The Buffet rule won't work in practice

According to the Buffett Rule the wealthy should pay at least as much tax as middle-income households. That sounds straightforward but it’s not.

Kevin Lamarque/Rueters/File
Investor and philanthropist Warren Buffet receives the Medal of Freedom from President Barack Obama at the White House in this file photo. Obama has called for a new minimum tax called the "Buffett Rule" for American households that make more than $1 million annually.

In his State of the Union speech, President Obama’s called for a new law that would require high-income people to pay at least 30 percent of their income in taxes. In response, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Representative Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) have introduced the Paying a Fair Share Act of 2012, a proposal designed to meet the Buffett Rule: That the wealthy pay at least as much tax as middle-income households.

That sounds straightforward but it’s not.

First, there’s the matter of how to measure income. The rule would define income as adjusted gross income minus a modified measure of charitable contributions. The adjustment avoids discouraging charitable donations.

Measuring taxes is more complicated. The proposal defines taxes to include the regular income tax, the individual alternative minimum tax (AMT), the employee’s share of payroll taxes that finance Social Security and Medicare, and the 3.8 percent tax on investment income and the 0.9 percent tax on earnings imposed on high-income taxpayers to help finance healthcare. That’s a broader measure than what most people see on their tax returns today, but it still excludes other taxes that people pay indirectly like corporate income taxes and the employer’s share of payroll taxes.

If you make at least $1 million (by the act’s definition) and your tax is less than 30 percent of that, you’ll owe more tax, presumably yet another addition on your income tax return. That’s certainly not tax simplification.

The Tax Policy Center estimates the proposal would increase 2015 taxes for about 116,000 households by an average of more than $170,000, assuming the Bush-era tax cuts expire as scheduled and Congress stops patching the AMT. That’s an overall tax increase of about $20 billion, not chump change but less than a tenth of the projected 2015 deficit. If Congress extends tax law in place this year, about 217,000 tax units would owe an average of nearly $190,000 more, yielding about twice as much additional revenue but still less than a tenth of a larger deficit.

The Buffett rule sounds good in principle. High-income taxpayers should pay at least as large a share of their income in taxes as the rest of us. But most already do. On average, middle-income households will pay 2015 taxes totaling about 15 percent of their income (using the legislation’s definition). Without the Buffett rule, more than 99 percent of millionaires will pay more than that and only about 4,000 will pay less. Barely 10 percent of them will pay less than 20 percent.

The proposed legislation would certainly raise taxes on a lot of high-income taxpayers. But the price would be even more complicated tax code. There are better ways to raise taxes on the rich.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.