Buffett Rule Proves Taxing The Rich Doesn’t Get You Much (Bumped)
Bumped because Obama is still pushing this class-warfare idea.
File this under “things only a lefty would be surprised at”
A bill designed to enact President Barack Obama’s plan for a “Buffett rule” tax on the wealthy would rake in just $31 billion over the next 11 years, according to an estimate by Congress’ official tax analysts obtained by The Associated Press.
Sounds like a lot of money, doesn’t it? But not when you consider the immense size of the deficit:
That figure would be a drop in the bucket of the over $7 trillion in federal budget deficits projected during that period. It is also minuscule compared to the many hundreds of billions it would cost to repeal the alternative minimum tax, which Obama’s budget last month said he would replace with the Buffett rule tax.
The alternative minimum tax, originally aimed at ensuring that wealthy Americans pay taxes despite deductions and other breaks, has begun affecting upper middle-class families. Congress acts every year to minimize its impact.
So why is he still pushing it?
“Now that we have this analysis, I hope the president will stop the class warfare and start leading by putting out real proposals to bring down our debt, get rid of the AMT and reform our broken tax code,” Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said in a written statement, using the alternative minimum tax’s acronym.
Yep, that pretty much sums it up. It’s class warfare, pure and simple. He’s angling for the support of the Occupy crowd, which is also hypocritical, because Obama, and most Democrats in Congress are part of what the Occupiers call “the 1%,” and the financial industry that the Occupiers decry was a major factor in getting Obama elected last time. But then, logic has never been a hallmark of the Occupiers.