'Cuz the times, they are a changin'Follow

It's more about countering an argument that we must raise taxes on the rich because they don't pay their "fair share". Republicans aren't arguing for raising taxes on anyone. What we are doing is saying that if the Dems are so hell bent on doing it *and* their argument is that taxes should be raised most on those who are not currently paying their fair share, then they should be raising taxes on the poor and not the rich. The fact that they are arguing for the opposite shows that this isn't about fairness or math, but is really just about class based rhetoric.


We're applying the Dems own argument to their own agenda and showing how it doesn't add up.

So wait, ya'll aren't going to raise my taxes unless the Dems raise taxes on the rich then?

Because I thought it was part of some still-coming-together comprehensive tax reform plan or something... not sure where I got that


Edited, Sep 21st 2011 2:34pm by someproteinguy

Sure. But the one that Obama specifically mentions with regard to the so-called "Buffet Bill" is the percentage of total taxes paid. He picked that measuring stick and attempted to use it to define what was "fair". But by his own methodology, his proposal doesn't make any sense.

Which is the point.

A claim that no one is making. While I'm sure that misstatements (like those I pointed out in the AP article) will be made, most sources make it very clear that they are talking about "federal income tax", and that this does not include payroll taxes. Heck. Even the AP article is careful to make that distinction:

Her opinion would have a lot more weight if the argument was really about spending on roads, and education, and police, and the military, and if it didn't miss the fact that "the rest of us" includes those rich people and that they paid most of the money for those things. Now if she could explain how paying for welfare and other social goodies helped that rich person succeed, she might have a point.


Can anyone explain to me how extending unemployment for a couple years helps someone start up their new factory? Anyone?

The difference seems to me to be whether or not you look at averages, or try to close the loopholes people are taking advantage of.



So do we close loopholes that people like Mr. Buffet and everyone with a child takes advantage of? Will that even have an effect on the economy? And if you do, does that count as 'raising taxes' on those individuals according to Mr. Norquist and the Americans for Tax Reform?

I think the larger point is that to whatever degree we do decide to close loopholes or make other changes to our tax system, such changes should not be made based on completely false assumptions about who pays how much in tax.



Buffet does not take advantage of any loopholes. That's one big flaw in the whole thing. Buffet is an outlier. He has specifically structured his earnings so that it all comes in the form of long term capital gains. That's why he pays so little in tax relatively speaking. There's no loophole involved. To raise his tax rate, you'd have to raise the long term capital gains tax rate. And if you want to do that, you need to make a completely different argument to support it.




If you want to make Buffet pay more taxes, you have to raise the capital gains tax rate. That would absolutely count as "raising taxes". And it would hurt a hell of a lot more people than just Mr. Buffet. Everyone with a 401k will be affected. That's a lot of people who aren't super rich.


The problem is that you are conflating what is really two completely different issues. The one raised about Buffet, which has to do purely with capital gains tax rates, and the broader concept of tax loopholes, deductions, credits, etc. We can look at the real loopholes, but we should really be honest from the start about what we're really talking about, and who it will affect, and why we're doing it.


Obama's approach was not honest.

It's a good thing anecdotes are data because when Flea lost her job back when, the first thing she did was work at finding another.

This is ironic because Warren's point very obviously cruised right over yours.

Hell, when I lost a job recently, I took a few crap temp and part-time positions to get by. Which one was the best, immediately before finding full-time work? The Census.

A loophole is something that allows you to avoid the normal rules. A tax rate on a category of economic activity is "normal". We tax lots of things at different rates. Does the fact that you pay a different rate for payroll taxes than you do for income tax and yet another for your state income tax and even another for your state sales tax make any of them "loopholes"? Of course not.

Capital gains is different than normal income. Income is money gained in exchange for goods or services. Capital gains is when you sell something you already own for more money than it cost you to buy it. There are very good reasons why capital gains taxes (long term at least) *must* be lower than the equivalent income rates. I'll explain why if you really want me to. The broader point is that it absolutely is not a loophole for one to be taxed at a different rate than the other.

Which leaves the whole "Make Buffet pay as much taxes as his secretary" argument problematic. The only way to do that would be to either raise capital gains rates for everyone and hurt a whole hell of a lot of secretaries trying to save up for their retirements in the process *or* to try to mangle the tax code to create an exception for large amounts of capital gains, which creates a whole freaking huge amount of problems and would be a nightmare to even attempt to implement. Um... And that's why the whole thing is complete BS.

Ah. Yup (doh!). Tax deferred and all that. Ok... So other investments which are made post-tax will be affected. Which is still a heck of a lot of not-rich people. You don't suppose that Buffet's secretary gets stock options and/or stock buys? She just doesn't live on them. Yet. The irony is that the most likely means by which one might fix the problem of Buffet not paying as much tax as his secretary would require making his secretary pay more tax on any stock she's bought or rolls over during her career working for him.

Brilliant solution!

Well as an analogy we have people that live in Washington State (no income tax) and do all their shopping in Oregon (no sales tax). It's just a quick hop across the bridge, and you can sneak out of a reasonable amount of taxation. I suppose you wouldn't call it a loophole, but by gaming the system to pay less tax doesn't seem fair in a sense. In the same way specifically structuring earnings to pay less tax seems (Well to me at least).

Not that I don't get that there are reasons (agree with them or not) we have loopholes/incentives/whatever but still, seems kind of silly that having your farm go organic or having kids would be a loophole, but adjusting a portfolio (if I'm understanding what he's doing...) would not.

But I see a lot of grey, so probably best to take it with a grain of salt.