Obama Pushing for Tax Hike on Top Earners: If You Make $250K+ a Year, Should You Have to Pay More?

by Chris D Posted 2012/07/09 16:00:00

Related Topics: Obama, Democrat, Family, Democrats, President Obama, Tax, Tax Hike, Top Earners, Tax Policy

943 votes
Read all 1,546 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Yes	346 votes	37%
	No	485 votes	51%
	It depends	112 votes	12%

Politicians love to raise taxes -- and it's not just the Democrats! Do you think that those who are successful and achieve greater income should have to pay a disproportionally greater share of the tax burden?

FOXNEWS.COM reports:
President Obama, amid charges of waging class warfare, is expected to push Monday for a tax hike on families earning more than $250,000 -- and an extension of the Bush-era tax rates for families making less than that.

tax hike families earning 250000 extension bush-era tax rates families

+31

Add a comment above

Rusty Shackleford 2012/07/09 16:13:16

No

+18
All Americans should be treated equally under the law and pay the same tax rate.
>> See Replies

More polls by Chris D

Tasine to ComeOnNow 2012/07/10 12:06:06

+1
Yes, and it SHOULD be run that way NOW. We wouldn't be in all this mess had we never heard of people like WW.

reply
JCD aka... to ComeOnNow 2012/07/10 17:12:33

Your OVERALL tax load is around 25% of your GDP, one of the lowest in the Western world.

reply
ComeOnNow to JCD aka... 2012/07/11 01:39:18

That is federal only. The overall is closer to 40% one of the highest in the world. Besides, your argument is ridiculous, government is waste. They do nothing efficiently and there is no real accountability for their spending. They spend to get votes. That is it. They screw us. When they are not responsible with the money they get, why should they get any more?

reply
JCD aka... to ComeOnNow 2012/07/11 13:42:23

No. The OVERALL tax load is around 25%.

Check you facts. Shouldn't be too difficult.

reply
ComeOnNow to JCD aka... 2012/07/11 16:19:24

in 2007 the average American paid 32.15 percent of income in taxes to the government (10.85 percent at the state and local level, and 21.3 percent at the federal level). That is 1/3 of our entire economy and does not include the loss to the economy due to the taxes, regulations, etc. What the hell does the government really give me besides roads that justifies that?

http://economix.blogs.nytimes...

reply
JCD aka... to ComeOnNow 2012/07/11 16:52:14 (edited)

International comparisons show that the tax load in the US is far below the average load in OECD countries. And "national income" mentioned in your link is also smaller than GDP, typically 20% less. So the 31+% of national income paid in taxes is really like the 25% of GDP I mentioned in my comment.

reply
SoD to JCD aka... 2012/07/10 12:08:29

The effective tax rate then was less than it is now.

reply
JCD aka... to SoD 2012/07/10 17:13:52

What's your source?

reply
SoD to JCD aka... 2012/07/10 18:56:35

http://www.cbo.gov/publicatio...

There is data in the report starting in 1979, five years after the CBO was established. However, it supports my claim.

When I find the data referencing the 1950's, I'll post it. The data is hard to find in a concise format.

When I find the data again, I'm going to save it to a PDF.

reply
JCD aka... to SoD 2012/07/11 13:43:24

Thanks for researching the 1950's data.

reply
SoD to JCD aka... 2012/07/11 14:53:44

I cannot find a concise compilation of the data, and thus I concede my previously stated point.

I do however have an interesting set of documented facts.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/defa...

The data I've cited above illustrates a difference between top marginal and effective rates of ~30% in 1979, while the difference between top marginal and effective rates now is <5%. Considering deductions were more broad in 1950 and the difference between marginal and effective rates has consistently grown smaller through the years, it stands to reason that there would be a difference between marginal and effective rates of >30% in 1950. For argument's sake, let's say the difference between marginal and effective rates in 1950 was ~45%. Given that premise, a 45% reduction in the highest marginal tax rate of 90% would result in a 45% top effective rate. What's more interesting is that todays highest marginal income bracket adjusted for inflation is 22% of what it was in 1950 ($380k vs. $1700k). Therefore, the number of people in the top bracket then was far less than it is now.

http://taxfoundation.org/arti...

Make of this what you will and thanks for an exchange devoid of hyperbole. I'm interested in your opinion of the data I've presented and my analysis of it.

My inductively reasoned position wil...

I cannot find a concise compilation of the data, and thus I concede my previously stated point.

I do however have an interesting set of documented facts.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/defa...

The data I've cited above illustrates a difference between top marginal and effective rates of ~30% in 1979, while the difference between top marginal and effective rates now is <5%. Considering deductions were more broad in 1950 and the difference between marginal and effective rates has consistently grown smaller through the years, it stands to reason that there would be a difference between marginal and effective rates of >30% in 1950. For argument's sake, let's say the difference between marginal and effective rates in 1950 was ~45%. Given that premise, a 45% reduction in the highest marginal tax rate of 90% would result in a 45% top effective rate. What's more interesting is that todays highest marginal income bracket adjusted for inflation is 22% of what it was in 1950 ($380k vs. $1700k). Therefore, the number of people in the top bracket then was far less than it is now.

http://taxfoundation.org/arti...

Make of this what you will and thanks for an exchange devoid of hyperbole. I'm interested in your opinion of the data I've presented and my analysis of it.

My inductively reasoned position will now be that the current top effective rate is ~30% while in 1950 it was likely ~45% or less. However, there are far more people in the top bracket now than there were in 1950.

PS

The available data in this regard is hardly intuitive.
(more)

reply
JCD aka... to SoD 2012/07/11 15:45:09

Thank you for this detailed answer. I will also try to find data about effective rates in the 50s.

reply
Lady Wh... to JCD aka... 2012/07/10 13:33:53

+1
AGREED

reply
hat man 2012/07/10 08:30:42

No

+2
As long as their wealth is legitimate. I mean my trillion were all squeezed out of the government by illicit means, but I own this planet, so...

reply
Mia Murderous 2012/07/10 07:59:29

Yes

+1
If you make more you should pay more. Its as simple as that.

reply
hat man to Mia Mur... 2012/07/10 08:32:27

+3
That's not equality. The rich don’t owe you anything. In any case most rich people also provide most of the work; they already do more for the less fortunate

reply
ComeOnNow to hat man 2012/07/10 10:23:50

+4
Don't forget they also float most of the charities as well. These democrats do not give a damn about anyone but themselves. They just want to steal from the rich because they are Petry thieves.

reply
hat man to ComeOnNow 2012/07/10 10:58:58

These increased taxes are just going to divide the people. I'm not rich myself. I come from a working class family and am still a student, but dividing the people according to wealth will just lead to problems.

reply
ComeOnNow to hat man 2012/07/10 11:20:12

+3
The democrats entire platform is:

1. Promise free stuff to their thief minions stolen from others and then instead of actually appreciating the hand outs, they have the nerve to vilify those they steal from.

2. Turn American against American by race, sex, sexual preference, religion against religion, socioeconomical status, or any other type of ingrained jealousy or hate inherently ingrained in their minions.

reply
Tasine to Mia Mur... 2012/07/10 11:42:31

Why? If a person works harder, longer hours, why would you have him give up the difference in his hard work and your lax work? If he must pay more, then is he not entitled to more? I mean, what is this "fair" stuff? Fairness with people of today is that it is fair to take from the wealthy (and the not so wealthy) in order to give to the "less fortunate and the slobs and lazies". This is the OPPOSITE OF FAIRNESS. Fairness is when everyone is treated the same way, isn't it?

reply
SoD to Mia Mur... 2012/07/10 12:10:13

Why, because you heard some jackass on the idiot box say so?

Explain your position. If you cannot, you should probably keep it to yourself or at least rethink it.

reply
Dan ☮ R P ☮ 2012 ☮ 2012/07/10 06:24:56

No

+5
There should be a tax cut for us all. The consumers pay virtually all taxes anyway, either directly or indirectly (through price increases) and tax hikes will only translate into one thing: Bigger and Badder government.

reply
hat man to Dan ☮ R... 2012/07/10 08:33:43

+5
Employ the mafia and their 'tax' (protection money) will be much less than the governments and on top of that the mob is more honest: when they say they are going to do something they do it.

reply
unicorn_lady1 2012/07/10 06:10:47

No

+4
Only freeloaders, communists, and socialists would say yes. Get rid of the loopholes and all of the tax lawyers and you don't have to raise anything. STOP spending money on things we don't need.

reply
hat man to unicorn... 2012/07/10 08:35:45

+2
Socialists? Socialism is not so bad when it is implemented correctly and in moderation. As in from time to time. There are many forms of socialism.

reply
ComeOnNow to hat man 2012/07/10 10:27:58

+1
That is nonsense. Socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried. It inherently destroys innovation aka the future of the economy. It also destroys opportunity for all. When the government controls everything, only the politically connected can become successful. When every politician lie through their teeth every time they speak in attempt to fool what they consider the ignorant masses, only an idiot would want to give them power over everything. Politicians only look out for themselves and power. They do not give a damn about you.

reply
hat man to ComeOnNow 2012/07/10 11:01:51

Oh I don't support a socialist government. Far from it. My own country is too socialist for my liking, but there are characteristics that I like. I like the community sense to some of it. I actually prefer a small government.

reply
JCD aka... to unicorn... 2012/07/10 09:27:10

You only like tax evaders, right? Are you one of them?

reply
unicorn... to JCD aka... 2012/07/11 04:27:57

I think I used to have you blocked and gave you the benefit of the doubt.. my mistake I guess. Worthless contribution.

reply
burningsnowman 2012/07/10 06:08:42 (edited)

It depends

Just raising the top rate would be stupid. The issue is all the deductions that the super rich can make and how they make their money. Of course if you make most of your millions (or billions) off things like dividends and claim all sorts of tax write offs you can easily wind up paying a lower tax rate than some doctor or lawyer.

reply
Katherine to burning... 2012/07/10 07:33:36

+1
Then again, some of these millionaires wind up paying over 100% in taxes because they aren't in the area where they can utilize the write offs and loopholes. Why ARE there so many different types of taxes, so many rules? That you HAVE to hire expensive experts to do it for you?

reply
burning... to Katherine 2012/07/10 10:16:45

+1
Yeah that's the flip side, you can easily be triple taxed by the system. I'm not sure about 100% but it's still pretty insane that people need to download software or hire an expert to do something like this and even then it's not necessarily enough. I think replacing the income tax with a sales tax would be much better.

reply
Katherine to burning... 2012/07/10 10:49:41

I'm not sure either. It was from a news article. Could be possible, given the many different ways in which you can be taxed? I think they do that so you have no real clue how much of your money is really going towards taxes and fees.

I would love it if they just had a sales tax. Those that purchase more expensive things pay more taxes. Perfect. The current system are jackals nipping at your wallet every chance they get. Gov't overspends then they pit us against each other.

reply
Tasine to burning... 2012/07/10 11:52:02

+1
I think disallowing the federal government to tax individuals altogether would be the best thing. And it should not be writing the budget. The states should collect any money to be collected, and should send the feds WHAT THEY NEED, not what they WANT, but what they NEED, to run the federal government. It should be the states deciding what the feds NEED.

reply
Tasine to Katherine 2012/07/10 11:49:06

+1
Why? Easy. Because CONGRESS writes those loopholes into the laws. There is no problem the US has that is not a direct result of federal government sticking its nose into places it does not belong.

reply
Myopinionmatters 2012/07/10 06:03:13

No

+1
Here is the reason why: the more money you have, the less you utlize the government, and government is way less efficient than all the other private sector companies. It's a fact. So in terms of helping the needy, what sense does it make to force the rich to pay more, when they dontate to and support the most essential national charties. It just doesn't make any logical or economic sense.

reply
A Lionheart 2012/07/10 05:43:49

Yes

+1
Fair taxes for all!

reply
Savior to A Lionh... 2012/07/10 09:00:34

+2
having some people pay more while some either pay none at all or the amount they do pay is insignificant to the other services they receive, that's fair?

reply
A Lionh... to Savior 2012/07/11 04:59:19

Got anything specific? Or, maybe even coherent?

reply
Savior to A Lionh... 2012/07/15 21:12:26

welfare recipients do they even pay taxes, if so it would still be less than what they receive from government

reply