Jake Gunter:
The idea of the Buffett rule comes across as sound, but the logistics of it would have deep repercussions in the US economy.
Millionaires generally make most of their money from capital gains; stocks, bonds, etc. These are taxed separately from income. Thus, an income tax would not collect much from the rich.
The only option would be to raise capital gains taxes. Even President Clinton opposed this, understanding what such action would do. To raise capital gains taxes would be to discourage investment and saving, something the economy desperately needs right now. This would harm less wealthy individuals that are attempting to save and invest for their retirements. Finally, the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that the tax would only increase revenue by $46.7 billion over the next ten years.
The rule also would repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax and “replace” it with the Buffett Rule. As the Wall Street Journal put it, “The Joint Tax Committee – the official scoring referee on tax bills – calculates that the combination of AMT repeal for the middle class and the Buffett tax would add $793.3 billion to the debt over the next decade.”
The simple reality is that our deficit is out of control. We need tax policies that work and encourage growth.
A better stance might be to simplify the tax codes to cut out the many loopholes that allow many to dodge taxes and make the process easier for all Americans to pay their fair share.
Jake Gunter is a member of the DU College Republicans.
B
Michael Neil:
The “Paying a Fair Share Act of 2012” (“Buffett Rule”) appears to be one of the most controversial proposals in politics today. Yet, according to Gallup, 60 percent of respondents favored it, while CNN pegged support at 72 percent.
It mandates that anyone with one million dollars of income pay thirty percent tax, as opposed to concerning itself with net worth. A conservatively invested two million during the boom stock market yielded approximately 50 thousand dollars. Even with a higher cap, conservatives would likely still oppose it. I suggest some reasons for support.Although “freedom” theoretically entails making whatever one can, the question “to what end?” is important. We also should consider the effects of the “Buffett Rule” on society. It reminds us that society needs balanced spending and revenue, and it gets to the very idea of society.
Theorist John Rawls creates a “veil of ignorance” wherein no one knows our gender, race, income or other characteristics. This means that we cannot know the future. Lack of certainty leads to the creation of a reserve of social and financial capital from which we draw in times of need. The destruction of this common capital hints at the diminution of society itself.
Michael Neil is a member of the DU College Democrats.
B
