.

Schneider, Duckworth, Foster Back Buffett Rule

Democratic Nominees Brad Schneider, Tammy Duckworth, and Bill Foster urged their Republican opponents to support the highly popular Buffet Rule.

Yesterday, in a joint press conference in downtown Chicago, Democratic Nominees Brad Schneider, Tammy Duckworth, and Bill Foster urged their Republican opponents—Congressman Bob Dold, Congressman Joe Walsh, and Congresswoman Judy Biggert—to support the highly popular Buffett Rule. 

The Buffett Rule is simple – CEOs like Warren Buffett shouldn’t be paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries and millions of other middle class Americans. According to the IRS, tens of thousands of U.S. households making more than $1 million pay less than 15 percent in income taxes.

Despite failing to pass the Senate yesterday, the Buffett Rule has widespread support from the American people. 72% support the measure in the latest CNN poll. Even a majority of Republicans support it!

There is no question we face serious economic challenges, including budget deficits and an overly complex tax system with gaping, perverse loopholes. We all agree that difficult decisions lie before us. And we all know that we need to start addressing our challenges now. Passing the Buffett Rule is a small but important step towards getting our fiscal house in order.


 

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Dan Jenks September 06, 2012 at 02:04 PM
While there are many reasons for our skewed income distribution, it isn’t primarily because of some conspiracy of the rich (which Elizabeth Warren and others allege) – I think it is largely because of free trade. Collectively, we are wealthier with free trade and safer when countries like China and Russia become our trading partners – but in a vast, hyper-capitalist world, unskilled and lower skilled American workers are going to suffer (despite lower prices at Wal-Mart) as are professionals whose skills can be offshored. Smart, more intellectually honest Democrats like Obama don’t make the “fair share” argument that Nancy Pelosi and others make. Obama argues that we need to cut spending and pay more in taxes to avoid a debt crisis and that those who are most able to pay more are the wealthy – an argument I agree with. But contrary to what Bill Clinton said at the DNC Convention last night, Obama has not vocally offered any long-term deficit reduction plan ala Simpson-Bowles – perhaps he will in his speech tonight.
HM September 06, 2012 at 02:05 PM
I'm not wealthy...not even close. But I do have some investments, and if Capital Gains taxes are doubled, that hurts the middle class more than the wealthy. I don't care that Mitt Romney only paid about 13% in taxes becasue this was tax on his investments. He probably paid much, much more when he was working and had a salary. The money he is paying the 13% on was already taxed when it was earned as income, so the capital gains tax on it is a double dip for the government. Careful what you wish for - the unintended consequences will hurt the middle class far more than the wealthy. The middle class do not have the tax shelters offshore, and they will be the ones hurting the most if capital gains go up. Does anyone really think Warren Buffet would leave his money where it is if the Capital gains tax increases? If he really wanted to give more, he would simply write a big check to the US treasury.
Dan Jenks September 06, 2012 at 02:18 PM
RB, corporations are made up of groups of people – just like partnerships, unions, families, etc. As the ACLU and noted liberals like Elliott Spitzer argue, the answer to the power of corporations and wealthy people to buy unlimited amounts of advertising isn’t to limit speech – as they note, the antidote is worse than the disease. Do you really trust the government to limit some group’s speech rights in the name of protecting us? Wouldn’t a better answer be to educate voters to think critically and analyze the information they receive? Isn’t this approach more in keeping with traditional notions of democracy?
ebuddha September 06, 2012 at 02:19 PM
how about simply eliminating all these deductions that allow people to lower their effective tax rate and adjust the rates accordingly. there are a lot of people in the top tax bracket that do not have any deductions. simply raising the tax rates only hurts them - the people with the deductions will still be able to get around the rates, no matter what they are. we need to change the conversation to focus on the deductions.
Gary September 06, 2012 at 02:34 PM
Businesses are constantly taking risks and building things before they know if it will sell. Was there a demand for the iPhone before apple built it? No one even knew such a thing was possible before Apple had the idea, invested the money, built a factory, and HIRED PEOPLE TO BUILD IT. They took a risk with their own money, built something that everyone liked, and created demand out of nowhere. Simple supply side economics.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »