Buffett Rule will raise 'meagre' amounts of revenue - Bullshit
You've no doubt heard the talk that the Buffett rule legislation would only raise about $47 Billion over ten years. But that figure assumes the Republicans will let the Bush tax cuts to expire. Like that is really going to happen! Even given that scenario, the Citizens for Tax Justice estimate a revenue increases for the Buffett rule legislation of $171 Billion over ten years (http://ctj.org/pdf/revenueraisers2012.pdf).
But, if you consider the (strong) possibility that the Repubs won't let the Bush Tax cuts expire, then the estimate of revenues gained for the Buffett Rule legislation is $264 billion - or about five times the figure based on assuming the Bush Tax cuts would be allowed to expire.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/03/22/450000/conservatives-buffett-meager-revenue/
But as Senator Hatch surely knows, official estimates like JCTs are done against a current law baseline that assumes that Congress will let all of the Bush tax cuts expire on schedule. If that actually happened, many fewer millionaires would be paying super low rates. In other words, the $47 billion from the Buffett rule would be on top of the hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue that would result from getting rid of the Bush tax cuts for the rich, which are a major reason we need the Buffett Rule in the first place. (Even with the same baseline, another estimate shows S. 2059 raising $171 billion in revenue, much more than the JCT score.)
Of course, Hatch and his Republican colleagues have fought successfully to protect the high-end Bush tax cuts. Against a current policy baseline that assumes that Republicans continue to block the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, Whitehouses bill has been estimated to raise $264 billion more than five times as much. That is not a meager amount of revenue. In fact, its twice the amount needed to restore all of the cuts to federal nutrition assistance in the House Republican budget unveiled this week.
More importantly, however, S. 2059 is only one specific approach to implementing the Buffett Rule, which President Obama and Whitehouse have said is best accomplished through fundamental tax reform. The Joint Committee made fairly clear that tax avoidance behavior millionaires delaying asset sales, shifting income from one year to another was a key factor holding down its revenue estimate for S. 2059. A broader tax reform that equalized the taxation of wages and investments would implement the Buffett Rule in a way that would cut down on tax avoidance.
(more)
Journeyman
(15,038 posts)You'd think the wealthier among us would willingly accede to paying a "meager" amount, to forestall us coming up with a new, better tax structure that would truly raise much needed funds.
Such an odd argument against something: "We don't like it because of the negligible harm it would do to us."
annabanana
(52,791 posts)zbdent
(35,392 posts)I don't think that covers what we're paying the oil companies in taxpayer dollars ...
zbdent
(35,392 posts)weren't we in a surplus before the Bush tax cuts???
Turbineguy
(37,365 posts)The repubs are against it on principle.
jschurchin
(1,456 posts)The wealthy among us do indeeed need to pay a larger percentage of tax on their income. However being we spend 12.7 Billion dollars each and every day even if we collect 247 Billion in tax, over the next ten years, from the wealthy among us, it really doesn't make much of a dent.
Last year, we as a nation spent 4.5 Trillion dollars. We collected approx. 3.1 Trillion in tax. 24.7 Billlion is like pissing on a forest fire. Yeah, it might cool a couple embers, but it really isn't doing much to the 40 foot flames.
4,500,000,000,000/365=12,328,767,123 each and every 24 hour period.