Would the Buffett Rule on taxation help or Hurt the Economy?

I find it interresting how Obama pays less taxes then anyone else in the nation and say the rich people need to pay higher taxes. I suppose that excludes Obama himself right. Obama, like Buffett, pays lower tax rate than his secretary
Comments
By David Jackson, USA TODAY Updated 27m ago
President Obama awards Warren Buffett the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
CAPTIONBy Carolyn Kaster, APIt turns out that President Obama also pays a lower tax rate than his secretary, just like billionaire investor Warren Buffett.

That's one of the reasons Obama backs the so-called Buffett Rule, the subject of a Senate debate today, aides said.

"That is the point of the Buffett Rule," said White House spokesman Jay Carney. "The tax code should not be written in a way that allows the wealthiest Americans to pay taxes at a lower rate than middle-class Americans."

The Senate is scheduled to vote later today on the Buffett Rule, which would require millionaires and billionaires to pay at least the same tax rate as middle-class Americans, somewhere around 30%.

It is likely to be blocked by Republicans who call the plan nothing more than an election year gimmick.

The proposal is named for Buffett because he too has protested paying a lower tax rate than his secretary.

Obama himself would not qualify for the Buffett Rule, which would apply only to people who make more than $1 million in a particular year.

The president and first lady Michelle Obama reported adjusted gross income of $789,674 for 2011. They paid out $162,074 in federal tax -- a rate of 20.5%.

One reason for the relatively low rate: The Obamas donated about 22% of their income to charity.

The Democratic-run Senate may be able to forge a majority for the Buffett Rule, but the GOP has the numbers to filibuster.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and other Republicans say Obama and the Democrats should focus on jobs rather than on arbitrary take hikes on job creators.

Likely Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney -- and a target of the Buffett Rule push -- says Obama is trying to divide Americans.

"The new source of division is to say, 'let's find the very most successful in our country and say they're bad guys,'" Romney said at a recent campaign stop. "'Go after 'em. And let's divide America.'"

Boob: "It now comes down to shared sacrifice for every American. Please take Mr. Stockman words to heart."

Sounds to me like Boob wants Obama to manage the decay of our nation and its economy instead of orchestrate the growth and resurgence of it.

The Buffett rule would confiscate just under $5 Billion from the approximately 4000 American Citizens that can be argued are the most successful and productive citizens in our nation's workforce.

Their "punishment" would be to pay a "success" penalty for daring to do better than the rest of us. For daring to create jobs, daring to provide capital and investment that builds the infrastructure and economic activity that provides the goods and services that we all need and enjoy. Let's add ANOTHER layer of penalties upon the group that already is part of that top 20% of income earners that paid 70% of federal taxes in 2007, while earning just 60% of total pretax income, according to the CBO.

Yup, let's reward the actions that we want, and let's punish the actions that we don't want. And let's use the tax code as our weapon. Reward those that fail, that are dependent, that cannot hold their own and to as to implement "fairness" let's make sure no one succeeds beyond that which we find acceptable.

So Boob asks: "Would the Buffett Rule on taxation help or Hurt the Economy?" Let's examine that issue. The Buffet Rule is to confiscate around $5 Billion from the approximately 4000 people that manage, oversee and create 70% of the economic production in this nation.

$5 Billion...each year... Who would do you think would be better in investing that annual amount of investment? The 4000 people with a proven track record of success?

Or the guy that brought you Solyndra solar panels, the Chevy Volt by the thousands stacked up on warehouse parking lots, wind farm bankruptcies, and a long list of other failures, paid for by your tax bucks?

There are hundreds of examples of the "Stimulus" money "creating or saving" jobs at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars each. There's many examples of just a handful of jobs created after government's "investment of tens of millions of your tax dollars.

So Boob wants to know if confiscating $5 Billion every year, from the most productive and innovative people in the nation, and giving it to the crony hacks, lobbyists and politicians that have a history of boondoggles and failure would "HELP" or "HURT" the economy.

My answer is that "It Depends"... if Obama's objective is to create a society of dependency, a society of welfare beneficiaries that NEED government to provide for them...

Then on Barry's planet, it would be MUCH better to let them keep take away the tools, i.e. the capital, that the producers among us need to keep producing.

On the other hand, I never got a job from a poor or even a Middle Income person.

Not really my choice, but chosen to make a point....somehow it seems impossible to stick to the rules or respond to the issues that are presented. And obviously the maker the implementer and at times the reviewer of the laws of this land get mixed up in our sentiment and opinions about who can do or did what. But things have not changed, this is the way that it really has been since the 'gilded age'..them that's got shall get. And each level of society gets, when they get, within their own little socioeconomic status. Some even move up the ladder to a higher tier.. But sitting on ones a$$ will not get anyone very far even with their own little environment. We are all different, some are more different than others, and some work at being different; and in some cases that can be a positive or negative. There is nothing more unequal than the attempted equal treatment of unequals. Classes, social, economic, warrior, etc, have existed since time immemorial. People have been brained washed to think they are entitled, to get from some and do what the hell they want to with what they are given. If someone can't afford so called luxuries, then do without. But don't buy them, or use them at others expenses. While the rich were getting richer in whatever fashion that the rules, grey ares or otherwise, allowed them, others should not have been sitting idly by waiting for a trickle down or a hand out, rather than making concerted attempts to move in some direction on their own initiative.