Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

dkf

(37,305 posts)
Thu Apr 12, 2012, 07:30 PM Apr 2012

The "Buffett Rule" In Perspective



As a reminder, as we pointed out yesterday, the US just posted the largest ever March budget deficit in history of nearly $200 billion, which followed the single largest monthly budget deficit on record of $232 billion. Keep those numbers in mind, because they frame, in a very, very, very aggressive case, the bottom and top range of what the entire Buffett Rule would offset in terms of gained revenue. As rick explains, assuming one taxes an upper estimate of those eligible for the Buffett Rule (indicatively 225,000 people but realistically far less) an incremental $1 million, the offset would be $225 billion over the proposal's life. Which is not enough to even plug one month of US deficit. And that is what all the posturing is about.

Now don't get us wrong: America has a record deficit problem, and it will require both revenue and spending decisions to fix it, but in isolation, neither will make a dent, and with the government as bloated as it is, far more spending cuts will be required to match any revenue increases.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/buffett-rule-perspective
8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
 

dkf

(37,305 posts)
2. Higher taxes on everyone in combination with cuts in spending.
Thu Apr 12, 2012, 07:39 PM
Apr 2012

That's the only solution.

I'm resigned to it.

The Magistrate

(95,237 posts)
3. Given Where The Money Actually Is, Ma'am, That Means Much Stiffer Taxes On The Rich
Thu Apr 12, 2012, 07:46 PM
Apr 2012

Taxing 'capital gains' at straight income rates above a thresh-hold approximating half the value of a single family dwelling; abolishing items like 'carried interest'; transaction taxes on sale of financial instruments; minimum tax liability for corporations, set at something on the order of twenty to twenty-five percent....

We should also consider placing labor tariffs on imports, requiring the importer to pay the difference between the wage paid overseas and the currently prevailing wage in this country...

Selatius

(20,441 posts)
5. +1. But to do all of that, we'd need a very liberal majority and a liberal president.
Thu Apr 12, 2012, 11:03 PM
Apr 2012

I don't think Americans have elected such a liberal Congress to power since Lyndon Johnson when he pushed through Medicare, and the only other time Americans did something at that scale inside Congress was under Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s. New Deal Democrats are, sadly, rare birds nowadays. There's quite a lot of money riding against people electing a liberal majority. Money, and a metric ton of corporate propaganda on radio and television pretty much guard against that possibility.

The Magistrate

(95,237 posts)
7. So, Then, Ma'am, You Support These Proposals
Fri Apr 13, 2012, 07:40 PM
Apr 2012

Along with a bit over-looked in the haste of posting, namely re-instatement of the estate tax, with a cut-off at about one million, and with a steeply graduated rate....

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The "Buffett Rule&qu...