The American people woke up today to find that their household wealth has been completely redistributed. That’s because today is the day on which the so-called Buffett Redistribution Rule takes effect. The rule, named in honor of Warren Buffett, an Omaha investor and one of the richest people in the world, is encompassed in an executive order proclaimed last month by President Obama.
The President had previously tried to get Congress to pass legislation that would put the rule into effect, but the attempt was blocked by the Republican majority in the House of Representatives. In announcing the executive order, Obama said: “Since Congress won’t do what I say, I am illegally usurping their power. Congress is soooo yesterday.”
Under the Buffett Redistribution Rule, people with net worths greater than $175,000 must contribute any amount above that figure to a redistribution pool. The money from the pool will then be redistributed to people with net worths less than $175,000, so that everyone in the United States winds up with exactly $175,000. The $175,000 figure is based on estimates -- which officials admit are somewhat shaky -- of the total net worth of households in the United States. That figure is pegged at $54 trillion.
There had been legal challenges to the executive order by members of the Republican party, but those were disposed of in the wee hours of this morning by the U.S. Supreme Court. The five liberals on the court, Justices Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayer and Kagan, agreed that the redistribution rule is the equivalent of a tax, and that any tax imposed on the American people is “cool with us". They swept aside the opposing argument, backed by the four conservatives on the court, Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Alito and Thomas, that while the rule might indeed be a tax, the president of the United States does not have taxing authority. “The Constitution is soooo yesterday,” Justice Roberts wrote in his opinion.
After reading his opinion aloud in the courtroom, Roberts was invited to three cocktail parties sponsored by members of the media and the entertainment industry. He seemed quite pleased by the invitations, and was seen talking earnestly with actress Cameron Diaz.
Strangely enough, Warren Buffett, the namesake of the redistribution rule, seemed displeased with it. He pointed out that he will have to surrender 99.9995 percent of his $35 billion in assets. “That’s a pretty big hit,” he said, struggling to maintain control of his temper.
A reporter pointed out to Buffett that he may have brought this on himself, because of his frequent statements that rich people should pay a larger share of their incomes in taxes.
“That’s taxes, you dummy, not assets,” Buffett shot back. “I didn’t mind paying a few extra thousand dollars a year in taxes. That was just a public relations ploy, to divert attention from the fact that I was obscenely rich. That amount means nothing to someone with my wealth -- my former wealth, I mean. This new rule is confiscatory, and I denounce it, despite the honor President Obama paid me by naming it after me.”
At the other end of the financial spectrum, the rule was applauded by members of Occupy Wall Street, who took showers and put on clean clothes to make their presence more tolerable at a press conference. Each of the OWS members previously had no money at all, and now they all have $175,000. “I don’t think this money is going to last long,” one OWSer joked. “My dealer is already climbing all over me, offering me volume discounts on the finest cocaine and pot.”
A reporter asked the OWSer whether it might not be wise to invest the money, to help ensure that he never again becomes penniless.
“No need,” he replied. “A year from now, the government will survey everyone in the country, determine their net worths, and then bring them back up -- or down -- to the $175,000 level. It’s part of the new, er, law. If I increase my stake, I will have to surrender the entire gain. There’s no point in enterprise anymore.”
White House spokesman Jay Carney released a statement in which President Obama expressed himself “delighted” with this transformation in tax policy. Pressed by a Fox News reporter, Carney acknowledged that the executive order exempts anyone living in the 1600 block of Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington from having any wealth confiscated. Carney said the exemption is "even-handed," because it includes not only the White House, but also the homes directly across the street.
The president also said that he was considering joining with other world leaders, through the United Nations, to extend the redistribution rule to the entire world. The average net worth of everyone in the world is only about $35,000, which means that Americans who are suddenly worth $175,000 today might have to surrender $140,000 of that to accommodate the needs of poor people elsewhere in the world.
One of the newly enriched OWSers was asked about this possibility. “No fucking way am I gonna give my money to those gooks!” he said. “They’ll have to pry the money from my cold, dead hands!”
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Herr Rudolphus der Rude
Tom King
Miss Michele
Deborah Young
Lynette Stark
Pam Malone
Salon.com
Comments
Here's a sad truth.
1. Our national government distributes about $2.2 trillion each year under a variety of social welfare entitlement programs, the big three of which are Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare.
2. We are a nation of about 300 million people.
3. Divide (1) by (2) to discover a wealth distribution program of about $7,333 per person.
4. None of (3) gets to me. . . . . . none of it. . .
Rated.
As I understand it, the place to auction political items is:
www.Rod_Blagojevich's_List.com
The section on Congressional Senate Seats has been closed. However, one can list one's vote in various national and State elections. It's quite a place; however, read the disclaimer first.
Chris
Maybe I will complete it and post it a little later.
UC - you know where I stand. You and I argued this would never stand under the commerce clause. We were right. But it does it matter. The taxing power decision may actually be worse. Apparently now the congress can now pass ANY legislation compelling or restricting ANY PERSONAL behavior just by adding the words "a tax penalty to be collected by the IRS".
All the other enumerated powers are now redundant and unnecessary to justify any law.
Tom Cordle can now put to rest his opinion about the "general welfare". It is unnecessary. He can now argue factually and correctly that all entitlement and welfare programs are constitutional under the taxing power.
Any lawmaker would be insane not to include the tax language to insure it will stand.
I now view income tax ans not a tax that I can afford because I am employed. It is a "failure to be unemployed tax".
Property tax is the "failure to not own property tax".
My question is not "Who is John Galt?". It is "Where is John Galt?". I want him to come find me now.
REDISTRIBUTION
ie redistribution of wealth to massive corporations with massive multibilliondollar profit/savings warchests... to CEOs who are higher paid in multiplier vs low paid in corporations in the entire history of corporations... redistribution to oligarchic/cartel banks in the form of WELFARE if their bad loans actually turn bad!
yep it truly is a wonder to behold there AL!
truly magical AL!
Well I happy you see it as BS but I think most of the OS population is very happy. I have had many arguments about this and only a few others on salon that are fiscally conservative agree with me. Most all argued the “commerce clause” was sufficient and that if overturned the court was just acting on party lines.
Maybe I was not making a lot of sense but it was/is because I am still feeling like I have been punched in the gut. OSers like Tom Cordle have been vindicated that the gov and the collective can steal not only money, but now my very spirit. When I was 15 and got that job at the pizza joint (you know, when I got in trouble), I was so proud to tell my father. This decision makes me feel like an idiot for ever having ambition. I know a lot of people love to say they are leaving the country if this happens or that. But now I really want to leave. My family could get over it, but I cannot leave my most loved 7 year old nephew.
It is not “Who is John Galt?”. I am asking “Where is John Galt?”
As for the situations I was talking about let me try again. This is all based on what I know of ACA but I could have some details wrong since no one really understands it.
Yes, the TX risk pool in theory should be unnecessary. And my lady friend will get picked up by an insurer who is now forced to take her. But since the risk pool is already TX’s implementation of making insurers share these people, there is no reason to think she won’t still have to pay 1K+ a month.
As for my brother, his 10K deductible policy does not meet the minimum requirement Obama has established for the good of the collective market. So I can only assume the policy will disappear. Why would the insurer keep it when they know people are required by the force of the IRS to buy what is mandated. Since my bother has had prostate cancer he was lucky to keep the policy he has. In today’s market he would be in the same boat as my lady friend if he goes looking for a new policy. No one will take him. So today he would be in the risk pool. When ACA is in affect he will be forced on an insurer that will also charge him for coverage he does not want and cannot afford.
My sis and brother in law are in the same boat. His boss just dropped him. My sis does not want to be and abuser of the system, but a policy similar to my brothers that excluded the preexisting conditions and high deductible is what she is searching for. No such policy will exist in 18 months.
Covering preexisting conditions is not a panacea for everyone. It is good for a condition that takes constant care and money. But take me. My migraines need no more real care/diagnosis. I need inexpensive meds and just deal with it. I don’t need an insurance policy to cover those meds or an office visit if I want to talk to the doc about a change. I can manage that as I manage the $400 an hour my PCP charges and takes no insurance. It should be my right to negotiate a policy to exclude that coverage. If I think like Tom Cruise and am abhorrent to taking antidepressants or seeing a mental health provider I should not have to buy such a policy I never intend to use.
I now look at income tax as not a tax for earning income and I can afford it for the good of all. I look at it as a penalty for failing to be unemployed.
Property tax is a penalty for failing to not own property. I have always wondered if the IRS would ever actually tax people just for having a savings account. Now it is true. They can do it. Assuming I was getting no disability, I will not starve and I have too much savings that I think I will not be considered indigent. So now if I generate zero income the IRS can now tax me for doing and earning nothing. But others that do nothing and earn nothing without savings get assistance.
This is an insult on my very being. Because that what it is. A fine for “being”. And the label of a criminal. And I do not accept for a minute the argument that the IRS will never collect this or punish anyone. When this plan dos not generate enough to sustain itself, the penalty will go up and the IRS will eventually use its full powers to seize money from someone like me that bothered to save well. They will deem me as able to afford the punishment. Bot not the starving artist that won't work or accept the fact he has no the talent to earn his way in life.
This was pushed though congress by thugs. The very ones who promised no taxes then went in court and argue it is a tax. And the decision was not a decision on the requirement of the law. It was a decision on the penalty. Somehow they decided the penalty was constitutional so therefore requirement is constitutional. Congress did not follow the rules and procedures it places on itself to pass a taxation law. Then they argue it is a tax.
I have so many friends on Austin who are so angry with Obama now. But 3 years ago when I tried to tell them he was just another smiling politician they swore he was some savior. Now they are mad as hell. Why were they taken in by his BS? They thought he was going to somehow be the first honest even handed politician they have ever seen in their lives. Now the know better.
Now there is all the talk or repeal. It will never happen. Just like the liberals in WI could not recall the Gov. It was not for lack of trying. It is just to hard to do. This has now been decided by the highest court and people are tired and fed up. There is not the energy or will to fix this now. It is too hard to do. And even those against it want to stop fighting, so they will accept it. And Romney supporters will turn against him because they just don’t want to hear anymore divisiveness. Anymore resistance is just the behavior of an angry loser.
This is exactly why my brother quit work at 48. He chose to live a frugal lifestyle forever because he was fed up with taxes. As a result he has not paid a penny of Fed tax in 10 years. He even moves money out of regular pre tax IRAs into Roth with no penalty. So he will never pay tax on that money either. This is the stupidity of a gov that takes too much from people. But now they have figured out a way to reach into his bank account and force him back into the system in a small way. What will be next? The “failure to contribute penalty”? Yes, but not for bums with no money. Just for people who did work and decided to quit with a bank account.
This weekend I am opening my home for the 5th of 8 weekends for a close friend to teach a self help workshop. I do this to save him the cost of renting a conference room. I know all 20 of the strangers I am inviting into my home are likely Obama supporters and are cheering this decision. It will be a hard pill to swallow. Offering my home to the very people I am in such disagreement with. I won't do it but there is a deep urge to tell them all first thing on Saturday morning, "if you are happy about this get the fuck out of my home".
Joseph, I can't possibly do justice here to everything you have written, but I share most of your opinions.
inthis, Thanks for your comment. Interesting thoughts.
R
Some of your tax money certainly goes to the poor.
Redistribution of wealth is a big issue in this year's presidential campaign, so I tried to imagine, satirically, what would happen if it were taken to an extreme.
One serious point in here is that overdoing it could leave both rich and poor with little or no incentive to produce more wealth. I think that happens when taxes get too high. Thanks for your kind comments.
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy."?
Was that the same guy who said:
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."?
If so, then how could one man have seen so much so correctly?