President Obama’s deficit-reduction proposal, announced today, includes a new minimum tax for households that make more than $1 million per year. The administration has refused to offer any details as to how the tax will be implemented, but as ABC’s Jon Karl pointed out on This Week, raising taxes on millionaires is hardly a “new idea.” Furthermore, it’s an idea that even Democrats have been loath to enact when they had the chance.
House Democrats initially included a so-called “millionaire’s tax” in their version of the health-care reform bill. In order to pay for the sweeping expansion of the U.S. health-care system that is Obamacare, they proposed a 5.4 percent surtax on household income above $1 million.Ultimately, the idea was rejected by the Democrat-controlled, filibuster-proof Senate. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) dropped the millionaire’s tax in favor of a new excise tax on high-cost, or “Cadillac,” health plans.
Advertisement
But that didn’t mean that Democrats had abandoned their desire to raise taxes on Americans earning more than $1 million. On the contrary, they have continued to champion the measure ever since. During the lame-duck session in December 2010, Senate Democrats staged a series of meaningless “show votes” in connection with negotiations over the Bush tax rates, which were set to expire at the end of the year. One of those votes was on legislation that would have extended the Bush tax rates permanently for all Americans except households earning more than $1 million per year. The measure fell seven votes short of the 60 required to proceed.
Obama’s 2012 budget, released in February of this year, did not explicitly single out millionaires, but a majority of the $1 trillion in tax increases he outlined were aimed at the wealthy. For instance, he proposed letting the Bush rates expire for high earners (more than $250,000 per year), as well as eliminating itemized deductions for the same group and raising the capital-gains tax. Altogether, Obama hoped to collect $636 billion over ten years from “the wealthy.” Now, with his new proposal, he has upped that figure to $1.5 trillion.
In May 2011, the Congressional Progressive Caucus released their own budget proposal — “The People’s Budget” — which included new income-tax brackets for millionaires with rates as high as 49 percent and proposed taxing all capital gains and dividends as ordinary income. Some speculate that Obama’s millionaire-tax plan, which he has called the “Buffett Rule” after billionaire investor Warren Buffet, will involve a similar proposal when it come to capital-gains taxes.
Buffet has publicly complained that, because a majority of his earnings come in the form of investment returns as opposed to salaried income, and because capital gains are taxed at lower rates than normal income, he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. As outlined in the president’s plan, the “Buffet Rule” states that “no household making over $1 million annually should pay a smaller share of its income in taxes than middle-class families pay.”
Democrats floated the idea of a millionaire’s “surtax” most recently in July of this year, when the Senate Budget Committee — which has still not produced an actual budget in nearly 900 days — considered including the new tax (3 percent on income over $1 million) as part of its never-published 2012 budget resolution in an effort to win the support of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.), an avowedly socialist member of the committee. But the measure was ultimately dropped.
Now, as then, Republicans have resoundingly rejected the idea of a millionaire’s tax as the epitome of “class warfare” politics. Calling for higher taxes on the wealthy, said House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan (R., Wis.), “may make for really good politics, but it makes for rotten economics.” “We don’t need a system that seeks to divide people,” Ryan said. “We don’t need a system that seeks to prey on people’s fear, envy, and anxiety. We need a system that creates jobs and innovation, and removes the barriers for entrepreneurs to go out and rehire people.”
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) pointed out on Meet the Press that both parties have rejected the idea in the past. “We had that vote a couple of years ago when Democrats basically owned the Congress, they had overwhelming control of the Senate and the House, and it was defeated then,” he said. “So I would simply go back to what the president said last December in signing a two-year extension of the current tax hikes: It’s a bad thing to do in the middle of an economic downturn.”
Now it seems that Obama has blatantly ignored his own advice by calling for $1.5 trillion in new taxes over the next decade. When he announced his recent jobs plan (and his plan to pay for it by raising taxes) in an address to Congress, Obama assured us, “This isn’t political grandstanding. This isn’t class warfare.” Republicans couldn’t help but laugh. Needless to say, the president’s “plan” has no chance of making it past Congress. On the plus side, American voters are beginning to get a pretty clear sense as to the policies that await them should Obama be elected to a second term in 2012.
— Andrew Stiles is the Franklin Center’s 2011 Thomas L. Rhodes Journalism Fellow.
A $1.5 trillion tax increase aimed at those who make household income of over a million dollars a year is interesting. In order for the U.S. government to obtain $1.5 trillion, they would have to force 350,000,000 (that's 350 million Americans, just about the entire population of the country) people to pay $4,286.00 each. That's $4200 for every man, women, and child in the U.S.A.
So how many households in the U.S.A. have income of over a million dollars per year? I don't know; let's just take a wild guess and say 10,000,000 households make a million a year or less. At 5.4%, to obtain $1.5 trillion would require that those ten million households be making AT LEAST 27,780,000,000,000. Divided by ten million, each of those households would have to be making $2,778,000.00 per year.
Do you really think there are as many as ten million households that enjoy income of AT LEAST $2.7 million dollars a year?
So when President Obama says, "It's the math, the money has to come from somewhere," do you think he's really talking about where the money is going to have to come from, or is he talking just classist politics? Is this really any kind of responsible math or is it just politickin'?
more than $1 million per year now - think AMT. Besides this is just wrong - everyone should pay towards government - bottom line government is too big!
If those ten million households making more than a million dollars a year in household income paid an additional 14% in taxes over and above 35%, then they would have to make enough to be paying taxes of AT LEAST $10.7 trillion for all those households, or about $1.7 million per household for ten million households in income per year. It just doesn't sound plausible.
Clearly a political gimmick. But I think Repubs would be wise to appear to 'negotiate' on this proposal so Obama can't claim they are simply the party of No. In the end, overhauling the tax code is what they need to be preaching.
The IRS states there are 319,000. people who earn a million dollars or more in the USA...making your numbers all the more stunning.
Obama is not looking to create jobs...he is just looking to create hate--- from one American to another. How many fingers does he want bitten off? Jeesh!
Imagine what resides inside of Obama. He is one twisted guy. Sad he could have been a leader for good and brotherhood.
Here is the proper response to this ridiculous nonsense: note that the goal of the proposal is to assure that no one making over a million a year pays a lower rate than middle class families. Agree with that proposition wholeheartedly. Then suggest that the way to achieve it is to abolish the IRS, toss out the whole tax code, and go to a two-tiered flatter tax system with marginally higher rates for those making, say, $750,000 or more per year. Tax all income, cap gains, dividends, gambling winnings, everything at those rates. No deductions for anything. People can file their taxes on a post card, and politicians will have to quit trying to use the tax code as a behavior modification device.
If the goal is to have everyone pay at the same rate, then one rate is sufficient. that was the basis of the original "flat tax" proposal. The minute you have two rates, someone will try to game the system.
but the desire to tax the rich even more is strong, so the second best approach is to
have the flat tax one-rate and a simple add-on "top 1%" adder to that flat tax.
Even a 2 rate system is progressive and you never need more nor do you need it to be complicated, so long as all income is taxed at the same rate.
The 1986 tax reform got close to this, with the 18% and 28% rates.
Not only was it simple, but it managed to raise sufficient tax revenues to beat the old system.
If Obama says that his jobs plan is not political grandstanding, then you can bet it is all about political grandstanding. Obama is the world's foremost grandstanding grandmaster.
A better idea would be for Obama to try paying for stimulus/jobs 2.0 by reworking the "Buffett rule."
Tax Warren's entire wealth holdings by eliminating his ability to hide it from the death tax grim reaper via trusts and foundations.
NRO is right: what is happening has become more and more obvious to more and more people. The Liberal One-Trick-Pony has done its trick too many times now. Time to let the grownups run the show again.
"...the “Buffet Rule” states that “no household making over $1 million annually should pay a smaller share of its income in taxes than middle-class families pay.”
That sounds like a reasonable thing. Someone please explain why it is not.
I sincerely want to understand why that is something to oppose.
I don't think anyone is opposed to millionaires paying fairly, but our current tax code is so labyrinthine, ineffective, geared for special interests, and subject to political whim that raising rates for anyone, even a millionaire who is paying only cap gains taxes, is simply wrong.
Really, the whole system stinks. We need a new tax code, and we SHOULD be unwilling to make changes to the current stinking pile of garbage. If it isn't working, fine. I am willing to give up EVERY deduction, all personal and corporate tax breaks, and go to almost any flat tax rate. I am really tired of social engineering by tax code! There is no end to the ills of the current system - lobbyists, corporate welfare, etc., etc. I think it is time to try something new, and a millionaire tax is just more of the same bad policy that got us where we are today.
And for the record, I have no hope of ever earning a million dollars. My spouse and I are both nurses, so there really is not self interest here. And we're not in a union :)
Because Obama's plan does not address the real issue - reducing the size of government.
I would agree with you if there was a 1 time fee on millionaires that went directly to debt reduction. And only then if it was after deep cuts to items like the dept of transporation, commerce, interior, etc...
Are you sure? The deficit is $1600 Billion per YEAR. The proposed reduction is $3000 Billion for 10 years or only $300 Billion per year. Assuming it is reached (highly unlikely,) this represents less than %10 of the entire federal budget, $3000+ Billion per year.
Properly looked at this is $3000 Billion of reduction in over $30,000 Billion worth of spending. Doesn't look so good now, does it?
$3 T?
It's a JOKE.
The 10 yr deficit is $14 T. He cuts 20% of it, with tax hikes and fake cuts.
He counts the ending of the Bush tax cuts as $1.5 T but that is IN the COB baseline already.
$1 T is "I wont keep the wars going" phony savings that are ALREADY planned DoD spending levels. No real savings, just double-counting of already-planned reductions (Reid tried this in his plan and CBO rejected his scoring.)
$.5T in nicks to 'future outrageous spending projections' and more fees, taxes, expenses and taxes-recast-as-spending cuts.
NO cuts to entitlements, NO cuts to the massive $3.7T budgets, NO cuts to domestic spending, and $450 billion in more big Govt spending NOW. How do we know? Ask the question: What are the total spending projections for the next 10 years? IT GOES UP TO $42 TRILLION!
There is no way on God's green earth that USA can afford $42 trillion in Federal spending, or even $32 trillion in Federal spending.
These numbers are insane. Obama is insane. the country will be destroyed as an economic powerhouse if Obama is re-elected.