By Amanda Rougeaux / Opinions Editor
By Amanda Rougeaux / Opinions Editor
The Buffett Rule is a tax plan proposed in 2011 by President Barack Obama that if passed, would apply a minimum tax rate of 30 percent on individuals making more than $1 million dollars a year.
The tax plan was named after Warren Buffett, an American business tycoon, investor, and philanthropist.
He is widely regarded as one of the most successful investors and one of the wealthiest people in the world.
According to a White House official, the new tax rate would impact 0.3 percent of taxpayers.
Many people agree that wealthy persons do not pay their fair share in taxes.
As true as this may be, with the Buffett Rule we need to remember how many “well-off” people pay their fair share and more.
There is a big difference between a working class person and a well-off person.
Both pay taxes and work, though well-to-do persons are supposed to pay more because of the money they make.
But what happens when you have enough money to give large amounts away each year?
The answer is tax write-offs. The result: come tax time, wealthy persons pay less than their share in taxes.
The proposed tax plan is supposed to correct this so that everyone pays their fair amount accordingly, tax write-offs or not.
Though what is considered the fair share of the people that are both well-off and in the working class?
We must take into account the fact that not all well-off people are necessarily rich.
The position of those on the lesser treads of the wealthy is just as fragile as that of most other wage earners.
Without having socked away retirement savings, those individuals are just as susceptible to a downturn in the economy as every other person in the working class.
Whether it is debt, dependents or any other payments, some wealthy people are struggling to stay afloat in the economy.
Deciding that a person is well-off because of how much they make a year is a completely unfair and mindless way of decision making.
Sure, the people who really are not paying their fair share will be affected, but the Buffet Rule will negatively affect more working class and wealthy citizens than is realized.
Although unfinished and unpolished, the Buffet Rule is a good idea and should be passed as long as it is revised and polished up.
The only two categories of people are not the “1 percent” and the “99 percent.”
By putting people into these two categories many citizens are put into a group that does not suit the situation they are in.
Everyone who pays taxes should be looked at as an individual with a life of their own.
It is safe to assume that every “1 percentage” pays the exact same amount of money to organizations and the government each year.
The point is, no person or living situation is the same. We are all individuals with different obligations and paths.
That being said, this tax plan should not even have been proposed until every person was taken into account instead of lumping people into two categories.
It would be a more realistic plan if salaries, taxes, debt and all other contributing factors were taken into account.
If the Buffett Rule had been formed with an understanding of every different person and family’s situation it would have most likely been a great triumph.
This plan needs to be revised in a way that affects the well-off in different, more suitable ways.
Guidelines and precautions should be put in place to make the Buffett Rule the best and most effective it can be without imposing large overwhelming taxes on half of the well-off working class.
