Soak the Rich? UT Professors Skeptical About Buffett Rule



  • A recent poll found that 60 percent of Americans favor the Buffett Rule and only 37 percent oppose it
  • The Alternative Minimum Tax strips away many popular deductions, trying to catch taxpayers who are loading up on loopholes
  • Capital gains taxes apply to income earned from selling investments like stocks and real estate

Raise my taxes, please! 

That was the request of Warren Buffett, the 81-year-old CEO of Berkshire Hathaway and the third-richest man in the world. In August 2011 he penned a New York Times op-ed calling for higher taxes on millionaires like himself.

Buffett’s central claim was that for the most recent tax year, he paid lower rates than his employees, even though he earned millions more. “What I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income,” he wrote. “That’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.”

The idea of a tax code so riddled with loopholes that a billionaire could pay lower rates than his secretary quickly became a potent political symbol. President Barack Obama proposed the Buffett Rule: “No household making more than $1 million each year should pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than a middle class family pays.”

An April bill by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) would have levied a minimum tax of 30 percent on incomes over $2 million. Though the bill died in the Senate, an Associated Press/GfK Group poll found 60 percent of Americans favoring the rule and only 37 percent opposed. Even among Republicans, 43 percent backed the concept. 

Economically Sound?

The Buffett Rule appears to make for good politics, but how does it rate in terms of economics?

Not so well, say tax and finance faculty at the University of Texas at Austin. “It’s a political gimmick,” says Robert Peroni, professor at the School of Law. “I definitely think we need to reform our tax system, and that one aspect of that will be that many high-income people will be paying more in taxes than they are now.” But the Buffett Rule, he argues, is a bad way to pursue a good goal.

He agrees that Buffett has shed light on a genuine problem. Although most millionaires pay higher tax rates than most middle-class earners, there are a significant number who don’t. A March analysis of IRS data by the Congressional Research Service, found that 94,500 taxpayers with incomes over $1 million paid effective federal tax rates under 26.5 percent. Meanwhile, 10.4 million earners under $100,000 were paying rates over that figure.

Alternative Minimum Tax

So, why not sock a minimum tax on millionaires? The central problem, says Lillian Mills, accounting professor at the McCombs School of Business, is that one already exists. And both Democrats and Republicans agree it works poorly.

The Alternative Minimum Tax was first enacted in 1982, with a similar goal to the Buffett Rule: to root out rich tax dodgers. It requires them to calculate their incomes in two different ways — first for the standard income tax and again for the AMT — and pay the higher of the two taxes. The AMT strips away many popular deductions, trying to catch taxpayers who are loading up on loopholes.

“It adds a lot of complexity, when you have to figure your taxes in two different ways,” says Mills. “This is a complexity that arose out of a lack of courage. Congress wanted to make sure that people who were claiming tax subsidies still paid a minimum amount of tax. But they didn’t have the courage to just eliminate the subsidies.”

Besides being complicated, the AMT has been catching many earners who aren’t millionaires. That’s because its income threshold was never indexed to rise with inflation. As Americans’ incomes have risen, more and more middle-class families have crossed that threshold and become subject to the tax.

In recent years, Congress has repeatedly patched the AMT by temporarily raising its income thresholds. But the current patch expires at the end of this year. Without a new one, according to the Tax Policy Center, the AMT will strike 63 percent of married households with incomes between $75,000 and $100,000.

Add in the Buffett Rule on top of the AMT, and Americans would face three tax systems. “We already have one system that’s a mess,” says Peroni. “Let’s not enact another one.”

Besides, the extra tax revenue would barely make a dent in federal deficits. The congressional Joint Committee on Taxation estimated the Whitehouse bill would raise an extra $4.7 billion a year, while Whitehouse himself pegged it at $16 billion. 

“If you cut federal spending 1 percent across the board, you would balance the budget a lot more than the Buffett Rule ever thought of doing,” says Jim Nolen, a distinguished senior lecturer in finance who recently retired from McCombs. 

Capital Gains

Instead of the Buffett Rule, there are more effective ways to prevent wealthy taxpayers from slipping through the cracks, say some professors. One is to raise tax rates on investment income.

Capital gains, which come from selling investments like stocks and real estate, are currently taxed at a top rate of 15 percent, compared to 35 percent for ordinary wages. The Congressional Budget Office reports that the top 0.01 percent of taxpayers get 44 percent of their income from capital gains and only 12 percent from wages. That’s why investors like Buffett and Mitt Romney pay effective tax rates close to 15 percent.

Most economists say it’s appropriate to tax capital gains more lightly, says Mills. “We tax them some, but not equal to earnings, driven by the economic theory that we don’t want to discourage the investment that is the engine of our economy.”

But the gap between wages and investments could be much narrower, without discouraging investment, says Peroni. He would raise the top capital gains rate to at least 20 percent.

But the most effective way to achieve Buffett’s goals, he says, would be to repeal most of the deductions that have crept into the tax code since its last major overhaul, in 1986. Congress could then lower tax rates on everyone. Middle-class taxpayers would benefit the most, since they tend to take fewer and smaller deductions than wealthy ones.

“Let’s get the basic income tax system correct,” says Peroni. “We should be reforming income taxes across the board, not just focusing on the upper income levels. Let’s see what people’s taxable incomes are after these breaks are eliminated.”


Faculty in this Article

Jim Nolen

Distinguished Senior Lecturer (retired), Department of Finance McCombs School of Business, The University of Texas at Austin

Jim Nolen received his BBA and MBA from The University of Texas at Austin. Until his retirement in May 2012, he taught both undergraduate and...

Jim Nolen teaches in the Texas Executive Education program, featuring open enrollment, custom and certificate classes for executives and organization teams.

Lillian Mills

Professor, Department of Accounting

Lillian Mills received her BA from the the University of Florida and her Ph.D. from the University of Michigan. Her research interests include...

Robert J. Peroni

The Fondren Foundation Centennial Chair for Faculty Excellence School of Law, The University of Texas at Austin

Professor Peroni joined the faculty in 2003, and his primary areas of teaching and scholarship are federal income taxation, international taxation...

About The Author

Steve Brooks

In a quarter-century as a journalist, Steve Brooks has won two Neal awards for excellence in trade reporting and a Press Club of New Orleans award...


#1 Soak the rich? Soak,

Soak the rich? Soak, according to the New Oxford American Dictionary, means "to impose heavy charges or taxation on." You consider a thirty percent mandatory tax rate on individuals making more than a million dollars a year heavy taxation? Ridiculous, but I will get to this in a moment! The Buffett Rule basically says, rich persons should not pay less in federal taxes, as a portion of income, than persons in the middle class. I assume the dissenting Peroni agrees with this basic principle and is what he means by "good goal" when he argues "the Buffett Rule is a bad way to pursue a good goal." However, Peroni never makes the argument why the Buffett Rule is a bad way to achieve a minimum taxation in line with a goal that he purports to agree with nor does he substantiate his claim that the Buffett Rule is "a political gimmick." In the following paragraph, Lillian Mills makes the argument against the Buffett Rule because it would be too complicated given the two existing ways to calculate income. Simplifying the tax system is a noble goal but how are you going to get it done? How does this solve for the rich skirting their tax liabilities? It's not clear who follows with the idea to not implement the Buffett Rule because it wouldn't "make a dent in the federal deficits", but whomever it is also seems to be missing the point and may be bad at accounting - and then there is also the principle of not letting some people steal $4.6 billion to $16 billion per year from tax-paying US citizens. Jim Nolen's recommendation of cutting the federal budget by 1% again diverges from the basic issue which is rich persons paying their fair share and adds no value to the argument against the Buffett Rule. No substance nor insight, simply political garbage. A quick historical analysis of sliding tax rates on the rich from Reagan to George W. Bush would have lent some sense of objectivity and context for what might constitute a fair tax rate for the richest Americans. To ignore completely the relationship between growing federal deficits and cutting taxes is again simply ridiculous. All in all, this is a poorly written article that erodes the credibility of Texas Enterprise and the University of Texas professors if they stand behind this garbage. - AG

Leave a comment

We want to hear from you! To keep discussions on-topic and constructive, comments are moderated for relevance and for abusive or profane language.
Login or register to post comments