Buffet rule would raise $160 billion over 10 years, or $16 billion a year. That's more than three times as much revenue as the current law estimate.

In relative terms, it is still a small fraction of the amount needed to achieve deficit reduction.

"On the other hand," Washington Post policy columnist Ezra Klein observed, "any deficit-reduction package is made up of lots and lots of smaller policies that contribute to the bottom-line figure" -- noting that a proposal last year to defund public broadcasting for budget reasons "packed about one one-hundredth the deficit reduction of the Buffett Rule."

Finally, in framing the value of the Buffett Rule, we note that there is a difference between deficit and debt. The deficit is the amount by which the government's spending exceeds its revenues in a year. The budget deficit for fiscal 2012 is more than $1.3 trillion.

The debt -- the figure used by Portman -- sets a much higher bar. It is the sum of yearly deficits and is the total amount that the U.S. government owes. The current total debt figure is $15.6 trillion.

Portman’s statement on the amount the Buffett Rule would raise and how that compares to interest on the national debt is accurate.

On the Truth-O-Meter, his claim rates True.

anatta
04-23-2012, 04:08 PM
staying in Afg past 2014 will cost us about $4B a year. just a thought.
I'm not following how extending the Bush tax cuts increases revenue. maybe someone can explain it.


In projecting future revenue from the Buffett Rule, the Joint Committee on Taxation followed its standard practice of using a "current law" estimate, which assumes that temporary tax cuts or increases take effect as planned under current law.

Under the current law baseline, the so-called Bush tax cuts, which were extended in 2010, would expire at the end of this year. That scenario that would result in hundreds of billions in additional revenue from taxpayers, and the $47 billion would be on top of that.

A "current policy" estimate, on the other hand, refers to what the revenue numbers would look like if the current rules continued -- if Congress again extends the Bush tax cuts, as it is generally expected to do.

The current policy estimate says that if the Bush tax cuts are extended, then the Buffet rule would raise $160 billion over 10 years, or $16 billion a year. That's more than three times as much revenue as the current law estimate.

rastaman
04-23-2012, 06:14 PM
staying in Afg past 2014 will cost us about $4B a year. just a thought.
I'm not following how extending the Bush tax cuts increases revenue. maybe someone can explain it.

I say we stop kicking the can down the road and repeal the Reagan tax cuts and return the marginal tax rate back to where it was in 1979!

And while we are at it cut the Pentagon and Military Industrial Complex budget to 35-50 percent!

Finally, return to VAT or Tariff tax on all imports entering into the U.S at a 20-35 percent rate. Take that revenue and reinvest in America's manufacturing-industrial base for those companies who will not go overseas to exploit 3rd labor.

For those companies, manufacturers, industries, businesses who are already overseas in China, India, Vietnam, Mexico, and Philippines, etc., "FUCK-EM! make them retool to sell their products to the 3rd world countries they have already moved to.

Oh before I forget! Let's leave Afghanistan.....tomorrow!:thumbsup:

bairdi
04-23-2012, 06:25 PM
I think the Buffet Rule was more about getting a Repug, any Repug, to vote for a tax increase rather than a serious attempt to balance the budget or decrease the debt.

nondual
04-23-2012, 06:28 PM
The Buffett Rule "will bring in less than $5 billion per year. ... Enough to pay one week’s interest on the national debt."

Rob Portman on Monday, April 16th, 2012 in a column in Politico
But it will restore some of our faith in government, which is also very valuable.

nondual
04-23-2012, 06:35 PM
Anyway, how much will defunding planned parenthood save, a billion?

hd79
04-23-2012, 06:41 PM
Still $5 billion a year more than the government is bringing in now. At least it would aid somewhat in alleviating the shortage and reduction of having 76% of tha amount of revenue compared to 2001.

Citizen
04-23-2012, 06:47 PM
Spending is the problem! Do all you liberals have 3,000 maxed out credit cards?

hd79
04-23-2012, 06:53 PM
If the govt only spent $1 you CON idiots would still complain.
The problem is lack of balance at both the revenue side and the expenditure side.
Focusing on one of those areas exclusively will do nothing to solve the problem.

Hawkeye2j
04-23-2012, 06:55 PM
Spending is the problem! Do all you liberals have 3,000 maxed out credit cards?
Spending isn't the problem. Welfare for the wealthy is the problem.

rastaman
04-23-2012, 06:59 PM
Spending is the problem! Do all you liberals have 3,000 maxed out credit cards?

Can't use just austerity measures to get the country out of mess that GW Bush's $12.0 trillion dollars in borrowing-spending-and deficit and debts.

Citizen
04-23-2012, 07:12 PM
So take out a few more hundred thousand credit cards and max those out as well like Obama to solve the problem!!! Hooray!

Hawkeye2j
04-23-2012, 07:14 PM
So take out a few more hundred thousand credit cards an max those out as well like Obama to solve the problem!!! Hooray!
Obama has saved our economy whether or not you choose to believe it. It is a fact.

Citizen
04-23-2012, 07:14 PM
Shut up dummy!

Hawkeye2j
04-23-2012, 07:15 PM
Shut up dummy!
There is that stimulating intellect on display again.

Citizen
04-23-2012, 07:16 PM
I said shut up dummy!

Hawkeye2j
04-23-2012, 07:23 PM
I said shut up dummy!
:p :p :p

Citizen
04-23-2012, 07:24 PM
Blah blah blah! Shut up!

Hawkeye2j
04-23-2012, 07:25 PM
Blah blah blah! Shut up!
See one thing on an open political board: You can't shut people up.

Citizen
04-23-2012, 07:27 PM
In order for the Buffett rule to be appropriate for Warren Buffett it would be OK by liberal standards to cheat on your taxes for decades and then have to pay a slightly larger share just for one year and then be allowed to cheat for another 20 years.

Hawkeye2j
04-23-2012, 07:29 PM
In order for the Buffett rule to be appropriate for Warren Buffett it would be OK by liberal standards to cheat on your taxes for decades and then have to pay a slightly larger share just for one year and then be allowed to cheat for another 20 years.
Did he cheat?

nondual
04-23-2012, 07:39 PM
Spending isn't the problem. Welfare for the wealthy is the problem.
:thumbsup:

Citizen
04-23-2012, 07:54 PM
Spending is the problem because the government's greed is never small enough to quench. Ever.

Hawkeye2j
04-23-2012, 07:56 PM
Spending is the problem because the government's greed is never small enough to quench. Ever.
The greed of the wealthy is never small enough to quench.

Citizen
04-23-2012, 08:02 PM
Its not OK to give the monopoly of power (which is government) more and more power.

Hawkeye2j
04-23-2012, 08:04 PM
Its not OK to give the monopoly of power (which is government) more and more power.
The Monopoly of power has been turned over to the Corporations by the Supreme Court.

Citizen
04-23-2012, 08:05 PM
Shut up moron!

Hawkeye2j
04-23-2012, 08:07 PM
Shut up moron!
If you want to debate, then debate. Please refrain from the third grade retorts.

Citizen
04-23-2012, 08:11 PM
Fuck off fuck hole!

Hawkeye2j
04-23-2012, 08:12 PM
Fuck off fuck hole!
You reall are juvenile.

Citizen
04-23-2012, 08:16 PM
You have no idea what you're talking about. You know nothing about politics.

Hawkeye2j
04-23-2012, 08:17 PM
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Says the guy whose main response to posts is:: "Shut UP"!

Citizen
04-23-2012, 08:19 PM
Shut. Up.

Hawkeye2j
04-23-2012, 08:19 PM
Shut. Up.
I rest my case.

Citizen
04-23-2012, 08:20 PM
I'm gonna have the last post in this thread which will mean I'm right!

Hawkeye2j
04-23-2012, 08:23 PM
I'm gonna have the last post in this thread which will mean I'm right!
Are you going to run away after you post it?

Citizen
04-23-2012, 08:32 PM
Final post of the thread! That means I'm right!

Hawkeye2j
04-23-2012, 08:44 PM
Final post of the thread! That means I'm right!
If you say so

Citizen
04-23-2012, 11:18 PM
Last post. I win!

Hawkeye2j
04-23-2012, 11:19 PM
Last post. I win!
ok

Citizen
04-23-2012, 11:20 PM
Good fucking God. Get a fucking life you minimum waged loser!

Hawkeye2j
04-23-2012, 11:21 PM
Good fucking God. Get a fucking life you minimum waged loser!
I think you need a psychiatrist.

bairdi
04-24-2012, 12:10 AM
I think you need a psychiatrist.
Better make that a whole team of psychiatrists.

Citizen
04-24-2012, 12:56 AM
http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=You+are+an+idiot

Moby
04-24-2012, 04:08 PM
Spending is the problem!
That's the silliest talking point that the Neocons ever created.

The problem is spending more then you take in.

Two people can spend the same amount while one goes broke and the other saves for retirement. The difference is the amount of money they bring in.

The problem since 2001 is that revenues basically stayed flat while Republicans drastically increased spending. Why Republicans wanted to abandon the Clinton policies that created a balanced budget is beyond me.

Maybe you can tell us why Citizen.

Hudaman
04-24-2012, 04:16 PM
When rich people are sitting on cash, investing it with basically no return and no real hope that it will be injected into the economy, then it suggests that an incremental increase in their taxes is likely to produce positive economic gains if used appropriately by the taxing authority to stimulate economic activity.

Welcome to Econ 101, dunces.

hd79
04-24-2012, 05:03 PM
If they would have invested in agriculture land here 5 years ago, they could have doubled or tripled their money. It really is crazy what land prices are bringing right now. $10-12,000 per acre, with some cases upwards in the $20 thousand per acre range. Definitely wish I would have hung onto more of my land instead of selling it 10 years ago, but glad I hung onto some instead of selling it all back then.

Citizen
04-24-2012, 06:56 PM
Spending is the problem, who spent all the money in 2006 when our troubles really began? Oh yeah it was the Democraps in Congress.

Hawkeye2j
04-24-2012, 06:58 PM
Spending is the problem, who spent all the money in 2006 when our troubles really began? Oh yeah it was the Democraps in Congress.
Just what did Congress overspend on Citizen? And after that just to be clear, who signed the spending bill?

Citizen
04-24-2012, 06:58 PM
Presidents are not dictators.

Hawkeye2j
04-24-2012, 07:03 PM
Presidents are not dictators.
Presidents have a veto pen Citizen

Citizen
04-24-2012, 07:04 PM
Shut the fuck up you drooling retard!

Hawkeye2j
04-24-2012, 07:07 PM
Shut the fuck up you drooling retard!
Would you like to debate or not?

Hudaman
04-24-2012, 07:36 PM
Spending is the problem, who spent all the money in 2006 when our troubles really began? Oh yeah it was the Democraps in Congress.

:lmao2:

Don't sign up for any advanced econ classes big guy.

rastaman
04-24-2012, 07:53 PM
CITIZEN IS A FUCKING RETARD!

rastaman
04-24-2012, 07:54 PM
Shut the fuck up you drooling retard!

CITIZEN IS A FUCKING RETARD!

rastaman
04-24-2012, 07:54 PM
Good fucking God. Get a fucking life you minimum waged loser!

CITIZEN IS A FUCKING RETARD!

rastaman
04-24-2012, 07:55 PM
You have no idea what you're talking about. You know nothing about politics.

CITIZEN IS A FUCKING RETARD!

Citizen
04-24-2012, 07:55 PM
:lmao2:

Don't sign up for any advanced econ classes big guy.

Don't sign up for any basic econ classes small mind.

rastaman
04-24-2012, 07:56 PM
Shut. Up.

CITIZEN IS A FUCKING RETARD!

rastaman
04-24-2012, 07:56 PM
Don't sign up for any basic econ classes small mind.

CITIZEN IS A FUCKING RETARD!

rastaman
04-24-2012, 07:57 PM
Spending is the problem because the government's greed is never small enough to quench. Ever.

CITIZEN IS A FUCKING RETARD BECAUSE OF WEAK GENES!

Citizen
04-24-2012, 07:57 PM
Nope.

rastaman
04-24-2012, 07:58 PM
Shut up moron!

CITIZEN IS A FUCKING RETARD !

rastaman
04-24-2012, 07:59 PM
Nope.

Yep! CITIZEN IS A FUCKING RETARD!:(

rastaman
04-24-2012, 08:00 PM
THE RETARD HAS GONE HOME!!!!!