Reality check on the "Buffett Rule"

[dales]

HUH?

[Joe Guy]

I could be wrong, but Liberty1 seems to be implying that the people with lots of money will stop producing money making ventures if they are required to pay higher taxes.

But that idea is similar to deadbeat dads who refuse to work so they won't have to pay child support.

No right thinking person would do something that stupid since it is self-destructive.

[Long Run]

Joe, the consequences of a higher tax rate is on the margins. Any tax creates a disincentive for the taxed activity. For example, if you raise taxes even on cigarettes, an addictive product, it does reduce sales on the margins -- a certain number of people stop smoking or cut back, and others buy black market cigs.

The goal is to create a tax policy that creates the least amount of disincentives to productive activity while raising the needed revenue If investments are made less attractive through higher capital gains taxes, this will reduce a certain amount of potential money making ventures. In trying to recover from this lousy economy, even most experience D politicians have agreed that raising taxes on any taxpayer, wealthy and corporate included, is a bad idea. The only reason that has changed is that there is an election and Obama needs an issue to run on since he doesn't want to run on his record, hence the classic class-war, soak the rich bulla bulla.

[Sean]

Isn't the "Buffett Rule" something to do with not filling your pockets with potato salad for later?

[Joe Guy]

Isn't the "Buffett Rule" something to do with not filling your pockets with potato salad for later?

Yes, that is the actual definition.

[Scooter]

The only reason that has changed is that there is an election and Obama needs an issue to run on since he doesn't want to run on his record, hence the classic class-war, soak the rich bulla bulla.

And constantly harping on this "class war" theme gets tiresome. Why is it that when it is proposed that we gut gov't programs on which the poor depend for their very lives, that is not considered class war, but god forbid anyone should suggest a tax increase that would cost a millionaire the equivalent of a round of golf a week.

[rubato]

Joe, the consequences of a higher tax rate is on the margins. Any tax creates a disincentive for the taxed activity. For example, if you raise taxes even on cigarettes, an addictive product, it does reduce sales on the margins -- a certain number of people stop smoking or cut back, and others buy black market cigs.

The goal is to create a tax policy that creates the least amount of disincentives to productive activity while raising the needed revenue If investments are made less attractive through higher capital gains taxes, this will reduce a certain amount of potential money making ventures. In trying to recover from this lousy economy, even most experience D politicians have agreed that raising taxes on any taxpayer, wealthy and corporate included, is a bad idea. The only reason that has changed is that there is an election and Obama needs an issue to run on since he doesn't want to run on his record, hence the classic class-war, soak the rich bulla bulla.

Clinton raised taxes on the top 20 % and no one stopped working as a result. In fact everyone's income went up.

The idea that raising taxes on the rich will make them stop working has been disproved empirically. You should stop repeating foolish ideas which have been disproved.



yrs,
rubato

[BoSoxGal]

The only reason that has changed is that there is an election and Obama needs an issue to run on since he doesn't want to run on his record, hence the classic class-war, soak the rich bulla bulla.

And constantly harping on this "class war" theme gets tiresome. Why is it that when it is proposed that we gut gov't programs on which the poor depend for their very lives, that is not considered class war, but god forbid anyone should suggest a tax increase that would cost a millionaire the equivalent of a round of golf a week.

Bravo, Scoot!