Reagan Invented the "Buffet Rule" that millionaires pay more in taxes

  1. Dr Billy Kidd profile image90
    Dr Billy Kiddposted 5 years ago

    It is interesting that it was actually President Reagan who invented the "Buffet Rule." That's the idea that millionaires should pay at least the same percentage of their income in taxes as their secretaries (See: ).

    Ron Reagan, Jr., has argued that his father would not be considered a devotee of Reagonomics if he were just starting out today.

    This makes me wonder: How is it that the House Republicans are aguing that they are doing what Reagan did--cutting taxes for the wealthy--in order to create jobs, when Reagan himself argued against it? Have we all gone loony? Are the Republicans right on taxes but wrong about Reagan? Or are the facts irrelevant when arguing your point of view because the ends justify the means?

    What are your thoughts?

    1. Greekgeek profile image97
      Greekgeekposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      John McCain was arguing on the side of Buffet just a few years ago, when the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy were first proposed.

        -- … l&_r=0

      Those tax breaks for the wealthy were designed to get rid of the surplus that had built up during the Clinton administration, on the principle that if the government was taking in more $ than it needed, then temporary tax cuts should be instituted to trim the surplus.

      The problem is they forgot that was a temporary measure designed to drain the federal coffers, and like a needle stuck in someone's arm to draw blood, at some point you need to take it out, or your surplus turns into a deficit!

      The other problem being that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy were implemented when the economy was booming, so they depended on much, much more revenue coming in than was happening later in Bush's term when the economy tanked.

      If Reagan were alive today, the GOP would be lambasting him as a RINO for all his liberal, socialist policies.

      1. Dr Billy Kidd profile image90
        Dr Billy Kiddposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Thanks, Greekgeek. That article that you cite from the N.Y. Times was quite informative. The part about Senator John McCain "evolving" on certain positions is interesting::

        "In May 2001, Mr. McCain was one of only two Republicans — the other was Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island — to vote against President Bush’s $1.35 trillion 10-year tax cut. On the Senate floor, Mr. McCain said, “I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief.”"

        I'm starting to think that the salient issue in all of these budget discussions is the public's short memory for political events. So, why wouldn't you change positions if it was expedient to do so? Nobody seems to remember all that much about what really happens.