CFR based puppets Sebastian Mallaby, Director of the Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies, and Paul A. Volcker, Senior Fellow for International Economics are not happy with Obama’s new proposal, as the president calls for anyone who earns over $1 million per year to pay the same in taxes as the middle-class.
The CFR puppets state arrogantly in the article entitled, “Buffett Rule” Is a Sorry Excuse for Tax Reform;
After all, the tax would raise welcome revenue by ensuring that Americans with incomes of more than $1m pay a federal tax rate of at least 30 per cent – hardly onerous by historical or international standards.
The article starts out by reading;
No reasonable person can doubt that the US must eventually raise taxes. The country is running an unsustainable budget deficit. Its tax take, measured as a share of gross domestic product, is the lowest in the OECD. The 1990s suggest the US can raise revenues without damaging growth. Other countries have also managed similar feats. Sweden, for example, which collects 53 per cent of GDP in taxes, has grown faster over the past decade than the US, which collects 32 per cent, counting state and local government. From all this it follows that a distressingly large slice of the Republican party is unreasonable.
Equally, no reasonable person can doubt that the tax system must be used to soften inequality. Some inequality is good: it is a spur to enterprise and effort. But too much is clearly bad: it punctures meritocracy. As gaps in wealth and income have widened, it has become steadily harder for talented poor kids to compete against lavishly tutored rich kids armed with iPhones full of contacts. This is politically corrosive, morally unjust, and a shocking waste of human capital.
All this suggests Barack Obama is right to call for a “Buffett tax”. Yet in doing so, the president reminds us of why he is a disappointment.How so? After all, the tax would raise welcome revenue by ensuring that Americans with incomes of more than $1m pay a federal tax rate of at least 30 per cent – hardly onerous by historical or international standards. The Buffett tax is also politically clever: not even the most avid anti-tax Republican will defend a system in which a billionaire pays a lower rate than his secretary.
Coming in the week that Mitt Romney has all but sewn up the Republican presidential nomination, Mr Obama’s focus on the Buffett tax serves to remind voters of his opponent’s embarrassingly low tax rate. One marvels at the hubris of a candidate who imagined he could run without this becoming an issue.
Has Obama went against his masters or is the stage set for a new grand finale?