Campaign season is in full swing again, and every politician from Fairfax to Washington, D.C., knows it. This includes President Barack Obama, who proposed the so-called Buffett Tax, named after billionaire Warren Buffett earlier last week. In a statement earlier this year, Buffett said that the rich have been paying too few taxes in comparison to the everyday American, specifically that even he paid less taxes than his secretary.
Admittedly, to the average Joe this not only sounds good, it makes sense; millionaires and billionaires such as Buffett should be contributing a bit more, especially now in these frightening financial times. If the rich were to contribute more of their wealth to the government, that should take some of the weight off middle-class America. So if this is such a great-sounding idea, who wouldn’t pass it?
The answer: House Republicans. And that’s exactly Obama’s plan, as was the case with the recent American Jobs Act which has already been pointed out to be largely ineffective in the end.
That’s not the president’s current objective, howeve;, the true objective, as is the case with every other candidate running in the 2012 presidential election, is to gather enough dirt to make the other side look as absolutely disgusting as possible.
After all, who in their right mind would vote for the party that at every single turn derides the president and his party, advocating cost cuts to crucial social welfare programs and refusing to raise taxes on the ultra wealthy? But on the reverse, who in their right mind would vote for the party and president that sought to raise taxes at every turn, stuff more debt into a bloated and broken entitlement state, and only after fierce debate and outrageous public outcry, agree to start cutting both costs and taxes.
This is no new development. The Democrats and Obama have wanted to raise taxes on the wealthy ever since they re-assumed power from the Bush administration. Likewise, the Republicans have wanted to cut down hefty entitlement programs such as Social Security and Obamacare. It’s been an endless back and forth between these two political parties, and when stubborn, ideologue-spewing forces collide, nobody wins — the country loses, and the people suffer tremendously.
President Obama knows full well that the Republicans are likely to prevent this tax from being implemented. He is pressuring the Republicans to fault in their ideals and their beliefs by giving them an ultimatum: Do what I say or you will look incredibly greedy and outright despicable to the American people.
Never mind that raising taxes on the wealthy won’t do a single thing to alleviate the actual suffering of everyday Americans other than provide more money for the government to pump into ineffective, broken and overloaded social entitlement programs like welfare and Medicaid.
The reason you clean up systems like welfare and Medicaid is the same reason you clean your gutters. If you leave it alone for too long, eventually things will start to pile up and the entire system will just collapse. Just as there are too many loopholes in the tax system that need to be closed (a flat tax rate would fix that), there are just as many loopholes and flaws in our numerous entitlement programs that need to be patched up, closed up or, if need be, cast aside and rebuilt entirely from scratch.
And the Republicans are falling right into Obama’s political ploy, perhaps because that’s all they can do at this point. It was either to allow President Obama to paint them as the villains as this and hope the American people can tell the difference by election day or allow him to, as Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) said on Fox News Sunday, “add further instability to our system.”
Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, believes that the Buffett Tax will only create “more uncertainty, and it punishes job creation and those that create jobs.”
It can be argued up and down the hall whether or not giving the wealthy tax breaks will stir job creation, but it can’t be argued whether or not Obama sincerely believed the Republicans would allow his proposal to pass.
They have fought him at every turn thus far, so to think they would change their tune, to deviate from their own political rhetoric this late in the game is preposterous.
At this point there should be no surprise as to how the Republicans would react to any suggestion to a tax increase, and there should be no surprise as to why, knowing this, Obama would try to suggest such a thing in the first place.
The Republicans get to dig their own graves in the eyes of the public come Nov. 2, 2012, and the Democrats have a leg to stand on during the campaign season.
It’s hard to blame Obama for this, though. He is, after all, just fighting to keep his job.
I just wish he would focus a bit more on helping us keep ours.
James Wang is a history freshman and may be reached at [email protected].
Most Americans believe that millionaires and billionaires should pay more taxes( http://www.gallup.com/poll/149567/Americans-Favor… ). Democrats, Republicans, and Independents all agree on this matter ( http://dailykos.com/weeklypolling/2011/9/22 ).
Any politician that agrees with this sentiment wins points. If republican congress members get behind Obama's plan then those republicans win points with the populace. Opposing the Buffet tax loses points for politicians. If republicans want to lose points with the American people then they are free to oppose this legislation.
This can be a win-win situation for all politicians if they do what the American people want. Politics is not a zero sum game. If congressmen want to "keep their jobs" then they better do what the American people want.
Compromise will help all of these politicians keep their jobs and will fulfill the will of the people. America is screwed if the politicians in congress will not do what the American people want them to do.
Most Americans believe that millionaires and billionaires should pay more taxes( http://www.gallup.com/poll/149567/Americans-Favor… ). Democrats, Republicans, and Independents all agree on this matter ( http://dailykos.com/weeklypolling/2011/9/22 ).
Any politician that agrees with this sentiment wins points. If republican congress members get behind Obama's plan then those republicans win points with the populace. Opposing the Buffet tax loses points for politicians. If republicans want to lose points with the American people then they are free to oppose this legislation.
This can be a win-win situation for all politicians if they do what the American people want. Politics is not a zero sum game. If congressmen want to "keep their jobs" then they better do what the American people want.
Compromise will help all of these politicians keep their jobs and will fulfill the will of the people. America is screwed if the politicians in congress will not do what the American people want them to do.
The only thing Obama can do to win is sling mud in 2012. He can't say:
.
"Are you better off than you were four years ago?"
.
Sorry Barack … no kids will be singing "Barack Hussein Obama, Mmm, Mmm, Mmm."
The only thing Obama can do to win is sling mud in 2012. He can't say:
.
"Are you better off than you were four years ago?"
.
Sorry Barack … no kids will be singing "Barack Hussein Obama, Mmm, Mmm, Mmm."
Am I better off than I was four years ago? Only slightly – thanks to Obama, the health insurance companies and credit card companies can't fuck me over quite as hard.
Who keeps getting in the way of the rest of needed reforms? Oh yeah – the insane racist RETARDICANS who are holding the House of Representatives hostage to the Pee Tardy losers!
"Pee Tardy?" I've heard a LOT of stupid nicknames for conservatives coming from Democrats, but you sir win a prize.
By the way, you should know that Obamacare will cause insurance premiums to rise more than they otherwise would have.
Beth, Jack and Sara are going to order a pizza. They each intend to eat 1/3 of the pizza. The pizza costs $15. What is the fair way to pay for it? Each pay $5? No, that's not fair! Beth is affluent, so she should pay $13. Jack is middle class, so he should pay $4. Sara is poor, so she will get the pizza free and be given $2 so she doesn't throw a tantrum and upset the social order. Sounds stupid when its pizza, but somehow it becomes perfectly acceptable when its taxes and government services.
But wait, it turns out that Beth only spent 15% of the money in her wallet on the pizza, while Jack spent 25% of the money in his. That's not fair! Beth should have to pay her fair share!
Warren Buffet may have paid a lower percentage of his income in taxes than his secretary did, but he also probably paid 1,000+ times the amount his secretary did (actual dollars paid). But I guess, I missed the lesson on fairness when I was in second grade. I thought "fair share" meant that everyone paid an equal amount for what they receive.
Aside from the obvious moral arguments about not taking bread or milk away from kids, and the fact that a massive amount of the US falls under the poverty line (what do you want to do, Scrooge, huh?), TAXES do not work like buying a pizza.
Even from the very beginning, income taxes were a progressive affair. Congress elected NOT to tax incomes under $800/year (in 1861 dollars) to avoid taxing the poor.
Progressive income taxes help defray – but sadly, have NOT prevented due to government corruption – the process that enveloped the US in the 1800's and the British in the 1700's and 1800's whereby wealth concentrated into the hands of entirely too few individuals (consider that 400 people control more than 50% of the wealth in the US, and we have a PROBLEM).
Of course, if you had the brains to get even a D in freshman level economics or political science, which is part of your core curriculim, you'd know this. I doubt you're really a "Bauer Alum" – because if so then Bauer really is a shitty school!
By and large, you are correct regarding the nature of progressive taxation. The point I was trying to make is that we should drop any pretense of fairness when discussing taxation. "I don't think its wrong to expect the wealthy to pay their FAIR SHARE" is a frequent refrain of the Obama administration. I was arguing that their logic is flawed. If Obama (and others who want to raise taxes on the wealthy) want to present a sound argument to support their position (as you have), then I'm fine having that discussion. But the "wealthy don't pay their fair share" argument is a joke. That's what I was pointing out.
Also, why the need to resort to ad hominem attacks? It diminishes the strength of your arguments.
-Bauer BBA 04, MS Accy 05
A "fair share" for participation in the economy is, yes, proportional to your use and gain from the economy.
Furthermore, a "fair share" takes into account those who have virtually nothing to give. Or since you Retardicans are so keen to believe that the US is a "Judeo-Christian Society", then I direct you to the myriad verses in the books you believe holy that insist that the worth of a contribution is not measured merely in the raw numeric value, but in the COST TO THE PERSON GIVING IT.
To put it another way: the "higher tax" that the ultra-rich are asked to pay is still pocket change compared to the incredibly outsized volume of wealth which they hoard and which they exert societal control using. Whereby the small amount paid by someone making $40k a year trying to raise a child is, if raised, going to come out of somewhere in the family budget – whether it be clothing, or food, or even the difference between the child having a chance to participate in such "privileged" activities as little league or dance or music lessons.
A fair share is not a stable, numeric value. Progressive taxation, especially when one considers also the myriad REGRESSIVE tax regimes that the poor are already socked with, IS a fair system.