Warren Buffett is a tough negotiator, which is one reason why he’s the second-wealthiest person in America.
So when the President refers to his new initiative to raise taxes on millionaires as the “Buffett rule” we might expect he’d start the bargaining with a tough position.
But this is Barack Obama, whose idea of negotiating is to give away half the house before he’s even asked the other side for the bathroom sink.
Apparently Obama will propose that people earning more than $1 million a year pay at least the same tax rate as middle-class earners. That’s aiming mighty low.
America’s median income is about $50,000. The typical taxpayer at that level pays approximately 20 per cent in taxes.
Granted, that’s a higher rate that most of today’s super rich pay because of countless deductions, credits, and loopholes – including, especially, their ability to take their incomes in the form of capital gains, taxed at 15 per cent. That’s a big reason Buffett’s hundreds of millions a year are taxed at just over 17 per cent — a lower rate than his secretary faces, as Buffett often says.
But a 20 per cent rate is still ridiculously low compared to what millionaires and billionaires ought to be paying. Officially, income over $379,150 is supposed to be taxed at 35%.
And even 35 per cent is a pittance compared to the first three decades after World War II. Before Ronald Reagan slashed taxes on the rich in 1981, the highest marginal tax rate was over 70 per cent. Under Dwight Eisenhower it was 91 per cent. Even if you include deductions and credits, the rich are now paying a far lower share of their incomes in taxes than at any time since World War II.
The estate tax (which only hits the top 2 per cent) has also been slashed. In 2000 it was 55 per cent and kicked in after $1 million. Today it’s 35 per cent and kicks in at $5 million. Capital gains – comprising most of the income of the super-rich – were taxed at 35 per cent in the late 1980s. They’re now taxed at 15 per cent.
Meanwhile, the top 1 per cent’s share of national income has doubled over the past three decades (from 10 per cent in 1981 to well over 20 per cent now). The richest one-tenth of 1 per cent’s share has tripled. And they’re doing better than ever. The last time the top 1 per cent got that much was in the roaring 1920s.
So much money is now concentrated at the top that what we really need are more tax brackets at the high end, higher marginal rates in each bracket, and a tax code that treats all sources of income – whether ordinary or capital gains – the same.
The marginal tax rate ought to be raised to 50 per cent on income between $500,000 and $5 million, 60 per cent on income between $5 million and $15 million, and 70 per cent on income over $15 million.
In light of our history, and in the face of future budget deficits that will otherwise cause taxes to be raised on the middle class and government services to be sliced, this is the least we should expect from the richest among us.
Why shouldn’t the President be calling for this, instead of asking that millionaires and billionaires pay at a rate average earners pay?
At least begin from a tough negotiating position. Especially since congressional Republicans will oppose any tax increases on the wealthy, whom they call “job creators” — even though big companies are sitting on more than $2 trillion in cash and aren’t creating any jobs at all, while 99 per cent small-business owners, who account for most new jobs, make under a million dollars a year.
Besides, the public supports raising taxes on the rich. (In an August CBS News/New York Times survey, 63% of respondents favoured increasing taxes on households earning more than $250,000 a year to help close the budget deficit.)
In fairness, we don’t yet know the details of the President’s proposal. The White House hasn’t said what the minimum rate on millionaires will be, or how they’ll define a “middle class” income. Maybe he’ll surprise us by starting out much higher and tougher.
I hope so. But as he’s proven time and time again, when it comes to negotiating Barack Obama is no Warren Buffett.
Read more posts on Robert Reich »
NOW WATCH: Briefing videos
Business Insider Emails & Alerts
Site highlights each day to your inbox.