How the 'Buffett Rule' Has Already Hurt the Economy

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Jeff Young of OH _ Tax increase on rich does not get MORE MONEY...
The tax increase by Bill Clinton on rich did not generate THE INCREASED REVENUE. Newt's tax cuts DID increase revenue. I'll do something most liberals don't do. Provide proof:
"MYTH: Raising taxes in the 1990s caused the boom years of that decade. This proves that raising taxes leads to economic growth."
"FACT: Tax cuts, not tax hikes, caused the boom years of the 1990s. The economy grew modestly after Clinton raised taxes in 1993, but the economy grew even more after Clinton signed the tax cuts that were passed by the Republican-controlled Congress under Newt Gingrich’s leadership in 1997."
"Dr. J. D. Foster":
"Following the [Clinton] tax hike, the economy performed reasonably well, but not as well as one would expect given the conditions at the time. The real economic boom came later in the decade, just when the economy should have slowed as it made the transition from a period of recovery to normal expansion. Further, this acceleration coincided to a remarkable degree with the 1997 tax cut. . . ."
"In 1997, the Republican-led Congress passed a tax-relief and deficit-reduction bill that was resisted but ultimately signed by President Clinton. The 1997 bill":
"* Lowered the top capital gains tax rate from 28 percent to 20 percent;
* Created a new $500 child tax credit;
* Established the new Hope and Lifetime Learning tax credits to reduce the after-tax costs of higher education;
* Extended the air transportation excise taxes;
* Phased in an increase in the estate tax exemption from $600,000 to $1 million;
* Established Roth IRAs and increased the income limits for deductible IRAs;
* Established education IRAs;
* Conformed AMT depreciation lives to regular tax lives; and
* Phased in a 15 cent-per-pack increase in the cigarette tax. . . ."
"In 1995, the first year for which these data are available, just over $8 billion in venture capital was invested. Venture capital is especially critical to a vibrant economy because high-risk/high-return investment permits promising new businesses to blossom, rapidly spreading new technologies and new ideas into the marketplace and across the economy. Such investments, when successful, generate returns to investors that are subject primarily to the tax on capital gains. By 1998, the first full year in which the lower capital gains rates were in effect, venture capital activity reached almost $28 billion, more than a three-fold increase over 1995 levels, and by 1999, it had doubled yet again." (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm1835.cfm)
http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/taxcutmyths.htm

Bill Hedges of MO 5:48PM April 17, 2012

Here is my idea for how the Buffett Rule could be good for the Tea Party goals.
BUFFETT (Buffett Uber Fair Flat Everybody Taxed 30%) Tax has 3 parts:
1. Classical Buffett Tax - 30% on all income over 1 million dollars.
2. Buff Tax - 30% on hot sexy buff (but poor) celebrities and posers not eligible to be POTUS.
3.(All You can eat) Buffet Tax - 30% for everybody else, even those on SSI/SSD and corporations (since corporations are people too).
Thus the Democrats can increase spending while the Tea Party Republicans (who represent taxpayers) can recruit more voters and in a few years reduce both the debt, the spending, and eventually the 30% rate (in all 3 parts) to 20%, thus letting all tax payers (including secretaries AND Romney) pay as little/much as Obama and Buffett paid on 2011 income. With no special rates for investment income or deductions, the only way to make this tax more fair would be to make it a per capita tax.
PS: A pending tax increase would cause people to take the income early (ie, sell appreciated shares of stock) but they would probably just take the early income (well, what is left of it) and reinvest it (but some shares of stock back).

Jeff Young of OH 2:22PM April 17, 2012

Panskeptic of MT _ You wrote this last, but is FIRST THING I will discuss. “there is nothing in the world more boring than hearing rich folk complain about their taxes. Especially since their's have gone down, while everybody else's have gone up.” Bush tax cuts applied to rich and right on down the line. And the tax cuts for rich INCREASED GOVERNMENT REVENUE not reduced. An skeptical of your knowledge Panskeptic of MT...
Next, NO, “George Bush had a budget roughly in balance when he was inaugurated”. That was Newt’s balanced budget. Clinton never had a balanced budget until Newt.
Then you say “look what he did to the country”. Bush tax cuts for rich increased government revenue. Too bad Democrats did not listen to Bush and correct the housing & financial mess. Might have stopped or at least lessened the recession.
bum-bum out-debted Bush in about 2 years what took Bush 8 years. CBO says bumcare will DESTROY U.S. of A. financially. Kind of funny. buma was going into debt to get out of recession. Democrats just say Bush went into debt.
ON Oct. 1, 2010 when budget was due and Democrats controlled Congress, NO BUDGET WAS PASSED. None after in Senate...

Bill Hedges of MO 9:12AM April 17, 2012

It is Republican arithmetic that plunged us into this mess.
George Bush had a budget roughly in balance when he was inaugurated. And look what he did to the country! No wonder the Repubs are so anxious to blame Obama for their sins.
How funny to hear that Democrats can't count. Check out the Ryan and Romney budgets for a double dose of voodoo.
Finally, there is nothing in the world more boring than hearing rich folk complain about their taxes. Especially since their's have gone down, while everybody else's have gone up.

Panskeptic of MT 8:28AM April 17, 2012

Somehow Harry Reid doesn't have the ability to call a vote on a budget, yet he can find the means to call a vote on a meaningless political stunt.
No wonder the Secretary of the Senate's latest report has the 112th Congress as the laziest in 20 years!

Gus L. of MS 6:03AM April 17, 2012

Liberals/Democrats don't bother with checking their facts.
If the Buffet rule had passed, that would have meant that the revenue that it generated over a ten year period would have been enough for, believe it or not, to pay for 17 DAYS of government at our current rate!
So, you'd better believe this is another colossal joke from the dems to fool the uneducated masses! lol

Karen W. of IL 5:41AM April 17, 2012

On the one hand, Pubs tell us passing the "buffett rule" will destroy the economy and kill the job creators, then on the other hand, they say it will only raise 4 to 6 billion a year and will have negligible effect on the debt. Both cannot be correct.

bing of AL 7:02PM April 16, 2012

Nonsense. Nice try to whatever pundit wrote this hack piece.
During the Eisenhower years the rich paid far more in taxes - all stayed home, paid, ad ot wealthier for it.
During the Reagan years, the rich paid more, fewer loopholes and outs, and Reagan raised taxes four times. Did they rich leave? No...not according to the Republicans....They say Reagan was a hero - an icon.
During the Bush I term he raised taxes. The GOP was cross and he was voted out. BUt - we also had a balanced budget a few years later as that kicked in. Did all the wealthy leave? Not really -
So recent history proves that tax rates and things like loopholes can be made fair and more even-handed without causing economic problems - while helping the deficit.
The right can't have it both ways - either Eisenhower, Reagan and BushI had it all wrong, or this article is another attempt at scare tactics.
The politics of fear and misinformation is blocking progress at every turn in this nation. Small wonder other nations are moving forward while Congress battles to do nothing....

DeeToo of SC 5:02PM April 16, 2012