Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

Buffett Rule creates fair tax for everyone

Guest Columnist

Published: Sunday, April 22, 2012

Updated: Sunday, April 22, 2012 18:04

I believe that everyone should pay their fair share of taxes. Leona Helmsley, a businesswoman and real estate entrepreneur who was convicted of federal income tax evasion, would have blatantly disagreed – she didn’t even think that she was obligated to pay her taxes. Why? She said, “Only little people pay taxes,” according to People.

While Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney pays his taxes, the tax rate that he pays is significantly lower than the tax rates that our families pay. With an income of about $21 million, according to The New York Times, Romney pays a tax rate of 13.9 percent while the average middle-class couple pays a tax rate of 20.6 percent for a combined income of $85,000, according to BarackObama.com. It’s simple: Middle-class families have been paying more taxes to make up for millionaire tax cuts.

If millionaires paid their fair share of taxes, the doors of opportunity would swing open for countless Americans, including college students.

As a student, I am very concerned about the rising costs of higher education and the insurmountable amount of student debt that exists. Cashing in at more than $1 trillion, according to the Wall Street Journal, student loan debt now surpasses any other kind of debt, including credit card debt. According to the Chicago Tribune, students graduated from college in 2010 with an average $25,250 of debt on their backs. Realizing this, students everywhere are speaking out about student debt. 

However, we have never treated our futures like a “game.” The choice to earn a college degree was a serious investment that we made in ourselves, but many students cannot afford college without loans and Pell grants. Needless to say, we literally cannot afford to lose Congress’ financial support on this issue.

Fortunately, President Barack Obama has our backs. He realizes that if everyone would pay their fair share of taxes, students like us could actually afford to stay in college.

Obama has proposed the Buffett Rule: The common-sense rule of thumb that millionaires should pay their fair share of taxes, based on the fact that Warren Buffett, an American billionaire and extraordinaire, complains that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.

One “fair share” from a millionaire could provide 5,400 Pell grants for college students like us, or put 22,000 students into work study programs that would help us pay our way through school, according to the Obama campaign website. These are the opportunities that could be provided to students from the fair share of just one millionaire. Now, imagine if all millionaires paid their fair share.

These essential benefits to students are just one example of what the Buffett Rule would do; it would also prevent the layoffs of teachers, pay the salaries of public safety employees, lower healthcare costs for seniors, give jobs to veterans and help pay off our deficit.

If Romney and his fellow millionaires would paid their fair share, the doors of opportunity for hard-working Americans across the economic spectrum would open. That means that all students would have the opportunity to better themselves with a college education if they keep themselves on the right track. But remember, the doors to these life-changing opportunities will remain shut if Romney and his fellow millionaires keep paying an average tax rate of 18.1 percent.

The Buffett Rule is common sense. If millionaires pay their fair share, we all get a fair shake.

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

13 comments

Anonymous
Mon Apr 30 2012 12:32
UCF is one of the two largest schools in the country. I'm sure there are some conservatives in the 50,000 plus student body willing to give their opinion.

As for not having enough space to give more information, give me a break. This whole "when the millionaires pay their fair share" ignorant nonsense is spouted, lack of space isn't the problem.

Weebo
Sat Apr 28 2012 00:15
Obnoxious, you just answered how that settles the debate. I will add an additional sentence or two for clarity.

We live in a land of equal opportunity, not equal results.

"Buffett pays less because he gets his money from stocks and investment." Boom, done. This is not a loophole, it is established tax code which is available to every tax paying citizen. I honestly don't see what is so hard to grasp about this topic.

Obnoxious
Fri Apr 27 2012 12:19
The only argument I see on here is that she didn't put more information in. Sure, if this were a New York Times Article that was allowed 2,000 words I'm sure Aubrey would but in the raising of capital gains taxes, or an appropriate level for the rich to pay in income taxes. I'm sure she would love to issue a tax law 101 course right here in the CFF, but theres a limit on word counts. Just because you keep saying the words "capital gains tax" does not make it any less of a loophole. We get it, Buffett pays less because he gets his money from stocks and investment, I don't see how that changes the debate at all.
TrollWatch
Thu Apr 26 2012 20:29
If you're referring to writers that are willing to put their opinions out there versus ones that have yet to step up, sure, I've noticed it. It's not like this publication hasn't featured face-offs between liberal and conservative writers in the past. More likely than not, it's a function of who's actually willing to be a regular writer for this publication and who isn't, rather than the implication of bias that you appear to be making.
Anonymous
Thu Apr 26 2012 16:09
Have you ever noticed the ratio of liberal opinion pieces to conservative opinion pieces in this paper?
Bibi
Thu Apr 26 2012 15:30
"The bias of this "paper" is unbelievable. The ignorance of the author isn't though."

^This is an opinion piece. It's not required to be objective.

Anonymous
Wed Apr 25 2012 15:02
The bias of this "paper" is unbelievable. The ignorance of the author isn't though.
Hornfog Hornleg
Tue Apr 24 2012 21:16
President Obama has our backs when he is out to grab our demographic:

There is a story on Politico right now about how he didn't even show up for two separate votes when the issue of student loan rates initially came up in 2007. It could be contended that he was busy on a campaign trail, but then it could be said that he neglected his elected responsibility, and if he knew he wouldn't be able to maintain even a semblance of his position, he should have resigned to fully commit to the presidential campaign.

And you must be the Monopoly guy.
Tue Apr 24 2012 20:54
I have multiple points of contention. The first of which being, if we want to reduce our deficit, we should focus on cutting spending rather than increasing revenue. In your personal budget, you will more than likely look for ways to save before deciding, "I know, I'll just get a second job!"

Second point of contention, for an article on taxes, there are only four quantitative figures used, with most of your argument falling on qualitative reasoning.

I agree with another commentator regarding capital gains. This is pivotal to comparing Warren Buffett to his secretary.

Simple tax lesson; highest marginal tax rate on a salary is 35%. Highest tax rate on capital gains is only 15%, with an option of 0% if you meet specific earnings criteria.

Buffett's income is primarily derived from capital gains on investments, whereas his secretary's is from an actual salary, so that greatly skews the comparison.

I will not lie, the tax code is extremely complicated, and for most people it is an afterthought. But there are people who pay strict attention to the code to minimize their tax expense. It is true that most of these people are upper class, but that doesn't mean they aren't paying their fair share. Everyone is playing by the same set of rules. Establishing a new code that requires millionaires to pay "their fair share" is hypocritical beyond belief.

Anonymous
Tue Apr 24 2012 18:52
What would be their "fair share"? 50%? 60%? 90% of their income?
Anonymous
Tue Apr 24 2012 16:55
Not even one mention of capital gains? Income tax? Has this person even taken an economics class or is she basically resorting to "Tax people who have more money than I. College is expensive."?
Anonymous
Tue Apr 24 2012 16:53
There is so much misinformation and so many omissions I don't know where to start. I thought the purpose of a guest columnist was so that you could bring in someone with some... I don't know. Knowledge? Insight? Something that would give the guest columnist a leg up on people who are completely ignorant of the subject at hand. Then again, this is the Future. I wouldn't expect quality here.
Anonymous
Mon Apr 23 2012 21:10
The problem with that thinking is that you could TAKE 100% of the income of the "rich", and you still would not have enough to cover the deficit. The Fair Tax is truly the thing that will bring jobs and boost our economy.




log out