Facebook & Twitter

To follow BoreMe on Facebook, click 'Like'

To follow BoreMe on Twitter, click 'twitter'

Follow BoreMe on Twitter
Tags

Ads, Products & Business,  Barack Obama,  Business People,  Economy,  Homepage: Politics & Society,  People,  Politicians,  Politics,  Ronald Reagan,  Taxes,  Warren Buffett,  Politics & Society,  US Presidents,  US Politicians, 

Know something about this post? Email us

Report fault
<< Back to listing

Reagan and Obama both support Buffett RuleReagan and Obama both support Buffett Rule

(1:13) When it comes to taxes, who is the odd one out - Reagan, Romney or Obama? The Buffett Rule is a tax plan proposed by Obama in 2011 to alleviate income inequality. It was named after multi-billionaire Warren Buffett, who stated that he thought it was wrong he could legally pay a lower tax rate than his secretary.

Add your comment

Submit as guest (your name)
Submit as member (username / password)
cengland0 cengland0 (405 days ago)
The tax code is progressive. Sure, he pays a lower tax rate (percentage of his income) than his secretary but the total dollar amount is still much higher. The way they word this makes it seem like he's paying fewer dollars than his secretary which I seriously doubt is true.
ReplyVote up (5)down (2)Spam?
    
WalterEgo WalterEgo (405 days ago)
It depends on how you see it. You are looking at totals. The proper and fairer way to see it is: each dollar Warren Buffet earns, he pays less tax than his secretary pays on each dollar she earns. There's no reason for Warren Buffett to stop paying tax after he earns more his secretary.
ReplyVote updownSpam?
        
cengland0 cengland0 (405 days ago)
Yes that's true but does Mr. Buffet get any additional services for the extra money that he spends? That's the problem with progressive taxes (the more you make the more you pay). Do I benefit from more national defense than someone who pays less in taxes? Is that fair to the rich that they have to take on the burden of everyone else just because they worked hard to earn the money that they have?
ReplyVote updownSpam?
            
Guest: Adrian B (403 days ago)
It is always beneficial to rich people to pay more taxes, as long as those taxes are invested in public services that raise the standard of living of the population. Higher standard of living means people are more likely to be healthy and happy - this means they are more likely to spend money rather than save it, and providing everyone lives within their means, the rich remain rich and can enjoy the quality of life they choose to. There is of course false logic being employed by everyone on this thread; firstly that all money is acquired through hard work, secondly that the acquisition of this money is always done according to socially acceptable means, and thirdly that having more money always makes you happy. In the UK, we've seen more public outcry and direct action in the last 2 years than we saw in the last 20. The riots in London and other cities were largely motivated by the perception that the vast majority of people were being disproportionately affected by the austerity measures, and that this government had reneged on so many of its promises, citing 'the difficulties of coalition politics' as an excuse - when both parties were promising some similar things that have not come to bear, e.g. the right to recall MPs, and the action that they have taken with the bankers that caused the economic crash has been derisory to say the least. I would take the position that the richest in society already have a significant reward and they have a responsibility to use their means to look after those in society that need it most. Nobody wins when someone can't feed their family.
ReplyVote updownSpam?
                
Guest:  (403 days ago)
"Nobody wins when someone can't feed their family." - those that believe in social Darwinism want exactly this.
ReplyVote updownSpam?
            
Guest:  (404 days ago)
Yes it's fair. In terms of % they pay less than an average citizen. Having money to take advantage of tax loopholes is unfair in any economy or situation. However, if they were to donate the money they saved from tax to charities then that would be more forgiveable, but they rarely do.
ReplyVote updownSpam?
            
Guest:  (405 days ago)
People like Buffet benefit more from how contract law works - master/servant relationship - and its enforcement, not to mention the cost of educating workers, infrastructure etc. Also tax is not just about raising revenue, it is used to adjust behaviour - rich people have a history of behaving very badly!
ReplyVote updownSpam?
            
Guest: Marxist love child (405 days ago)
Umm, yes. Is it fair that there are people that work harder than any of the worlds top 1% and get paid a pittance? The notion that the rich of the world comprise solely of the hard working is a wee bit naive.
ReplyVote updownSpam?
Guest: Richard S (401 days ago)
Latest comment: I don't think that taxes are necessary unless we are at war. Only for roads and other such necessary services. However, I for one have calculated that if we didn't have to pay for other peoples' children and the healthcare of others, then our tax rate would be around 4%. This is fairer; I should not have to pay for the irresponsibility of other people. We should all be allowed to keep what we earn: this would make the poor work harder as their lives would literally depend upon it. No work = death from no healthcare and food (except for the charity of others). This is true freedom! No taxes except for roads etc. and the military! That is my stance.
ReplyVote up (4)down (1)Spam?
MGID  (opens in new window)
Related Posts