Warren Buffett's $250K difference of opinion with President Obama

[red dog 1]

From:
NBC News

Warren Buffett says he supports President Barack Obama's efforts to eliminate the Bush-era tax cuts for wealthy Americans, but he disagrees on where to draw the line.

In an op-ed piece in the New York Times (11/26/2012), Buffett writes that the cutoff should be "maybe $500,000 or so."
Obama has insisted that the cuts be extended only for families with less than $250,000 in annual income.

Read more:
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/warren-buffets-250k-difference-opinion-obama-1C7206891/




Raising the cutoff point to $500,000 would show the nation that the Democrats are willing to compromise with House Republicans, and that they truly want to avoid the fiscal cliff.

Of course, John Boehner will reject it, because he is a pig, and he doesn't want ANY new taxes on the wealthy.

Isn't it possible that raising the cutoff from $250,000 to $500,000 might lure 45 or 50 House Republicans over to the Democratic side, which might just be enough to ensure passage of the bill Obama wants?

Is the $250,000 cutoff written in stone?

[mucifer]

1. How much revenue would we lose? That's probably a lot of people!

[red dog 1]

8. "How much revenue would we lose?"...That's a good question.

I tried to get the answer to that question; and was unable to do so.


However, I did find the following:

"If all Mr. Obama's tax proposals for wealthy Americans were enacted, they would raise $1.6 trillion over the next decade.
And an analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan research firm, found that the increases would be heavily weighted toward the wealthiest.
Taxpayers with adjusted gross incomes over $1 million would see average increases of $184,504, the study found, with higher taxes on the ultrawealthy bloating that average.
Those with adjusted gross incomes of $200,000 to $500,000 would face a tax increase averaging $4,446, with people toward the lower end having only a modest increase and people on the higher end paying several times more."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/20/business/economy/tax-talks-raise-bar-for-richest-americans.html/


If raising the cutoff to $500,000 would mean avoiding the fiscal cliff, I think it should at least be considered as an option.

[bluestateguy]

2. I would compromise on that, but ONLY for concessions Republicans are not willing to make

Fine, the ceiling can be $500K. But here is what I want:

1) Medicare is not to be touched.

2) A clean debt ceiling increase lasting 5 years.

3) Obamacare is the law of the land. All efforts to weaken or undermine it must stop. GOP governors will expand Medicaid as the law calls for.

4) Replace the SS payroll taxcut with a reinstatement of the Making Work Pay tax credit.

[AlexSatan]

27. Why even have a debt ceiling? (nt)

[hughee99]

3. More importantly, raising it from $250K to $500K

will now exempt most members of congress whose spouses also work.

[red dog 1]

23. That might be a good selling point to 50 or 60 GOP House members ...

..who with one vote can do something good (taxing the rich).. and save themselves some dough at the same time.

[SCliberal091294]

4. Cut it off at 375K. That's compromise.

[Honeycombe8]

12. That's only compromise if the Repubs want $500k, which they have not proposed. nt

[democrattotheend]

14. I don't like that idea, but it's better than 37% for the top bracket

I wish the president had started out seeking to raise taxes on people making over $150,000, so they could compromise at $250,000. But doing so would have made it harder for him to get reelected, so I understand why he didn't.

[red dog 1]

19. What if the Dems propose an increase to $375K?

The Repubs could counter with, say, $700K...and the two sides could compromise at around $500K, that would also be a compromise.

[Lucky Luciano]

5. The Repubs don't work for the people making less than $10MM per year.

So a 250k and 500k cutoff are equally bad to the repubs.

[Honeycombe8]

11. Not true. There are a lot of plain ol' millionaires (you don't have to have a ton of income

to be a millionaire - just older, having saved most of your life, and have a very good income....boom, you're a millionaire) anyway, there are a lot of plain ol' millionaires that Repubs are beholden to. I work for a lot of 'em. They're lawyers, doctors, business owners, agri-farmers, oil executives.

[Lucky Luciano]

15. I don't think the thugs are beholden to mere doctors or lawyers...

which is my point. Ya gotta be a big swinging super PAC kind of guy to really get their attention.

[Honeycombe8]

17. There are more Republicans than the ones in Washington. They're all connected, and it starts locally

All politics is local, as they say.

[red dog 1]

25. All we need are 50 of them to "jump ship" and join the Dems on this vote...

..and save the country from going off the fiscal cliff, ..something Boehner doesn't seem to care about....From his recent statements, he seems to be looking forward to going off the fiscal cliff come January 1, 2013.

[DireStrike]

6. Depends if the budget works with the loss in revenue.

[cherokeeprogressive]

7. Nothing Warren Buffett says should be taken at face value without analyzing his motives.

Warren Buffett is ALL FOR taxing the INCOME of the rich at a higher percentage, YOU BET! Why, you might ask?

Warren Buffett KNOWS it's either tax his millions in "income", derived investment, or tax his many BILLIONS IN WEALTH.

So what, if faced with having to decide, would Warren Buffett support more wholeheartedly... an increase in his "income" tax... or a tax on his WEALTH?

He sure has a lot of people fooled...

[Honeycombe8]

10. With Buffett, what you see is what you get. There are no games there. He's so rich....

he's giving money away hand over fist. He's passed a lot of his money on to philanthropic organizations rather than giving it to his kids in trust, protected from inheritance taxes.

Wealth is not being taxed in our country (nor should it be, IMO), except for the inheritance tax, which he has not argued against.

A lot of his income is dividends...he's okay with the tax rate for dividends going up.

There are plenty of enemies around without having to make them up from good people.

[red dog 1]

13. Why not just consider raising the cutoff to $500K as a possible compromise?

I doubt that Buffett is the only one who feels that raising the cutoff to $500K is a good idea.
Why not merely consider it as one option to avoid the fiscal cliff?
All Obama needs is 50 or so House Republicans to get his bill passed.
Forget about Buffett...He's not important....Avoiding the fiscal cliff is what's important.

[banned from Kos]

16. Nonsense. Buffett is for the only wealth tax we have - the estate tax.

He favors a huge estate tax to force people into charities.

[Honeycombe8]

9. This could be a point that the Dems could "give" on, increasing the cutoff to $500k.

I'm okay with that.

[JHB]

18. Some historical perspective: in 1955 there were 24 tax brackets (as opposed to 6 now)...

...for a married couple filing jointly (the equivalent type for the $250K number under discussion). Set aside what the rates on those brackets were (ranged from 20% to 91%), and just consider where the brackets lay once you adjust for inflation.

Of the 24 brackets 16 affected incomes over the equivalent of $250K.
And 11 affected income of over the equivalent of $500K.
The top bracket kicked in for all income over the equivalent of $3,348,950.

So that's my proposal. We can argue what the rates should be, but let's generally set the brackets to the levels they were around 1955 (with a few tweaks here or there possibly).

[JaneyVee]

20. $500,000? Then make top tax rates 50% like they were under Reagan. Deal.

[red dog 1]

21. I doubt if even one House Repug would go for a top tax rate of 50%

You might as well ask for a top tax rate of 92%, like they were under Eisenhower

The idea here is to just compromise enough to get 50 or so House Republicans to agree; and they will NEVER agree to a top tax rate of 50%.

[JoePhilly]

22. The big money kicks in a above 5M, so a compromise of 500k, or even 1M

is probably ok, but only so long as we get something else out of it ... extended UE insurance, or something else like that.

Otherwise, no deal.

[TexasBushwhacker]

24. Sure, make it $500K, but tax capital gains the same as wages

I have never understood why, if you earn your money by the sweat of your brow, you should pay a higher tax rate than someone who has money to invest and grow.

[red dog 1]

26. "tax capital gains the same as wages"?....Sounds good to me.

[FreeJoe]

28. Lower it to $100,000

You lose a LOT of tax revenue raising it to $500,000. Too much. We don't need to compromise.

If I could set aside political considerations, I'd push to lower it to $100,000.

[red dog 1]

29. Won't work....Obama already set the low cutoff at $250K.