Jump to content

Talk:Buffett Rule

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Income or Capital Gains

[edit]

Reading this article is confusing me a bit. Warren Buffet paid less of a percentage than his secretary (as the story goes) because the money he acquired was capital gains taxed at the 15% rate unlike his secretary who's “income” in exchange for work was taxed at around a 25% income tax rate. Had he made that much money working it would have been “Income” taxed at the income tax rate which would have been more like 30%. In American tax law, there is a huge difference between capital gain and Income. Reading the article as it is now... I can't really tell for sure (and nor can I tell from any credible source I can find) if the so called Buffet Rule would raise the rate to 30% on all revenue (including cap gains) or just what is considered “income”. Could somebody who knows for sure do some rewording of this article. The word income is used a lot in this article and I wonder if it should be replaced with “revenue”. Every time I read the word Income in this article, it makes me assume we are not talking about money obtained like Buffet did through investment. - Jeff Vollmer 4/17/12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.153.121 (talk) 07:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is some terminological confusion here. The crux of the matter is that under the existing Alternative Minimum Tax, capital gains are not part of "income" but are taxed separately. Under the Buffett Rule, capital gains are included in "income" along with wages and dividends etc., but only for purposes of the Buffett Rule calculation. According to James Stewart in this morning's New York Times, when the Alternative Minimum Tax was first created and for many years thereafter capital gains were lumped in with other income for AMT purposes; but this changed about 10 years ago. If we are talking about "money obtained like Buffett did", the question arises of why, since these are presumably long-term capital gains, there is no discussion of indexing for inflation.162.83.180.174 (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of the Buffett Rule

[edit]

I added a short paragraph including a definition of the Buffet Rule. The article just listed some opinions about the rule, but did not give a phrasing of the rule itself, at all. I think it is important to include a definition of it, because after all this should be an enzyclopedic article. So what IS the buffet rule? whitehouse.gov defines it as "No household making more than $1 million each year should pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than a middle class family pays." -- Daarribas (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been able to find the supposed "Buffett Rule" actually defined anywhere, but by piecing together hints from various sources it looks as though it adds capital gains and net income from other sources together, and if the total adds up to more than a million dollars, you have to pay the greater of a) the existing tax rates; or b) 30% of that combined total. Another way of stating this is that if you get all your income from capital gains and it's over $1 million a year, you will pay 30%. If it's under $1 million you will continue to pay the existing 15% rate. 162.83.179.91 (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've been able to gather, the Buffett Rule includes an exemption for non-profits, much like other IRS rules. I'm not sure if this is true, because I only read it in one general media report. This is an important fact, though, because it means that Warren Buffett himself wouldn't have to pay any taxes himself as long as he contributed 30% of his income to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Obviously, Bill and Melinda would also benefit directly from this fine feature of the law. 75.170.6.188 (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for the Buffett Rule

[edit]

The article says it is "to alleviate income inequality in the United States". Surely that can't be the reason for it because it would make only a small change - it could never alleviate income inequality. Isn't the reason to make taxes a little more equitable? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It gives reference #2, but it doesn't seem to be in the reference. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite obvious, it is pandering to those that have no understanding of how our tax rules work. The WH can claim it is going to cure cancer, but in reality it is nothing more than an attempt to buy votes. Arzel (talk) 02:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


"Reaction" NPOV stuff

[edit]

The POV tag was removed, for good reason since there is indeed no discussion about it. So, to start a discussion...both items in the "Reaction" section are from Republican congressmen who are obviously against the rule. This cannot be considered balanced without including positive reactions from legislators who agree with the issue. I don't have time to research and add refs at the moment, but I'm readding the POV tag based on starting a discussion. :) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 09:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definition? Definition? According to HuffPost the essence of the Buffett rule is that "those making a million or more pay 30% tax"

The top 1% according 2009 tax data begins at $343,927 AGI (adjusted gross income).Just for comparison the top 10% of tax returns begin at an AGI of $112,124. As of 2010 there were 3.1 millionaires in the nation per the annual World Wealth Merril Lynch Report. Only 1407 millionaires paid no tax due,to business loses etc. If you are making $66,153 you are in the top 25%. It is reasonable to assume that the largest percentage of small busines employers are in the top 25%. According to the 2009 SBA Research Summary, 60% of lost jobs were from smaill businesses. The point is that small businesses are/were big employers. Any additional taxes will be further crippling. There is a list of possible additional taxes projected for the end of 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OpenToLearning (talk • contribs) 22:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OpenToLearning (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)== For balance, I added the following. ==[reply]

First I added this. Someone else deleted it, but I put it back, as Forbes is a very reliable source on this issue:

"Buffet has stated that his secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does. Writing for Forbes magazine, Paul Roderick Gregory wrote, "How much does her boss pay this downtrodden woman? So far, no one has volunteered this information... The IRS publishes detailed tax tables by income level. The latest results are for 2009. They show that taxpayers earning an adjusted gross income between $100,000 and $200,000 pay an average rate of twelve percent. This is below Buffet’s rate; so she must earn more than that. Taxpayers earning adjusted gross incomes of $200,000 to $500,000, pay an average tax rate of nineteen percent. Therefore Buffet must pay Debbie Bosanke a salary above two hundred thousand... For all we know she earns closer to a half million each year... she is scarcely the symbol of injustice that Obama wishes her to project."[1]"

Then I added this:

"In 2012, The Smoking Gun reported that Buffet's secretary had recently purchased a second home which included a swimming pool and a "professional PGA putting green."[2]"

ThFSPB (talk) 11:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just deleted the Forbes part, because a different writer from Forbes posted in the comment section that the original writer had gotten some of the facts wrong. The wikipedia editor who had removed it before was correct in doing so. ThFSPB (talk) 11:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Someone else just deleted that Smoking Gun bit, but I was about to. What Obama has said is that Buffett's tax rate is lower than his secretaries' tax rate, not that she's not wealthy in her own right. I'm sure Buffett can afford to pay his most important employees far above market rate for services. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I won't put it back. ThFSPB (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Warren Buffett's Secretary Likely Makes Between $200,000 And $500,000/Year, Forbes, January 25, 2012
  2. ^ Despite Unfair Tax Burden, Warren Buffett's Secretary Was Just Able To Buy A Second Home, The Smoking Gun, Janaury 25, 2012

A more honest Buffett?

[edit]

" I think that on balance the Gates Foundation, my daughter's foundation, my two sons' foundations, will do a better job with lower adminsitrative costs and better selection of beneficiaries than the government. "

Buffett in 2007. http://www.cnbc.com/id/22199472/Warren_Buffett_to_CNBC_Giving_Money_to_Charity_Isn_t_a_Tax_Dodge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.108.61 (talk) 20:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Balance

[edit]

It seems fine right now.

Proposed added sub-section to Reactions and Public Opinion

[edit]

Ryan's argument that increasing tax on millionaires will "negatively impact job creation and investment" needs to be examined critically. It is presented here and elsewhere as a truism, but it strikes me as a fallacious Appeal to authority. What evidence is there supporting his claim? What are the alternative viewpoints? What evidence supports their claims?

74.93.227.193 (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Paula E.[reply]

Common sense. Businesses are less able to obtain startup capital if the risk/reward ratio is diminished. Those that do not understand it do not understand simple economics. Additionally, it reduces money turnover within an economic system. What you really want is an economic system which has low taxes and a fast turnover of money in the system. Arzel (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Polls

[edit]

CNN poll is flawed. It only used about 1000 people. Gallop poll is flawed as it only used about 1000 people as well. There are at least 311,591,917 people in the USA. 206.169.93.118 (talk) 00:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gallup and CNN are both reliable sources. Gallup especially is qualified since that is all the company does and it has a long history of conducting successful polls. This is an article by Gallup that explains sample size and why 1000 people is a large enough sample size for the United States. --Guest2625 (talk) 00:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the main point. 1,000 peoples poll results are not the real opinion of 311,591,917 people. Due to such a small number polled the polls are all flawed. Btw, your own link contradicts you. "Yet when asked about the scientific sampling foundation on which all polls are based, Americans were skeptical. Most said that a survey of 1,500-2,000 respondents -- a larger than average sample size for national polls -- cannot represent the views of all Americans." 206.169.93.118 (talk) 03:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of a poll is that it's a survey of a sample group's opinion which should be representative of the population as a whole. In the article, it is clearly stated that these are poll results and most readers understand what a poll is. It's not stated anywhere that the result is the actual opinion of each and every American. --Guest2625 (talk) 07:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Buffet Rule Act of 2012

[edit]

Shouldn't there be a sub-section (separate article?) on the Buffet Rule Act of 2012 that streamlines donations to pay down the national debt? The Buffet Rule discussed in this article was not the only one proposed to solve Warren Buffet's tax dilemma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.219.126.74 (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The real Buffett Rule

[edit]

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304831304579541782064848174

"I will not pay a dime more of individual taxes than I owe, and I won't pay a dime more of corporate taxes than we owe. And that's very simple" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.65.65 (talk) 06:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Buffett Rule. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Buffett Rule. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

convincing skills

[edit]

looking for convincing skills in communication — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.143.126.22 (talk) 05:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Buffett_Rule&oldid=1205643367"