Without 'Buffett Rule,' Middle and Lower Class Will Suffer

Deficit reduction based only on cuts is unfair to most Americans

October 18, 2011 RSS Feed Print

Jason Furman is principal deputy director of the National Economic Council.

The Buffett Rule is an important part of President Obama's deficit reduction proposal.

Last month, the president laid out a balanced approach to further reduce our nation's deficit and get our fiscal house in order, based on the values of shared responsibility and shared sacrifice. The president also called on Congress to undertake comprehensive tax reform based on five principles: cutting tax rates, cutting tax expenditures, cutting the deficit, increasing economic growth, and the Buffett Rule. This last principle is simple: No household making over $1 million annually should pay a smaller share of its income in taxes than middle-class families pay. As Warren Buffett has said, it's not fair for people like him to "pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter."

Warren Buffett is not alone among the very wealthy in paying only a small share of income in taxes. Many households making over $1 million annually, like small businesses and professional athletes, pay close to their marginal rate and would not be affected by the Buffett Rule. But 22,000 households making more than $1 million annually paid less than 15 percent of their income in taxes in 2009 and many more paid less than 30 percent of their income in taxes. And the top 400 richest Americans, all making over $110 million per year and making an average of $271 million per year, on average paid only 18 percent of their income in income taxes in 2008. That is down substantially from the 29.9 percent these households paid as recently as 1995.

[Vote: Do the Rich Pay Enough in Taxes?]

Too many middle-class Americans pay more than this—especially when payroll taxes are taken into account. For example, a single, self-employed business owner earns $70,000. In income and payroll taxes, this middle-class business owner pays about 28 percent of income in taxes. That's a 50 percent higher rate than the average tax rate on the top 400.

The Buffett Rule only applies to three out of every 1,000 Americans and it would impact even less than that since many of these wealthy Americans already pay near the top marginal rates. Virtually all small businesses would be unaffected, either because their income is less than $1 million or because they are paying taxes at close to the marginal rate. In fact, the president is pushing for tax cuts for small businesses, including cutting payroll taxes in half, eliminating payroll taxes for businesses adding jobs, and letting all businesses fully expense the cost of their investments.

The president has called on Congress to pass the American Jobs Act to jump-start the economy today and to pass a broader deficit reduction plan to bring down our debt as a share of the economy. As part of this deficit reduction plan, the president is calling for $2 of spending cuts for every $1 raised through reforming the tax code. The spending reductions are achieved while strengthening critical programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

[See a collection of political cartoons on the budget and deficit.]

But the president does not believe we can follow an unbalanced, spending-only approach to deficit reduction that cuts the deficit by ending Medicare as we know it while not asking high-income households to contribute. We can't tell our teachers and secretaries, working to put food on the table for their families or put their kids through college, to pay a higher tax rate than many millionaires. That is why he is calling for comprehensive tax reform that would meet the test of the "Buffett Rule."

Read Rep. James Lankford: The 'Buffett Rule' Is Bad Tax Policy.

 

 

Tags:
Warren Buffett,
federal taxes

Reader Comments Read all comments (3)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

I am worried and confused as a citizen of the USA.

I value my right to vote and am pleased that each citizen who has not given up this right by committing a crime has this right.

i want to participate in keeping the United States of America located in North America a democracy that

continues to develop a form of government that honors each individual of each race, gender, belief system, (including those who say they do not believe in any higher power).

I want a country that is compassionate which to me means each individual will want the other to have shelter, health care, quality public education, food, the right to worship publicy and safely. I want thoughful laws that clearly differentiate civil issues from religious issues, i.e. the right of a female to decide to abort, the right of an adult to marry another adult of his/her choosing. These two issues, IMHO, are examples of our laws limiting based on their religious beliefs.

I would like to begin to clearly develop statements developed by our legislators, president and his advisors, and the Supreme Court, analyzing each law with clear criteria of the legal rights versus those beliefs and actions that we state and live by to be faithful to our God or our belief that humans evolved without any relationship with God.

I do not understand how our Supreme Court declared a corporation having the rights of an individual.

I want a healthy economy with ethical corporations working with those utilities and services that need to be run not for profits but for the welfare of our nation.

We are celebrating 50 years of our citizens coming together to give all citizens a right to vote.

Now I read about some states writing laws which will inhibit many from voting. I observe corporations dismantling the provisions protecting workers: i.e., hiring full time workers and pay benefits when the task required FTEs (not parceled out to part time workers who do not have to be insured or pay social security); I observe that education and health care services are forced to fit into a business model based on profit making by the service provider who is there to teach young people who have many different learning styles, or a service provider who is there is diagnose an illness, mental or physical, in an unique individual who needs help. The service provider is given so many minutes and so many sessions dictated by a corporate insurance regulator who believes these professionals need controlling and the individuals under their care will respond by a formula of time, type of treatment and sessions the corporate regulators have defined and set.

These issues are in front of our legislators and our president and our Supreme Court today. Our mission statement of the United States seems to have changed from the protection of each individual who votes to hang together in a united governemt to a collection of corporations whose main goal is make profits by using humans as "slaves" and saying God approved.

Doris M. Mason of UT 9:32AM October 30, 2011

Another clueless left winger sucking on the tax payer teat. Marginal tax rates peak in the $2-3 million dollar a year range. They then level off and start to decline marginally at about $8 million. The reason is capital gains. Some one who built a business and sold it gets a big bump once very very few make $8 million multiple years in a row (Okay Warren does!). So should we raise the captial gains tax during the largest decline in small business in history.

The problem and reality is that either spending has to be cut or there need to be a broad based tax increase. Obama is acheiving his goal of more equal distribution of wealth. No on is going to have anything so we will all be equal.

Dr Joe of CT 8:59AM October 29, 2011

Your words are going to fall on deaf ears given the general readership of this publication. Not to say that they aren't entitled to their opinions, but the readers I see making comments want nothing to do with fair taxes. They simply want Obama out of office no matter how awful his replacement would make life for anyone not in the upper 2% tax bracket.

Kye of IA 9:22PM October 18, 2011

advertisement

Debate Club

Was 2011 One of the Worst Years for the U.S. Government in American History?

Experts debate where 2011 ranks among Washington's worst years.

Latest Video

Thomas Jefferson Street Blog

May Unemployment Rate Dooms Barack Obama

With unemployment now at 8.2 percent, Mitt Romney is poised to gain ground with voters.

Planned Parenthood Pulls a Komen on Mitt Romney

Planned Parenthood successfully targeted the Susan G. Komen Foundation and is now getting political by campaigning against Mitt Romney.

Bill Clinton Undercuts Barack Obama in Wisconsin

Former President Bill Clinton is campaigning for Democrats across the country, disregarding Obama's campaign strategies.

Barack Obama Doesn’t Get a Pass on Poland Gaffe

The president's error and half-hearted apology is a serious diplomatic mistake.

Mitt Romney's Ridiculous Unemployment Reaction

Romney's dramatic reaction to the May jobs report makes him look false and calculating.

What John Edwards Tells Us About the Legal Profession

The legal profession is experiencing a very serious breakdown of ethics.

What the GOP Should Do if Obamacare Falls

If Obamacare is struck down by the Supreme Court, the Democrats are responsible for proposing another plan.

Barack Obama and George Bush Show Congress How to Act Like Adults

Obama and Bush are capable of acting like adults. Why isn't Congress?

advertisement