Across Florida
What's happening on other political blogs?


Obama expected to promote ‘Buffett Rule’ at FAU next week

by George Bennett | April 6th, 2012

Obama

Look for President Obama to argue for higher taxes on millionaires when he speaks at Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton on Tuesday.

While the FAU speech is billed as an official address on economic themes, the anticipated “Buffett Rule” discussion will meld with Democratic campaign themes during a South Florida swing in which Obama is also scheduled to headline three big-dollar political fundraising events.

Buffett

Named for billionaire investor Warren Buffett, the Buffett Rule is a proposal to guarantee that people with incomes above $1 million pay an effective tax rate of at least 30 percent. Many wealthy filers structure their income to take advantage of lower tax rates on investment earnings.

The Democrat-controlled Senate is expected to vote on Buffett Rule legislation later this month.

“The President believes in standing up for the middle class and making our tax system fairer, which is why he proposed the Buffett Rule, a simple principle for fairness that ensures that millionaires pay at least the same effective tax rate as middle class families pay,” White House spokeswoman Joanna Rosholm said. “Making sure that that everyone plays by the same set of rules is key to ensuring the economic security of the middle class, and the President will continue to make this case next week.”

Tags:

10 Responses to “Obama expected to promote ‘Buffett Rule’ at FAU next week”

  1. Buffett fighting IRS Says:

    If ALLOWED! will someone please ask the President why Warren Buffett has not paid taxes to the IRS for over 10 years.

    He is in DISPUTE with the IRS!

    He OWES OVER $1 BILLION DOLLARS!
    http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/buffett-irs-back-taxes/2011/09/01/id/409520

    Regarding Buffett’s tax rate and his secretary:

    Buffett gets taxed on dividends and long term gains and it’s not the FIRST TIME IT IS TAXED! The income was initially taxed perhaps as high as 35%. So, 15% and 35% equals 50% taxation for Buffett. He can easily offer up a personal check IF he wants to pay MORE!

    His secretary has purchased a second home in AZ, so she is not doing badly, at all!

  2. Tea Lady Says:

    This is terrible news! Just terrible!

    Why are our elected leaders shaking the confidence of America’s job creators by more reckless talk of raising taxes? If they are looking to scare away job creators, then they are doing a good job with this senseless foolish talk!!

    As anyone with a modicum of economic sense knows, job creators need sound and stable fiscal policy to create jobs. And raising taxes is a big big NO-NO!!

    Let’s give our patriotic hard-working job creators the much-needed tax relief that they DESERVE! =)

    .. And Citizen’s Insurance must be dismantled!

  3. L Says:

    After tthe recent GSA scandal and we still r trying to push the misguided idea of a buffet rule! U can’t make this stuff up!!!

  4. Carol Says:

    How does the current POTUS define ‘income’? If it’s dividend income, Mr. Buffet escapes as well he should since he is one of the largest donors to the current POTUS. Even if we took all the wealth, everything, of the alleged one percent, it would permit the country to run approximately three months, according to economists’ estimates, but it would make the current POTUS’ followers feel good to see the wealthy naked and starving, wouldn’t it? This man is dangerously divisive, preys on the uneducated and uninformed and lies even better than Bill Clinton who I thought was the champion liar. Beware Americans, you’re in for a rough ride to the bottom if he’s re-elected. You elected him for two reasons (1) if you were a younger black (the older ones are smart, informed); and (2) you wanted to show the world that we were not racists and simultaneously ‘feel all warm and fuzzy’ about yourselves. Don’t make the same mistake again. Romney may not be the dream candidate, but I would vote for an orange juice can over the current occupier of the White House.

  5. Jim Says:

    The following is taken directly form Tax policy and income inequality in the U.S.,1978—2009: A decomposition approach*http://www.ecineq.org/milano/WP/ECINEQ2011-215.pdf
    The United States is among the countries recording the largest levels and increases in inequality. Wage inequality increased substantially during the late 1970s and early 1980s.Total income inequality, i.e. inequality in pre—tax, post—transfer
    income rose sharply in the 1980s, and that this growth continued at a reduced pace in the 1990s and early 2000s
    Top income shares based on tax return data from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)find that the share of income held by the richest groups grew in the 1990’s, and with the exception of
    the period 2000—2002, continued to rise in the following years.
    Income inequality in the United States has increased dramatically over the past 30 years. For instance, for households headed by working—age individuals, market incomes
    in the upper part of the distribution show an upwards trend in almost all periods since 1978, while they increased remarkably little in the middle and show large and sustained
    declines at the bottom during and after recessions. This is particularly
    true for the recent economic crisis.
    Tax policy indeed had an inequality—increasing effect in the 1980s and early 2000s and an inequality—decreasing effect in the early 1990s and in 2009. These sub-periods can be broadly classified by Republican and Democrat administrations.Republican administrations average tax rates fell strongest for high income, but very little for low income households, under Democratic presidents real incomes grew much faster at the bottom and in the middle of the income distribution
    compared to Republican Administrations. Income growth was also much more equally distributed under Democratic presidents than under Republicans,
    where incomes of the rich increased by far the most.
    Increases in inequality by and large coincide with Republican presidents. This confirms that partisan politics have a major impact on the income distribution. This is true not only for pre—tax but also for post—tax incomes.

  6. Jim Says:

    I is astonishing that anyone would still believe, given the stark reality of poverty levels in the United States and the massive redistribution of wealth that is a direct result of the failed Voodoo, trickle down, Milton Friedman “free market”, Reaganomics, that what this nation needs are more tax incentives for the job creators.
    What is Terrible is Poverty levels began to rise steadily again in 1980. By 1983, the number of poor individuals had risen to 35.3 million individuals, or 15.2 percent.
    In 2010, 27.4 percent of blacks and 26.6 percent of Hispanics were poor, compared to 9.9 percent of non-Hispanic whites and 12.1 percent of Asians.
    In 2010, 31.6 percent of households headed by single women were poor,Children represent a disproportionate share of the poor in the United States; they are 24 percent of the total population, but 36 percent of the poor population. In 2010, 16.4 million children, or 22.0 percent, were poor.
    The worst possible course for this nation and its people would be to adopt the Republican led Ryan Budget and continue these destructive policies.

  7. jayburd2020 Says:

    Boy, I’m an Obama supporter, but I must agree with Republican opposition to the Buffet Rule. If we let the government regulate even serve-yourself food lines, what’s next? Federally mandated health insurance coverage? For more funny lessons from the GOP, enjoy this funny YouTube video called “3 Things I Learned from Mitt Romney”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_M4FPtfkiOg

  8. philmycrackin Says:

    Jim say, “I is,” next question? And they call Republicans “Crackers”. Thanks, Jim, you freakin” Redneck! Go vote for Barry, OK?

  9. @philmycrackin Says:

    phil-my-crack-in

    Whats that your pick up line for hitting on other Rush Bimbo type guys???

  10. Jim Says:

    Phil you are correct, I should have read what I wrote before I posted it. however my grammatical error doesn’t change the the validity of what was posted.
    Thanks
    Jim

Florida political tweeters
Video: Politics stories
Categories
Archives