Buffett Says He Stands By President's 'Buffett Rule'

[progressoid]

Source: Fox Business

Buffett Says He Stands By President's 'Buffett Rule'

Warren Buffett says he's absolutely "fine" with President Obama calling the new plan to establish a minimum tax rate for individuals making more than $1 million a year the "Buffett Rule."

Reached Sunday in Omaha, Nebraska, the outspoken billionaire told the FOX Business Network the administration "asked me if they could use my name (on it) and I said, 'Sure. It's what I believe.'"

Buffett has long argued that the wealthiest Americans tend to pay a smaller portion of their income in federal taxes than middle-income earners because some millionaires and billionaires often get much of their income from capital gains, which are taxed at a lower rate than basic wages.

Buffett has argued that the "billionaire-friendly Congress" has coddled the wealthy and that that practice should end.





Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/09/18/buffett-says-stands-by-presidents-buffett-rule/

---

Sorry about the source. :eyes:

[msongs]

1. lol the source is far sorrier than you could ever be nt

[Enthusiast]

5. Ain't that the truth.........nt

[No Elephants]

2. Obama went from over $250K to over $1 million? That does away with a heck of a lot of revenue,

doesn't it?

Over a million was the compromise Schumer and others in the Senate wwere working on in December 2010, but Obama pre-empted their negotiation attempts by cutting a deal with McConnell for no increase on anyone, except a few poor folk,

[Pirate Smile]

3. He still supports letting the +$250,000 tax rates revert to Clinton tax rates. I believe that is

still part of the package.

[tclambert]

4. It should eliminate some of the opposition from plumbers and dentists

and other professionals who can surpass the $250K threshold. They can argue they aren't rich, just well-paid. Nobody can argue $1M a year isn't rich.

The real thing Buffett is saying, though, is that the very rich don't get their money from paychecks. They get dividends and capital gains--taxed at 15%, not 35%. Plus, dividends and capital gains pay NO (as in 0%) Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid taxes. I don't think Obama is touching that one.

[Skink]

14. capitol gains should be subject to payroll tax

[OnionPatch]

11. We needed a clear definition of "wealthy" and 250k was not.

We need the support of the public on this so it should be crystal clear that these taxes are aimed only at the very wealthy. There should be no room for doubt. No one would argue that a millionaire isn't "rich" but there are, arguably, too many people who make around 250k per year that aren't really what some would consider all that "rich", as someone pointed out upthread. (Dentists, small business owners, etc.)

[rhett o rick]

16. Yes, but there is a long way from $250k to $1 million. nm

[dotymed]

19. Although It doesn't affect me, I agree.

Also, that should dampen the GOP talking point about "punishing prosperity." $250,000 could be considered prosperous but not wealthy. I think that over a million is undoubtedly beyond minor prosperity.

[jimmil]

6. $1,000,000.00 +++

If someone has listed that their yearly income exceeds $1,000,000 they either made a butt load of money and couldn't hide it all or they need a new accountant.

[SHRED]

7. The RW response to this is to attack Buffet

I was talking with a Republican voter relative the other day about tax structure and mentioned Warren Buffet whereupon I was quickly uninterrupted with, "If he feels that strongly then why doesn't he just write the government a check?"

This must be the meme over at FAUX and the filthy RW talk radio dial.


---

[NoGOPZone]

8. My answer to that is

"If you feel so strongly that tax cuts stimulate employment, why haven't you hired anyone?"

[vets74]

13. COMMIE !!

[OneGrassRoot]

9. Have you guys noticed how odd the hyperlinks are at Fox-related sites?

At sites we link to, the hyperlinks go to sources and flesh out issues and facts.

I've read several Fox articles (business and other "news" sites) in the last few days and find their hyperlinks VERY odd.

They link to ads or just useless pages that don't really have anything to do with the article.

Another reason they shouldn't call themselves a news organization. Personal blogs are more thorough in providing content than their sites are.

[The Backlash Cometh]

10. He's a good man.

[tropicanarose]

12. Does anyone think that this will actually happen? Why is Medicare being made part of the equation?

I am concerned that any cuts in medicare won't just be for those who have a greater ability to pay as the super wealthy who should be paying taxes (be it more taxes or paying some taxes as some aren't paying at all)

I am all for the super rich paying their fair share, but I don't like that it coincides with questions about slashing Medicare unless that *only* will apply to the same super rich who can afford to write a check to the hospital for any and all procedures

[mvd]

15. That is a legit concern

Medicare payments to the states have already been cut too much under this administration. But maybe with the revenue increases, we will be able to restore benefits.

[rhett o rick]

17. HOw is he going to get this thru a Republican controlled Congress? nm

[FrenchieCat]

18. I thought that part didn't matter. I though we just wanted something

that we liked....

That's what I heard.

Because we already know that little will get through, right?
I mean, those Republicans are still in the majority in the House, no? :shrug:

[rhett o rick]

20. Touchy Frenchie. I agree that it is just a dream. But having him come out and

say we need it, is a huge change. Some are saying that this is candidate Obama again. Lots of big ideas but little follow thru. I am hoping otherwise but not counting on it. I remember he choose Rick Warren and will never forgive him for that slap in my face.