More in taxes for the rich - New York Times

Grow with the budget deficit and tax at a 50-year low, a question remains in the center of the political debate in the coming months: should extend the Federal Government to increase taxes on the?

Warren E. Buffett, known as the Oracle of Omaha, billionaire investor pushing to stop to raise him and other wealthy Americans and their taxes "Coddling" the issue to the fore of this week pressing members of the new Congress Supercommittee on deficit reduction.

In an opinion piece in the New York Times on Monday Mr Buffett said he nearly $7 million in the federal payroll and income taxes last year about 17 percent of his income, a smaller percentage than anyone else in his Office paid.

Based on comments he has in the past, he called Congress make the tax system more fair by rolling back tax cuts on people, the more than $1 million per year earn so called Bush and income from profits and dividends. He would also close the gap allows hedge fund managers to be taxed at a lower rate.

What would be whatever the political viability, proposal a clear delle set of nation budget deficit. Based on projections of the Joint Committee on taxation, the Congressional Budget Office and the Ministry of finance, the tax increase on all three fronts would generate about $500 billion in new revenue over the next decade - about a third of what the Congress Committee, to the deficit to cut to.

"It is not the long-term budget deficit by itself, to solve," said Eric Toder, an economist at the nonpartisan tax policy Center. "The only way, that is to do have broader tax increases or claims to reduce." "But it would be an important piece of the puzzle."

His net worth at $50 billion, which made him the third richest person in the world - his comments as a result of Mr Buffett high degree of transparency and richness - Forbes estimates a flood of reaction. Mr Buffett remarks during his Midwestern bus tour on Monday, to say that it only fair that rich media cuts through tax increases on the compensated cheered President Obama, who unsuccessfully fought to increase taxes on top earners of the country.

Conservative bloggers and commentators wiped the proposals as sensationalism or initiate a gimmick in a middle-class tax increase and Pat Buchanan, a commentator on CNN, suggested that Mr. Buffett section of the internal revenue service Web site visit, which accepts donations.

Republicans have come together in their opposition to the tax increases, and proposals would Mr Buffett in fierce resistance on Capitol Hill. All six Republican members of the Committee have taken no tax pledge. Flatly rejected representative Kevin Brady, Member of the Committee ways and a Texas Republican, Mr Buffett ideas.

"This is not a serious solution for deficit control or retrieving this gloomy economy on its feet," said Mr. Brady. "Economic growth follows no tax increase." "So as I respect Mr Buffett level beats his proposal to virtually anyone."

Despite the intense antitax mood, which has helped the rise of the tea party movement since the beginning of Mr Obama, are tax rates in the United States at the lowest level since Harry Truman was President.

In 1950, which had upper income group a 91 percent rate; Today, it is 35 percent. Mr. Buffett called for two new tax brackets for high income - earning over $1 million per year and another of $ 10 million. While Mr Buffett a rate not suggest proposal, tax policy Center estimates that a 50-percent tax rate on income over $1 million would increase $48 billion over the next decade.

But one of the most important factors, the reduction in the relatively low tax rates on investment income is paid 15% for dividends, capital gains, and "carried interest," the hedge fund managers and private equity investors. Removal of carried interest would provide only $21 billion over 10 years according to the Congressional increase budget Office.

Restore the dividend would prices and profits to the level before the Bush tax cuts - if profits were taxed at a top rate of 20 percent and treated as ordinary income dividends - the Ministry of finance and bring additional $340 billion over the next decade.

These measures would face intense lobbying and a battle in Congress. Indeed, Democrats were able to roll back the tax credit carried interest or the Bush tax cuts for the rich themselves, when they controlled both houses of Congress. But with the prospect of severe spending cuts and another round of bitter deficit negotiations in Washington, proposals such as Mr Buffett call of taxes on the wealthy rise to ever more urgent part of the discussion is expected to become one.

View the original article here

Buffett is right: taxes on the rich - increase CNN

By William G. Galespecifically on CNN Warren Buffett calls for higher taxes to pay for expenditure; William Gale says, he is RightHe says past tax hikes have included big budget agreements, tax on income says spending CutsHe households must increase; ItGale can make in the top 1%: increase sales and reduce deficit would not expand Bush tax cutsEditor's Note: William G. Gale is senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and Co-Director of the urban-Brookings tax policy Center.

(CNN) Sunday Times, Warren Buffett explained the need to control the range of the New York to increase. He is absolutely right. Tax increases in the General-as also tax increases on the wealthiest households, insbesondere-- must be part of the solution.

Over at big budget agreements such as the 1983 included social security reforms and the 1990 and 1993 budget offers, ultimately increases and reductions appropriations. It's not hard to see why: cutting deficits from both sides of the budget offers a sense of fairness, shared sacrifice, and political balance.

Also, has the higher taxes to pay for current expenditure more effectively enable to restraining expenditure the Government to finance its expenditure with deficits proved to be. Every time, when we tried to reduce the expenditure of restraining tax, we do not have. Under President George W. Bush fell in the 1980s under President Ronald Reagan, and in the last ten years, but control expenditure rose. The only time in the last 30 years as expenditure fell in the 1990s also expressed years under President Bill Clinton, as control.

Even the massive tax increases during and after the second Weltkrieg--amounting to a permanent increase of 10% to 15% of the Bruttoinlandsprodukts-and much smaller tax increases in 1990 and 1993 no detectable damage on US economic growth have.

If we manage as part of the tax solution to raise, the tax burden of the high-income, high wealth individuals must rise. The recently adopted debt deal includes only spending cuts and has little or no effect on high-income households. It is rather the entire load to close the tax gap in low and middle income households. High income households should not be excluded, by helping to address the nation tax issue.

Households in the top 1% of the distribution can make a contribution. You have done tremendously well in the last 30-plus years. Their income accounted for 10% of total income received in 1979. According to the most recent data (from 2008) its share of the total household income more than doubled to 21%. On the other hand, real incomes for middle class has remained constant employees over the same period, about.

There are of course better and worse ways to control raise. A general aim would be to expand the tax base-reduces the use of specialised credits, deductions, loopholes and etc.--and minimize the extent of the tax prices must rise.

A good place to the start? High income households: limit the rate of the expanded deductions to 28% can occur. This affects only households in the highest income ranges, it would not increase their official marginal tax rate and it would be $293 billion over the next decade relative to the, how much money would be raised under the current law cause according to the Congressional Budget Office. This would be a small step in the right direction.

Adherence to current law Erträge-is, of course-in other words, do not extend tax cuts the Bush administration after the scheduled expiration date of 2012 or numbers for each extension with a reduction in the various tax issues-even more important. Expand the Bush revenue of about $2.5 trillion would reduce tax cuts over the next decade, relative to the current law. Net interest savings count, it costs $3 trillion. To run the cuts could actually help economic growth, because that would lower deficits more than offset the impact of lower marginal tax rates, and it would be progressive. That would be a big step in the right direction.

Finally, the ballooning the nation must have social security, Medicare and Medicaid costs for an aging population. Even if further substantial cuts in these programmes are made, a need for additional revenue will create the combination of a greatly expanded elderly population and higher Federal Republic of net interest payments than in the past (due to the higher ratio of public debt to GDP). Are there are also good options, including a VAT-the equivalent of the national consumption tax and a feature of all industrialised countries except the USA - the tax system and higher energy taxes to a cleaner environment promote to increase turnover.

All of this means that the United States to European tax levels must be moved. But between which depleted tax revenues, which we jetzt-- the lowest share of the economy in six decades improve - and experienced the high taxes in European countries, there are to increase space to sales in economically sound way an adequate government support.

The opinions in this commentary are solely those of William G. Gale expressed.

View the original article here