By Bill Scher
Campaign for America's Future
When George W. Bush accepted the nomination for President at the 2000 Republican National Convention, he declared: "On principle, no one in America should have to pay more than a third of their income to the federal government."
Bush was able to pass tax reform that largely adhered to that "principle," setting a tax rate of 33% for family income over about $212,000, and one of 35% for income over about $379,000.
(Of course, this is a completely arbitrary "principle." As now-Sen. Al Franken wrote shortly after the tax cuts were enacted, "It struck me as odd there would exist on principle such a specific number for the optimum top marginal rate ... I also thought it was lucky for Bush that this specific number was one third, rather than a messier or more complicated fraction.")
However, some wealthy people pay far less than that, because the Bush tax cuts also dropped the capital gains and dividend tax rates to 15%, and if you're like Mitt Romney, that's where the bulk of your wealth comes from.
This proposal was not mentioned in Bush's convention speech. Presumably, creating an absurdly low effective tax rate for multimillionaires that live off of stocks and dividends did not rise to the level of "principle."
So President Obama, seeking to stop that class of multimillionaires from gaming the tax system, is now proposing the "Buffett Rule" which would ensure that anyone earning more than $2 million a year -- regardless of the source of income -- pays at least an effective tax rate of 30%.
President Obama's 30% rule is squarely within the 33% "principle" that President Bush articulated and nearly every Republican member of Congress at the time supported.
There is no justification for a backer of the Bush tax cuts to abandon that principle and filibuster President Obama's Buffett Rule.
Unless, Republicans want to articulate a new principle: "no one in America should have to pay more than a third of their income to the federal government ... and no multimillionaire who lives off of stocks and dividends should pay more than a sixth of their income to the federal government."
2 comments:
You neglect to mention that income from interest has already been taxed at least once and dividends are earnings on money that has been invested after having already been taxed at least once as earnings. I'm sure you also think that estates should be taxed as well, even though those earnings have already been taxed at least once. And of course, let's tax the hell out of capital gains so that anyone who even had a thought of investing their money now puts it under the mattress, benefiting no one. The liberal entitlement attitude is mind boggling...how do you guys always feel you're entitled to the earnings of others??? Your greedy, envious need to suck off others' endeavors is disgusting....get a job and earn your own!!
Bush Conservatives cheered his policies up until the great crash of 2008, then they suddenly started blaming Obama for things which occured before his election.
These days they smugly chant, "get a job!" when there aren't many jobs available.
Likewise, they cheered when Bush took us into an unending war costing hundreds of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars in debt, but now they ignore it.
Their social policy can be summed up in one sentence: Those who are prosperous got there all by themselves and don't plan to share or, God forbid, give anyone else a hand up.
Pitiful.
Just because Anonymous either didn't read or didn't understand the article is no reason to have compassion for their rant.
Post a Comment