House Republicans have said the estimated $6 billion annual cost of extending low-interest rates for student loans isn’t affordable without offsetting cuts but that they are still deciding whether to support a temporary extension. Obama has started pushing Congress for the extension and planned a three-state tour this week to warn students of the potential financial catastrophe they will face if Congress fails to act.
Interest rates are set to double on July 1, from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent, on a popular federal loan for low- and middle-income undergraduates.
“I support extending the temporary relief on interest rates for students,” Romney said Monday, a day before five states hold primaries, though he did not offer specifics on how the extension should be paid for or how long it should last. He said he supports the extension because of “extraordinarily poor conditions in the job market.”
You know what would cover over three-quarters of that $6 billion per year total the House is bandying about? The Buffett Rule, which Romney says would pay for 11 hours of government. So this is going to cost the government 12 to 13 hours of government over the next decade or something?
» A dip from prior years: Obama’s taxes show a dip in income from his book sales — which earned him millions of dollars in prior years — to the point where it makes up roughly half of his income in 2012, with the other half coming from his presidential salary. The president, it turns out, made under the $1 million in income that would force him to pay higher taxes under his proposed “Buffett Rule.” Obama certainly isn’t struggling, though his income doesn’t compare to what his likely GOP competitor, Mitt Romney, has made in recent years. In other news, we’re betting this post is reminding you that you forgot to do your taxes. Better get on that!
» And he only paid 17.4% in taxes: Buffett, whose monetary gains are the subject of scrutiny because of the fact that he’s the inspiration for Obama’s “Buffett Rule” (a notable part of the president’s jobs plan), released the earnings after being prodded by Rep. Tim Huelskamp of Kansas, a Republican. Of note: Just $39,814,784 of his earnings were taxable, with the rest going to deductions and exemptions (like, say, his fairly robust charitable givings). And in case you’re wondering, Warren’s tax rate is low largely because he makes most of his income through investing. In the end, how much did he pay in taxes? A paltry $7 million (or a mere nine percent in taxes on adjusted gross income).
With this weekend of arrests, this seems like a great way to end it. Warren Buffett knows the score. Love how the reporter is like “it won’t do anything,” and he just drops the $20 billion number off the top. Can’t get anything past him. (via Percolate)
The money has to come from somewhere. So why not the rich? “We are not going to have a one-sided deal that hurts folks that are most vulnerable,” he says. Let’s see what he says in six months.
(Source: CNN)
Middle-class families shouldn’t pay higher taxes than millionaires & billionaires. It’s hard to argue against that.President Obama (via thedailyfeed)
We can’t afford these special rates for the wealthy. They were meant as temporary measures.Obama • Explaining his reasoning for the “Buffett Rule.”
(Source: CNN)
Coming soon: Obama’s press conference where he reveals his $3 billion trillion debt-reduction plan, including the “Buffett Rule.” Watch live at the link above.
Edit: He’s speaking now.
Class warfare … may make for really good politics, but it makes for rotten economics.Rep. Paul Ryan • Coming out, guns blazing, against Obama’s plan to raise the tax rate for the super-rich. Ryan, speaking on “Fox News Sunday,”also claimed that the tax would be in effect a “double tax” on investments, and would discourage investors from putting their money into the economy. “If you tax something more, you get less of it,” Ryan said. “If you tax job creators more, you get less job creation. If you tax their investment more, you get less investment.” Mitch McConnell, speaking on “Meet the Press,” had similar concerns about the “Buffett Rule,” which we found out about last night. source (via • follow)
Remember how Warren Buffett wrote that the government should raise the taxes of the super-wealthy … you know, folks like him? Well, it looks like someone with a lot of power to put that plan into action read that New York Times editorial. Obama’s going to make a push to tax the super-wealthy (those who make more than $1 million per year) at the same rate as the middle-class, and he’s calling it the “Buffett Rule.” Great selling point for Obama, but will it be enough for all the other rich people in Congress? Good question. (photo via Medill DC) source
Copyright 2009-2013 Ernie Smith • Ask us stuff! • E-mail us • Follow us on Twitter • Follow us on Facebook
