Debunking President Obama's Great TAX LIE

What's the best way to make our economy stronger? Do you think "The Buffet Rule" is the answer? If you do, then Please, allow me to expose the "Great Lie / Class Warfare" that President Obama is using to divide this nation with.

Warren Buffett’s revelation that his secretary paid a higher percentage of her income taxes than he did, the Buffett rule is a change in the tax code designed to ensure that the wealthiest Americans do not pay a lower share of their income in taxes than members of the middle class. According to a report released by the White House on Tuesday, 22,000 American households made more than $1 million in 2009 but paid a tax rate of less than 15 percent. Please take a look at the graph below to get a better understanding of the "Capital Gaines Tax LAW".

Capital Gains Taxation in the United States from 2003 forward
2003–2012					2013–
	2003–2007		2008–2012		2013–
Ordinary Income Tax Rate	Short-term Capital Gains Tax Rate	Long-term Capital Gains Tax Rate	Short-term Capital Gains Tax Rate	Long-term Capital Gains Tax Rate	Ordinary Income Tax Rate	Short-term Capital Gains Tax Rate	Long-term Capital Gains Tax Rate	5-year Capital Gains Tax Rate
10%	10%	5%	10%	0%	15%	15%	10%	8%
15%	15%	5%	15%	0%
25%	25%	15%	25%	15%	28%	28%	20%	18%
28%	28%	15%	28%	15%	31%	31%	20%	18%
33%	33%	15%	33%	15%	36%	36%	20%	18%
35%	35%	15%	35%	15%	39.6%	39.6%	20%	18%

A capital gain is a profit that results from investments into a capital asset, such as stocks, bonds or real estate, which exceeds the purchase price. It is the difference between a higher selling price and a lower purchase price, resulting in a financial gain for the investor. Conversely, a capital loss arises if the proceeds from the sale of a capital asset are less than the purchase price.

Capital gains may refer to "investment income" that arises in relation to real assets, such as property; financial assets, such as shares/stocks or bonds; and intangible assets such as goodwill.

Many countries impose a tax on capital gains of individuals or corporations, although relief may be available to exempt capital gains: in relation to holdings in certain assets such as significant common stock holdings, to provide incentives for entrepreneurship, or to compensate for the effects of inflation.

A new "fairness" agenda that starts with the "Buffett Rule," a proposal to raise tax rates on millionaires to the same levels as middle-class earners typically pay. This would be followed by other measures meant to assure that "everyone gets a fair shot and everyone does their fair share," as Obama has said repeatedly.

But it also seems like the wrong place to start trying to revive America's fortunes, for this reason. The problem is that the Buffett Rule and Obama's whole fairness doctrine perpetuates the fiction that Washington can solve the overarching problem of fading prosperity. This might have been plausible 50 years ago, when the U.S. economy was far more self-contained and growing at a heady pace that made lavish government spending possible.

These days, however, the federal government is heading toward insolvency, and many aspects of the global economy are beyond Washington's control. The enormity of the national debt, which now tops $15 trillion, makes it a mathematical certainty that Washington is going to do less for citizens and ask them to contribute more. If politicians were honest, they'd prepare voters for the sacrifices that lie ahead, instead of promising 99 percent of them that everything will be fine as long as the other 1 percent pays more.

The Buffett Rule would impose a minimum effective tax rate of 30 percent on people who earn more than $1 million per year, raising the average tax rate for that group by a few percentage points. But even the White House acknowledges the amount of extra revenue raised would be trivial compared to the size of the debt. Obama suggests that higher taxes on the wealthy will reduce the need to raise taxes on the middle class. But nearly every budget expert will tell you that the only way to get the debt under control is to raise taxes on virtually everybody, or eviscerate government services.

 Rick Santelli 

The Buffett rule would do nothing to help the economy: It wouldn't help create jobs or do much to cut the budget deficit, running at more than $1 trillion this year and around $6 trillion over 10 years because it would only apply to a limited number of taxpayers. Rick Santelli explains why President Obama’s so-called “Buffett rule” would do little to remedy federal deficit woes.

Santelli projected new government revenue that would be earned by imposing the rule, taking the number of millionaires and billionaires and applying the tax hike to their earnings. 

At the end of the scenario, even with the rosiest projection of the number of millionaires and billionaires used, the new revenue falls significantly short of correcting the deficits the government is accumulating, according to Santelli. 

“If you look at total public debt held, it has increased $792 billion in this time to a grand total of $15.6 trillion,” Santelli said. “You see what the problem is? We can bash people. We can drag people that used to be called successful and drag them down. But is it going to cure a problem? No. We cannot collect enough taxes to catch up with spending. Do I know a solution? Not really. Does your politicians know a solution? Does our commander-in-chief offer a solution? Absolutely not.

 Santelli added that he wasn’t clear on how making people pay their so-called “fair share” would result in better opportunities for his children. “I have solutions but you know what? It will take a long time to go there,” he said. “People don’t really want to hear solutions. 

They want to change the dialogue, bait and switch so we get more worried about what people pay, what’s fair. How are my kids’ opportunities affected by how many millionaires there are? I don’t see that opportunities are affected. You wanna  know what I see that will affect their opportunity? $15.6 Trillion.” 

In reality, the politics of the Buffett Rule, it has absolutely no chance of passing when the Democratic-controlled Senate takes it up next week — because Republicans have enough votes to block it from advancing and would almost certainly shoot it down in the House.