The president will call the new tax the “Buffett rule” after billionaire investor Warren Buffett, an Obama supporter who has publicly complained that tax breaks allow him to pay a lower rate than his secretary. We really cannot speak for you folks; however, we here believe that Buffett may have slipped a chip, so to speak.
The White House did not release details of the proposal, so it’s not known what the minimum tax rate for those earning more than $1 million a year would be or how much additional revenue it would produce. Now all things being equal this is classic Obama and his entire administration. He is ready to make a full announcement without providing the particulars. This is really sophomoric in behavior, yet we should all be used to it by now.
According to White House talking points on the proposal circulated to lawmakers, “no household making over $1 million annually should pay a smaller share of its income in taxes than middle-class families’ pay.” However, is this the true and equitable thing to do? If it is then let’s scrap the 14th Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause, let’s see why again? Oh yes, because they make more money. Here’s my beef: What isn’t discriminatory about that idea?
The White House said the Buffet rule would apply to the top 0.3% of wage earners, and noted that 22,000 people making more than $1 million a year in 2009 paid less than 15% of their income in taxes. To be completely open here I believe that Mr. Obama has his data incorrect.
According to the National Taxpayers Union there have been some rather startling changes that have occurred in the income tax earning folks within the United States. This is a paramount finding that either we all look at collectively or be assured that some very uncomfortable changes will happen to student’s, illegal’s, the Baby Boomers, well ostensibly the entire nation.
According to Barbara Hollingsworth at The Washington Examiner, based on 2009 IRS figures, shows that the number of taxpayers reporting annual income over $1 million fell 39 percentbetween 2007 and 2009; the number of super-wealthy individuals making over $10 million annually plunged 55 percent.
The carnage wasn’t confined to millionaires. The number of taxpayers earning over $200,000 per year also decreased by 612,000 – or 13 percent.
If you are tempted to join Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., in a bit of gloating or malicious bantering over the fact that nearly four in ten millionaires disappeared in two years, don’t be. The chart also shows how the loss of these top income earners adversely affected the federal government’s bottom line.
In 2007, those making above $200,000 (but less than $1 million) paid $610 billion in federal income taxes. In 2009, it was only $434 billion – leading to a 29 percent decrease in government revenue.
Same for the 408,394 bright entrepreneurial millionaires who paid $420 billion in taxes in 2007; when millionaires are forced one way or the other to take their business elsewhere, then naturally the employment and commerce they alone created is lost.
Just two years later, their numbers had been dramatically reduced, and the revenue the U.S. government collected from them likewise decreased to $232 billion.
Since the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid 58.7 percent of all federal income taxes in 2008, the vanishing of millionaires is bad news for everybody.