Obama wants $1.5T in new taxes

[finknottle]

Look, this is not a serious proposal. It is *not* intended to pass.

 

I think Obama is officially in full campaign mode, and that their strategy is to look to Truman's unexpected victory. Barring a miraculous economic recovery, he is gambling on the economy and the jobs situation still being in the tank in 14 months. He wants to run against a 'do nothing' congress that refuses to pass the measures he claims will turn things around.

 

For that to work, however, he has to make sure that his proposals don't get adopted lest he find himself in November defending another failed stimulus. Best way to keep Congress from considering it is to make it DOA with measures he can also use to paint the Republicans as protecting the rich.

[OCinBuffalo]

What Slaughter are you talking about? The 85% incumbent reelection lovefest of 2010?

 

Way to add to the stupid, stupid.

 

Yeah, that's right, there hasn't been any change, in the House, State Houses, and Governors mansions, 2010 wasn't a census year, and all of the above will have 0 effect on redistricting the House for the next 10 years...moron.

 

Yeah, there hasn't been an immediate and consistent check on the people who passed Obamacare. Nah, the Republicans are the same as the Democrats, and they have gone along with everything Obama has wanted...unmitigated moron.

 

How stupid of a post is this? Moron.

 

EDIT: What do you expect? The turds in San Francisco to elect somebody besides Pelosi? Have you been there? She is the perfect representative for them: shameless, clueless, weak. However, that's how the system is supposed to work: she is their representative.

Edited September 20, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[/dev/null]

I think Obama is officially in full campaign mode

 

He's been there since 2006

[Nanker]

I am not a big supporter of President Obama's policies (but I do support him and his role as President of our country). However, policies aside, I don't think there is a good solution to the problems that have been created by the past and current administrations. For decades, the answer has been to kick the can as far forward as possible and not deal with the problem.

 

I am for instituting a war tax immediately, with the money going directly to bringing down the deficit and being used for nothing else. It should have been instituted when we went to Afghanistan and raised when we went into Iraq. Possibly raised again, when we "went into" Libya

 

 

Agreed, and reinstitute the Draft while you're at it. That should be a requisite for waging a war - a war tax and a draft.

 

We might have a few less wars that way.

[OCinBuffalo]

Agreed, and reinstitute the Draft while you're at it. That should be a requisite for waging a war - a war tax and a draft.

 

We might have a few less wars that way.

 

Best way to ruin the Army? Bring back the draft. We'll be right back to "The Army of the 70s" in no time. :rolloeyes:

 

A lot of good people devoted their entire lives to bringing our Army back from the brink of complete failure. Do me a favor and don't propose things that would piss all over that legacy and erase their good, hard work.

 

1 of today's soldiers is worth at least 7 of them from the 70s in terms of combat effectiveness and readiness. So, even if you dishonor them by talking in terms of money, they are way more cost effective.

 

I love uninformed opinions. They are my favorites.

[GG]

From WSJ:

 

Do Taxes on the Rich Raise More Revenue?

 

"The debate over taxing the rich in the U.S. seems to center on “fairness” – who pays too much or too little.

Yet there is little discussion about a more immediate question: Would it raise the expected revenue?

 

Great Britain’s recent experience may be instructive. The U.K. has imposed a new tax rate of 50% for those making £150,000 a year (or about U.S. $236,000). There is a fierce battle between British Chancellor George Osborne, who wants to scrap the tax, and many Liberal Democrats, who want to preserve it.

 

The Chancellor has asked for a study to find out how much revenue the tax has raised, though hard numbers won’t be available until next year. It was expected to raise £2.7 billion a year.

 

That hasn’t stopped people from guessing. A report from Britain’s Institute for Fiscal Studies said the tax is costing the treasury £500 million a year, instead of earning billions. The reason: High earners are simply finding ways to avoid the tax.

 

The IFS, an independent think-tank that focuses on tax policy, said top earners are hiding income or moving their earnings offshore.

Linky Thingy"

 

If i were to quibble with the point is that IFS said that top earners "hide" income. I think it's very hard for people to hide income. But it's very easy for high earners to defer or to shelter the income. Again, once you lower the cost of tax avoidance (ie raise tax rates) tax hikes are counterproductive. The other fallacy of the article is that it claims that tax revenues went up during Clinton years when he raised rates on the rich. What's not said is that the increase in revenues came from capital gains, and Clinton LOWERED those rates!

Edited September 20, 2011 by GG

[3rdnlng]

From WSJ:

 

 

Linky Thingy"

 

If i were to quibble with the point is that IFS said that top earners "hide" income. I think it's very hard for people to hide income. But it's very easy for high earners to defer or to shelter the income. Again, once you lower the cost of tax avoidance (ie raise tax rates) tax hikes are counterproductive. The other fallacy of the article is that it claims that tax revenues went up during Clinton years when he raised rates on the rich. What's not said is that the increase in revenues came from capital gains, and Clinton LOWERED those rates!

 

 

How about this little "discovery"?

 

http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-rich-taxed-less-secretaries-070642868.html

[Magox]

FACT CHECK: Are rich taxed less than secretaries?

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama makes it sound like there are millionaires all over America paying taxes at lower rates than their secretaries.

 

“Middle-class families shouldn’t pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires,” Obama said Monday. “That’s pretty straightforward. It’s hard to argue against that.”

 

The data tells a different story. On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.

There may be individual millionaires who pay taxes at rates lower than middle-income workers. In 2009, 1,470 households filed tax returns with incomes above $1 million yet paid no federal income tax, according to the Internal Revenue Service. That, however, was less than 1 percent of the nearly 237,000 returns with incomes above $1 million.

 

In his White House address Monday, Obama called on Congress to increase taxes by $1.5 trillion as part of a 10-year deficit reduction package totaling more than $3 trillion. He proposed that Congress overhaul the tax code and impose what he called the “Buffett rule,” named for billionaire investor Warren Buffett.

 

The rule says, “People making more than $1 million a year should not pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than middle-class families pay.”

 

 

“Warren Buffett‘s secretary shouldn’t pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. There is no justification for it,” Obama said. “It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million.”

 

Buffett wrote in a recent piece for The New York Times that the tax rate he paid last year was lower than that paid by any of the other 20 people in his office.

 

This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1 percent of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes and payroll taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.

 

Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay 15 percent of their income in federal taxes.

 

Lower-income households will pay less. For example, households making between $40,000 and $50,000 will pay an average of 12.5 percent of their income in federal taxes. Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay 5.7 percent.

 

The latest IRS data is a few years older – and it’s limited to federal income taxes – but it shows much the same thing. In 2009, taxpayers who made $1 million or more paid on average 24.4 percent of their income in federal income taxes, according to the IRS.

 

Those making $100,000 to $125,000 paid on average 9.9 percent in federal income taxes. Those making $50,000 to $60,000 paid an average of 6.3 percent.

 

Obama’s claim hinges on the fact that, for high-income families and individuals, investment income is often taxed at a lower rate than wages. The top tax rate for dividends and capital gains is 15 percent. The top marginal tax rate for wages is 35 percent, though that is reserved for taxable income above $379,150.

 

With tax rates that high, why do so many people pay at lower rates? Because the tax code is riddled with more than $1 trillion in deductions, exemptions and credits, and they benefit people at every income level, according to data from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress’ official scorekeeper on revenue issues.

 

The Tax Policy Center estimates that 46 percent of households, mostly low- and medium-income households, will pay no federal income taxes this year. Most, however, will pay other taxes, including Social Security payroll taxes.

 

“People who are doing quite well and worry about low-income people not paying any taxes bemoan the fact that they get so many tax breaks that they are zeroed out,” said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center. “People at the bottom of the distribution say, but all of those rich guys are getting bigger tax breaks than we’re getting, which is also the case.”

 

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was pressed at a White House briefing on the number of millionaires who pay taxes at a lower rate than middle-income families. He demurred, saying that people who make most of their money in wages pay taxes at a higher rate, while those who get most of their income from investments pay at lower rates.

 

“So it really depends on what is your profession, where’s the source of your income, what’s the specific circumstances you face, and the averages won’t really capture that,” Geithner said.

 

So can we all agree now, that all this talk about Millionaires paying less income tax rates than their secretaries makes for a nice campaign speech, but actually is divorced from reality?

Edited September 20, 2011 by Magox

[DC Tom]

FACT CHECK: Are rich taxed less than secretaries?

 

 

 

So can we all agree now, that all this talk about Millionaires paying less income tax rates than their secretaries makes for a nice campaign speech, but actually is divorced from reality?

 

Please. We can't even agree on the definition of "tax".

[Magox]

Please. We can't even agree on the definition of "tax".

I can't help the helpless...

[OCinBuffalo]

I can't help the helpless...

 

We need to help the helpless, but punish the clueless

[DC Tom]

I can't help the helpless...

 

But it's the whole crux of the argument. Hell, the politicans purposely confuse the issue on that specific definition and hope no one notices. The rich pay more in "taxes" in absolute dollar terms...but as a percent of income not as much...and then if you include SDI which caps around $100k, they pay proportionally even less...but if you only count federal income tax it's a higher rate...and they pay "more" or "less" sales tax, depending on how much they spend or save.

 

It's always such a fun argument to watch, because no two people discuss the same "taxes".

[Adam]

Best way to ruin the Army? Bring back the draft. We'll be right back to "The Army of the 70s" in no time. :rolloeyes:

 

A lot of good people devoted their entire lives to bringing our Army back from the brink of complete failure. Do me a favor and don't propose things that would piss all over that legacy and erase their good, hard work.

 

1 of today's soldiers is worth at least 7 of them from the 70s in terms of combat effectiveness and readiness. So, even if you dishonor them by talking in terms of money, they are way more cost effective.

 

I love uninformed opinions. They are my favorites.

Don't read into it so much- pretty much everyone respects our veterans and what our troops have/can do. I think heis main thing was saying that we should look to avoid wars when possible

[Gary M]

How about this little "discovery"?

 

http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-rich-taxed-less-secretaries-070642868.html

 

How about this?

 

http://distributedrepublic.net/archives/2008/04/19/obama-ill-raise-your-taxes-even-if-it-lowers-revenues

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

Look, this is not a serious proposal. It is *not* intended to pass.

 

I think Obama is officially in full campaign mode, and that their strategy is to look to Truman's unexpected victory. Barring a miraculous economic recovery, he is gambling on the economy and the jobs situation still being in the tank in 14 months. He wants to run against a 'do nothing' congress that refuses to pass the measures he claims will turn things around.For that to work, however, he has to make sure that his proposals don't get adopted lest he find himself in November defending another failed stimulus. Best way to keep Congress from considering it is to make it DOA with measures he can also use to paint the Republicans as protecting the rich.

Yes indeed. I've made that comparison myself. It really is a do-nothing Congress.

 

FACT CHECK: Are rich taxed less than secretaries?

 

 

 

So can we all agree now, that all this talk about Millionaires paying less income tax rates than their secretaries makes for a nice campaign speech, but actually is divorced from reality?

So we just want to narrow the debate down to just income taxes? Forget all the regressive taxation? Forget about how this economy is hitting the middle and increasing lower classes yet the wealthy are laughing it up? Paul Ryan is drinking his lobbiest bought $400 bottles of wine while kids in local communities have to do without football coaches, policemen and afterschool chess club programs

 

 

We know what's going on, the rich really are getting richer and the poor really are getting poorer and more numerous. While you want to ignore that and others are absolutely celebrating it and hoping it gets much worse on the street, others will fight it.

[3rdnlng]

How about this?

 

http://distributedrepublic.net/archives/2008/04/19/obama-ill-raise-your-taxes-even-if-it-lowers-revenues

 

So Obama is actually saying that our tax policy and rates shouldn't have anything to do with the government's need for revenue, but it should reflect the need for someome else's view of what "fairness" should be? Do you wonder why we are so !@#$ed up?

[/dev/null]

So we just want to narrow the debate down to just income taxes? Forget all the regressive taxation? Forget about how this economy is hitting the middle and increasing lower classes yet the wealthy are laughing it up? Paul Ryan is drinking his lobbiest bought $400 bottles of wine while kids in local communities have to do without football coaches, policemen and afterschool chess club programs

 

 

We know what's going on, the rich really are getting richer and the poor really are getting poorer and more numerous. While you want to ignore that and others are absolutely celebrating it and hoping it gets much worse on the street, others will fight it.

 

Anyone else remember back in the late 90s/early 2000s Taco Bell had a series of commercials for "Sir, Drop The Chalupa"?

 

Sometimes when I read Dave's posts, all I can think is "Sir, drop the Kool-Aid"

[DC Tom]

and afterschool chess club programs

 

 

Well, you've certainly pegged the critical problems plaguing our children and our country.

[3rdnlng]

Yes indeed. I've made that comparison myself. It really is a do-nothing Congress.

 

 

So we just want to narrow the debate down to just income taxes? Forget all the regressive taxation? Forget about how this economy is hitting the middle and increasing lower classes yet the wealthy are laughing it up? Paul Ryan is drinking his lobbiest bought $400 bottles of wine while kids in local communities have to do without football coaches, policemen and afterschool chess club programs

 

 

We know what's going on, the rich really are getting richer and the poor really are getting poorer and more numerous. While you want to ignore that and others are absolutely celebrating it and hoping it gets much worse on the street, others will fight it.

 

 

Why are you making **** up? Why would you say that it was lobbiest bought wine when it clearly was not? You are a disengenuous, weazly little liar.

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2011/07/12/so_what_if_paul_ryan_drank_a_350_bottle_of_wine_.html

Edited September 20, 2011 by 3rdnlng

[GG]

Yes indeed. I've made that comparison myself. It really is a do-nothing Congress.

 

 

So we just want to narrow the debate down to just income taxes? Forget all the regressive taxation? Forget about how this economy is hitting the middle and increasing lower classes yet the wealthy are laughing it up? Paul Ryan is drinking his lobbiest bought $400 bottles of wine while kids in local communities have to do without football coaches, policemen and afterschool chess club programs

 

 

We know what's going on, the rich really are getting richer and the poor really are getting poorer and more numerous. While you want to ignore that and others are absolutely celebrating it and hoping it gets much worse on the street, others will fight it.

 

You forgot the starving children and dead grandmas.