In my last blog I explain what the Buffett Rule (a minimum 30% tax on those making a million or more) and why it is nothing but a ploy from our president to pit everyone else against the millionaires. His plan is to convince everyone that Obama the Great is looking out for them and only he will make the millionaires pay their fair share. I also pointed out that the top 1% of taxpayers pays 37% of the total taxes collected. Those 1% encompass taxpayers who make $344,000 and above. 

Assume for a minute that Obama gets his way and he gets the Buffett Rule through Congress (he won’t; it won’t pass either house), and he signs it. Then what? Well, let’s start with what Obama said it would do when he introduced it back in September

“and that basic principle of fairness, if applied to our tax code, could raise enough money that not only do we pay for our jobs bill but we would stabilize our debt and deficit for the next decade. And as I said when I made the announcement, this is not politics, this is math.

The italics in the quote are mine. So this would stabilize our debt and deficit for the next decade and this is math, not politics. So why don’t we apply a little math to the Buffett Rule. First, how
much money is this 30% tax rate going to bring in? 

Well according to the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation it will raise 5.1 billion dollars in 2013.Now if that was my lottery winnings I would think it a lot of money. But, compare it first to the 2013 project budget (3800 billion) and more importantly the deficit, which is the amount of
money we need to somehow find to make how much we spend and how much we take in
balance (1300 billion)

So let’s do the math. We need 1300 billion. The Buffett Rule would raise 5 billion. Does this sound like it will stabilize our debt and deficit? 

This like your spouse telling you that we need to buy a $1000 refrigerator. You know that you have $660 dollars in savings. But, your spouse knows a great way to get the rest of it; we check the couch for change. You do and glory be, you find exactly $1.32; problem solved.

Barrack Obama has been spending a lot of his time pushing for the passage of what he calls “The Buffett Rule” This would be a change to the tax code that would apply a 30% tax rate on all income of someone making a million dollars or more. It stems from a comment from billionaire Warren Buffett, who lamented that he pays an effective tax rate lower than his secretary. 

What it really is; is populism and an election year tactic to find a boogey man to rally people behind the president. First, let’s define a few terms:

Populism, as defined by PublicEye.org is a rhetorical style that seeks to mobilize “the people” as a social or political force. And because it is rhetorical it is filled with half-truths and in this case out right lies

Tax Rate, the percentage at which a person or entity is taxed on the next dollar earned. For example; If Warren Buffett is taxed at a 39% rate on a 2 million dollar salary his tax would be something like $780,000.

Effective Tax Rate; The amount of money collected in taxes from an individual or entity; divided by his total income.
 
Two quick points on that last sentence concerning WB’s $780,000 tax. Warren Buffett is taxed at 39% (the highest income tax rate) on his salary. Second the US has a graduated tax system, so the first $15,000 is taxed at one rate; the next $15,000 (or whatever it is) is taxed at a higher rate until you get to the top 39% rate. So Buffett’s hypothetical federal income tax is less than $780,000. But, we will use that number to make the math easy.

When (if) Barrack Obama, his sycophants, and Warren Buffet make the statement that WB pays an effective tax rate that is less than his secretary that is true. But, it is misleading. He pays an effective tax rate that is lower for two very good reasons. First WB likely gets most of his income not from salary (taxed at 39%), but from dividends and capital gains. Both of those are taxed at a 15% rate, no matter how much of them you make. How can that 15% rate be fair you ask? Because that money has already been taxed. 

Dividends are premiums paid out as a bonus to stock holders from profits made. Profits are what are left over after all expenses and taxes are paid. Capital Gains are the money you make when you sell something that you bought low (using your after-tax income) and sold high. The investor, WB, in this case put his after-tax money at risk, hoping he would make a profit. When he does the government only takes 15% of his money. If he had taken a loss, he could only deduct $3000 per year from his income.

A case could be made that the tax rate on Dividends and Capital Gains should be zero, because that money has already had a bite taken out of it by Uncle Sam.

The second reason WB pays a lower rate is from the way payroll taxes are collected. Payroll taxes are Social Security, Medicare, and such that are deducted from your salary.

Why is Trayvon Martin garnering all this attention? Of course it’s a tragedy when someone is killed. Why are the usual race baiters coming out of the woodwork? Why did Barack Obama feel obligated to chime in on one side?

Could it be because the liberals, leftstream media, and  President Obama need a springboard for Obama’s election run? Nothing gets  lefties more excited than a white on black crime. Facts don’t matter. Witness  the Duke lacrosse scandal, in which a black stripper accused a bunch of college  kids of raping her. Never mind that it didn’t happen, nor was there any  evidence, other than her word, that it did. Remember the Tawana Brawley case.  She accused an unknown white person of assaulting her, writing racial epithets  all over body, and then dumping her, naked. She made that up. 

But that didn’t matter. It was a way for the normal race baiters, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, and Jesse Jackson to get their faces on TV and stir things up. Now our president, the man, a black man, in the position of power most able to ease racial tensions, has the opportunity to diffuse this. What does he do? He gets in front of a camera to tell us how this tragic victim
looks like it could be his son. Now I wonder which side of racial equation that falls on?

Once again, the right thing to do, with respect to race relation, just like when Obama’s black law professor friend, Henry Louis Gates, got into a scuffle with the police, was to stay out of it. Or at most tell the  American public that he had no reason to suspect anyone’s race had anything to do with this tragedy, and he was going to wait for all the facts to come out. But Obama is not interest in race relations. He is interested in one thing; himself.
 
The man who shot Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman, appears to be white when you look at his surname. So, he’s perfect; a white guy who shoots a black boy for no reason other than he looks suspicious and black. But Zimmerman is mixed race; in his picture he looks like a light skinned Hispanic. That’s because that is what he is. His mother is HIspanic. He is what the media have dubbed a White Hispanic. Any other time he would just be called Hispanic or White. But that won’t fit the narrative of a white guy murdering a black kid. Nor does it fit when we
see Zimmerman’s mugshot; so he must be called a White Hispanic.

I am not defending Zimmerman. I don’t have the facts either. Everyone seems to agree that Zimmerman was following Martin, because Zimmerman thought Martin was up to no good. Everyone agrees there was some sort of scuffle or fight, in which one or the other cried out for help. Everyone agrees that Zimmerman shot and killed Martin. That’s it. People on both sides
are screaming about motive and who did what; but they don’t know. If Zimmerman is at fault here, he deserves significant jail time; possible even the death penalty, if it was done in cold blood.

But, I go back to my original question; why this incident? My theory is that those on the left need an excuse to energize their flagging base; which blacks are the cornerstone of.