Sunday, April 15, 2012

Forget the Misogynistic Buffett Rule, Bring on the Romney Rule

President Obama has perfected the politician's art of talking out of both sides of his mouth. Just a week ago he was championing wealthy IBM CEO Virginia Rometty for membership in the Augusta National Golf Club. Now he's championing the Buffett Rule, a proposal to add another level of taxation on top of the high tax burden we have now.

The tax proposal is named for billionaire Warren Buffett, who has famously decried that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary (crocodile tears, I'm sure). Buffett is also a member of the all-male Augusta National Golf Club, one of the men keeping Virginia out. How misogynistic for President Obama to name the Buffett Rule after Warren rather than his "secretary" Debbie Bosanek.

One suspects that President Obama is not so much concerned with Debbie, or else he would have called his proposal the Bosanek Rule, but the fact that Barack Obama himself pays 27% in taxes while his Republican challenger Mitt Romney pays 14%.

Never mind that much of Romney's 14% is on corporate income that has already been taxed once or will be taxed again at the highest corporate tax rates in the world. Or that, under current tax law, low income taxpayers in the bottom two brackets would pay 0% on that type of income.

And while we're at it, why would I want to see my taxes raised to the 27% that President Obama pays or to the even higher 34% that Debbie Bosanek pays? Because while the President he says he'll stop at the $250,000 income level, the purpose of the Buffett Rule is to cement the high taxes already being imposed on middle class workers like me.

Here's the dumbest part of all. The Democratic shills are all laughing about how Romney has failed to have the foresight in the last few years to arrange his financial affairs so that he pays a higher than 14% rate of tax. No way should a smart guy, who in full compliance with the law arranged his affairs to pay an even lower rate than the 17% Warren Buffett says he pays, run the United States of America.

I'm looking at my unfinished tax return and that 14% Mitt Romney pays sounds pretty good. Why not just lower my taxes to 14%? I'll call that the Romney Rule.

2 comments:

Geoff Granfield said...

There's a lot of American taxpayers who cannot pay for the taxes they are obligated to pay the federal government the reason why vary, however, most reasons are usually not a result of the original total of the tax debt, on the other hand simply because of the penalty charges included on it month after month. Because of this a Penalty Abatement seems so appealing, however it's not a straightforward program to be authorized for, and there are requirements that happen to be necessary. The IRS' aim is to obtain every remaining penny back in taxes therefore the basis for the abatement has to be capable of being established. See whether you meet the requirements on this page: http://www.tax-defense-network-irs-programs.com/tax-defense-network-penalty-abatement/

Therence Sim said...

It saves time and effort if the right payment plan is chosen because the IRS can reject the application if it does not fulfill the specifications. Below, Tax Defense Network outlines the three major types of Installment Agreements. http://tax-defense-network-irs-programs.com/tax-defense-network-irs-installment-agreement/