jerseyhoya wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/qanda-sen-sheldon-whitehouse-explains-how-the-buffett-rule-will-work/2011/08/25/gIQArQCWkQ_blog.html - Q&A with the sponsor

Ezra Klein: Let me begin with a technical question. How do you avoid a massive tax cliff as people move from making a taxable income of $999,999 to $1,000,001? Because if the rise is too steep, the bill will encourage tax evasion.

Sheldon Whitehouse: Two things. I suppose I could put up with a certain amount of that because it’s a lesser problem than having people making $270 million a year paying a lower tax rate than the plumbers who come to fix their sinks. But the more specific answer is that in the course of our discussions over the bill, that problem has emerged, and we’ve adapted the bill to have a phase in between one and two million. So you pay a portion of the tax the Buffett rule adds as you go up the line between one and two million and it doesn’t kick in fully until you get to two million.

EK: So if it’s not 30 percent, what’s the minimum effective tax rate someone making $1,000,001 would pay?

SW: It’s hard to do the math on that because it would be highly specific to their situation. If they were paying 18 percent now, and if they only went over one million by one dollar, they would be 18 percent plus one one-millionth of the Buffett rule adjustment. And if they were one dollar short of two million, they would pay the full 30 percent minus one one-million of the full adjustment. So there’s a ramp.

I'm not exactly sure what the Buffett Rule Adjustment works out to be or how they calculate it, but this is what I've found on the interwebs.

jerseyhoya wrote:

PEORIA, Ill
...

To deafening applause, Senator Santorum lifted a piece of shale into the air and assured his supporters he would be the nominee, with a realistic anticipation that the election results in previous primary contests will be voided at the party’s convention in Tampa.

jerseyhoya wrote:Romney wins Illinois

jerseyhoya wrote:They're house members, who cares what they think? Fwiw, the tea party groups were backing Manzullo. Kinzinger had support of Eric Cantor's Young Guns PAC. You don't like any of those people.

It's really unbelievable Santorum is running under the FREEDOM banner. He hates libertarianism.

jerseyhoya wrote:

President Obama's proposed "Buffett rule" tax on Americans earning more than $1 million a year would only raise $31 billion in revenue over 11 years according to a new numbers from Congress' official tax analysts.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., recently introduced legislation implementing Obama's Buffett rule in the Senate and the Associated Press obtained a copy of the Joint Committee on Taxation estimate of legislation today. Contacted for a copy of the report, the JTC said it was private score and would not be made public unless requested by Sen. Whitehouse.

El Oh El

There is growing talk about Mitt Romney’s “dog problem.” Before the issue was specified in the poll, only 20% of voters said they had a favorable opinion of Romney’s treatment of dogs; 29% said unfavorable. That compares to the president’s 44-14 spread on the issue. Even Republicans only think their nomination frontrunner is kind to man’s best friend by a 26-14 margin, while Democrats give the president’s puppy friendliness a 66-7 nod. 37% say Obama would be a better president for dogs, while 21% choose Romney. 16% of Republicans cross over for Obama on this issue, versus only 11% of Democrats for Romney. Independents go 38-14 for the president.

jerseyhoya wrote:I can't tell if Monkeyboy is serious about the dog stuff or if he's been doing a liberal version of Colbert's character type thing on it

pacino wrote:Wow, some people in Illinois weren't able to vote for rick santorum because they vote for delegates who support candidates and he didn't get any on ballots in multiple counties.

What a dumb way to vote.