Skip to main content

View Diary: Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse set to introduce 'Buffett Rule' tax bill (104 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This line jumped out at me: (0+ / 0-)
    -taking into account all income under every tax rate—

    Does that include income earned from capital gains?
    Personally, I'd rather see an overhaul of the tax code, with an upper bracket in line with what it was during the Clinton years, and capital gains taxed the same as ordinary income, with a modest reduction in rate for long-term (and I mean legimately long term) investment to reduce volatility.
    But if Whitehouse's idea is more easily done, then I say go for it.

    Taking a cue from Italian cruise ship Captain Francesco Schettino, Newt Gingrich now claims he did not commit adultery, but that "Calista slipped and fell onto my penis."

    by jazzmaniac on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 11:45:46 AM PST

    •  agree it should be higher (0+ / 0-)

      It seems that the Obama Syndrome is in effect again.  Why not propose a rate of, say, 50% and then negotiate?  

      In this proposal, they're starting at 7% less than the 1990s rate, and in negotiations, it would likely be lowered to maybe half that amount -- that is, the 15% the obscenely wealthy already moan is way too high and do their best to come in under.  

      •  I'm not sure, but I think the rate you refer to (0+ / 0-)

        in the 90s was the top marginal rate, or in other words the rate on the top segment of income, with each segment underneath taxed at a lower and lower rate.
        If I understand Whitehouse's proposal correctly, the 30% minimum rate would apply to all income, once a certain income level was exceeded.

        If that casino mogul is betting ten million dollars of his own money that Gingrich will be President, then that's the casino I want to be playing in.

        by jazzmaniac on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 03:03:26 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That is how I read it... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jazzmaniac, wsexson

          Unfortunately, it makes a stupid Tea Party argument a reality.  The argument that some one won't be more productive because taxes cause them to make less money.  If one makes $999,999 per year the taxes are say about 20% or $200,000.  But, at 1,000,001 this rule kicks in and the taxes become about $300,000.  So, making $2 more per year in gross income results in a $100,000 increase in tax liability.

          We don't want to make that argument a reality.  It is an easy one to shoot down now with a simple "You are an idiot who does not understand marginal tax rates."

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site