Quantcast

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

Chris D 2012/07/09 16:00:00
You!
Add Photos & Videos
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

Read More: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/09/obama-t...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Studied ComeOnNow 2012/07/17 01:48:25
    Studied
    There are an awful lot of folks on sodahead and in this country who have no education when it comes to economics which is why they can not comprehend the difference between income tax and capital gains taxes.
  • cmdrbnd007 urwutuis 2012/07/12 14:36:52 (edited)
    cmdrbnd007
    +2
    You have no concept of what you are talking about. Monies invested in capital has ALREADY been taxed. You get, they have already paid taxes on that money. Now if the investment pays off they have to pay taxes on that, albeit a smaller amount. Why should someone pay twice for the same money? By the way, the bottom 48% of people pay no income taxes at all and in a lot of cases get much more money back then they paid in. So tell me how is that fair?
  • beavith1 cmdrbnd007 2012/07/12 16:55:55
    beavith1
    +1
    i agree with you.

    to answer your question: because the SCOTUS says they can.

    its a stupid reason to do something that is destructive to teh economy, but democrats can't seem to help themselves.

    if they cut capital gains rates to 10 or even 5%, there would be an explosion of growth.

    they won't do that, because the rich bastards will get to make more money...
  • urwutuis cmdrbnd007 2012/07/13 06:26:38 (edited)
    urwutuis
    I agree that the tax system is completely out of whack but capital gains is the only constitutionally legal income tax. In fact, there's no law that says taxes must be paid on wages and salaries and not one cent of individual income tax goes to running the govt or providing services.

    It's not paying twice, the tax is on capital "gains". Capital losses are deductible but something's amiss when people get more than they put in.


    The problem is with money, in and of itself, making money. It takes from the economy (if you can call it that) but produces nothing of real value.

    In my opinion nobody should pay personal income taxes (even though I do) and I understand that 48% pay no taxes and that's the other problem.

    It just seems ridiculous to me that the richest nation on the planet should have half its population at or below the poverty line (* I realize poverty in the US is not poverty in other places and I am in no way advocating welfare but what happened?) An average family can't survive on a single income anymore even though production has been through the roof with corporations making record profits.

    The technology and improvements that increased production and should have resulted in less time spent working resulted in layoffs and lower pay instead. Technology that in many ...












    I agree that the tax system is completely out of whack but capital gains is the only constitutionally legal income tax. In fact, there's no law that says taxes must be paid on wages and salaries and not one cent of individual income tax goes to running the govt or providing services.

    It's not paying twice, the tax is on capital "gains". Capital losses are deductible but something's amiss when people get more than they put in.


    The problem is with money, in and of itself, making money. It takes from the economy (if you can call it that) but produces nothing of real value.

    In my opinion nobody should pay personal income taxes (even though I do) and I understand that 48% pay no taxes and that's the other problem.

    It just seems ridiculous to me that the richest nation on the planet should have half its population at or below the poverty line (* I realize poverty in the US is not poverty in other places and I am in no way advocating welfare but what happened?) An average family can't survive on a single income anymore even though production has been through the roof with corporations making record profits.

    The technology and improvements that increased production and should have resulted in less time spent working resulted in layoffs and lower pay instead. Technology that in many cases was paid for with tax dollars, either through the military or govt grants, didn't benefit the tax payers. At least not the majority of us.

    I agree that progressive tax isn't fair but neither is exploitation and exploitation is what the system's all about. That's one reason it's unsustainable.

    I don't know.
    I understand your perspective and agree to a point but something aint right.

    I don't think the ever increasing wealth gap is a good thing, do you?
    Why do you think it's growing?
    Don't you think markets are being monopolized?

    The "Too big to fail" banks merged making them even bigger and the treasury dept is either ex Fed or ex Goldman Sachs. That doesn't sit right with me. Why should the people who created the problem get lower taxes? Why shouldn't those who have received more from society not put more back?

    I have questions but no realistic answers. The one thing I do know is that if we keep going the way we've been going for the last 50 years we won't be celebrating our 300th birthday.
    (more)
  • beavith1 urwutuis 2012/07/12 16:53:19
    beavith1
    +1
    actually, its disproportionally higher.

    the US tax system is the most highly progressive system in the world.

    if 50% of US taxpayers pay 100% of all income taxes, how would you make it more progressive? by making that 50% pay 200%? why not 300%.

    you seem to be talking about capital gains taxes are most of those taxes paid. they aren't. Obama is focusing on earned income tax rates. besides, increasing the capital gains rate serve to punish investment.

    its not your job to determine who adds what value to society. that used to be the job of the Commissar in the local or national Soviet.
  • fortycal_sig 2012/07/12 04:22:57
    No
    fortycal_sig
    +2
    Obama is waging a war against economic diversity, self-sufficiency and entrepreneurship. Intentionally.
  • TheBorg 2012/07/12 03:32:40 (edited)
    Yes
    TheBorg
    +1
    All Americans should be treated equally under the law and pay a progressive tax.

    people treated equal law pay progressive tax
    I would even go so far as to say a progressive tax on individuals and no corporate taxes.
  • Cleaver62 TheBorg 2012/07/12 13:30:55
    Cleaver62
    Corporations should pay taxes too. They use resources created by the state and people educated by public schools. They used to pay something like 40% or the taxes in the country, now they pay something like 10. Why shouldn't they pay taxes?
  • cmdrbnd007 Cleaver62 2012/07/12 14:39:23
    cmdrbnd007
    +1
    Hello, where do you think they get their money to pay the taxes. They pass it along to the consumer. So income taxes on corporations is just another tax we end up paying.
  • Cleaver62 cmdrbnd007 2012/07/12 15:41:25
    Cleaver62
    That is just an excuse. They paid taxes before and no one was complaining about high costs. I didn't see any prices go down when they stopped paying taxes. Everything has a cost that people are willing to pay. If the price went up people just wouldn't buy it. Do you really believe the crappy tennis shoes with a basketball superstar's name on it cost 200 dollars to make. They probably cost 4 dollars to make over seas. Let the corporations pay taxes and take it out of the money that goes to the shareholders. Take care of the business and the customer, that is what is important for business.
  • TheBorg Cleaver62 2012/07/13 02:49:10 (edited)
    TheBorg
    +1
    I would rather see consistency more than I am anti-taxes for corporations. IF corporations are people and can contribute financially (other countries call it bribes) to politicians, then corporations should pay taxes on a progressive scale with the rest of us. If corporations are not people, then they should not pay taxes.

    Since Americans are such believers in democracy and try to force it on other countries, I'd like to see an American initiative that taxes non-democratic companies and exempts from taxes democratic ones. We send Americans overseas to die in the name of democracy but refuse to address the lack of democracy in American companies.
    http://www.worldblu.com/award...
    overseas democracy refuse address democracy american companies httpwww worldblu comaward
  • TheBorg Cleaver62 2012/07/13 03:03:34
    TheBorg
    "They paid taxes before and no one was complaining about high costs."

    The difference today is that management of those companies have increased their salaries and bonuses by a factor of hundreds. Those bonuses and humongous salaries have to come from somewhere so they cut jobs and working people's pay, increase the price and say it is taxes that are driving up cost. If the company managers were paying their fair share of taxes, there wouldn't be a need for corporate taxes.
  • ☮ Ron ☮ Paul ☮ 2012! ☮ 2012/07/12 02:32:27
    It depends
    ☮ Ron ☮ Paul ☮ 2012! ☮
    +2
    If you are in a government position, like a Congressman, Senator, Vice President, President, etc., then YES, you should PAY more taxes... but of YOUR own money, not TAX PAYERS money! Businesses SHOULD not be taxed like these thieves!
  • belle 2012/07/12 02:30:10
    No
    belle
    +4
    No more taxing. Congress and the president needs to settle on a budget with what they have to spend and stick to it like real people.
  • Jkirk3279 2012/07/12 01:00:12
    Yes
    Jkirk3279
    Check your history, guys. After WWII we were 125% in debt, worse than today.

    We cut where we could, raised taxes on the rich, and paid it all off in five years.

    This is the ONLY way to square the Debt and get America back on top. And if you DO make more than $250,000, you can spare the extra 3%.

    It's either pay the Debt or Crash. Want to do 2008 over again?
  • ComeOnNow Jkirk3279 2012/07/12 10:46:16
    ComeOnNow
    +2
    We had no economic competition after WWII an raising taxes on those that already pay the most will only pay for 8 days of the current government spending. We also did not have the huge, massive entitlement spending then, a stronger work ethic, and more people in the economy actually being productive. We need to cut spending and expect every able bodies person to at a minimum take responsibility for themselves.
  • Jimmy 2012/07/12 00:46:38
    Yes
    Jimmy
    +3
    They make more, why can't they pay more?
  • fortyca... Jimmy 2012/07/12 04:25:25
    fortycal_sig
    +2
    They DO pay more. Even with a flat (i.e. "fair") tax, they'd pay more. How much do you pay?
  • Bill Jimmy 2012/07/12 11:35:09
    Bill
    +2
    To say something like that, I guess you don't make much money. I'll have fries with that.
  • cmdrbnd007 Jimmy 2012/07/12 14:40:53
    cmdrbnd007
    They already pay the vast majority of taxes. How much more would you like them to pay?
  • heirsoftheking 2012/07/11 23:42:41
    No
    heirsoftheking
    +1
    Obama should tax "just the wealthy ones that want the tax," like his Hollywood buddies for instance. Don't tax "the wealthy who don't want it."
  • Squatch 2012/07/11 23:36:33
    No
    Squatch
    +2
    Obama is destroying success and the American Dream. Obama would have you believe that everyone who makes this amount is a "fat cat banker," but I have an aunt who scraped and clawed to start a business from nothing and it took years to become successful. She made a lot of money, paid a lot of employees, and paid a lot of taxes. Now Obama is saying that because she made it and is successful, "We are going to stick it to you." Be careful all you people who say tax more. If you ever succeed you will be viewed as a "fat cat" who needs to pay more just because you were successful.
  • Jkirk3279 Squatch 2012/07/12 01:04:45
    Jkirk3279
    And if my business is successful enough to bring in $250,000 after all expenses, I'll face two options.

    Pay the extra 3%. Which won't be that much of a problem.

    Or put the money into deductible expenses, like investing in new equipment, or giving bonuses, just enough to drop my profits to $249,999.

    Obama isn't destroying success. He's trying to clean up a giant mess and rebuild an America eviscerated by job outsourcing.

    The incomes of the upper 1% have increased 275% in the last ten years; they've had the benefits of living in America, time to pay the costs of government.
  • fortyca... Jkirk3279 2012/07/12 04:27:03
    fortycal_sig
    +3
    The "government" didn't create their success, and they've already paid far too much. How about cutting the abusive, wasteful, corrupt spending and ending the bailout b/s?
  • Joe Six... Squatch 2012/07/12 01:50:47
    Joe Six pack
    Its an extra 3% jackoff greedy c sucker. I say cut the military by 20% and raise everyone's taxes to the same rate we had under Ronald Reagan. Then we can start talking about balancing the budget. No one wants to give up anything, everyone wants their way or the highway, at least back in the 80's both parties compromised a little. Now you have to hold all three branches of the government to pass anything.
  • ComeOnNow Joe Six... 2012/07/12 10:48:28
    ComeOnNow
    +1
    Look how the democrats crowd about even paying for their own social security you greedy jerkoff. If nobody wants to pay for it, it is not that important. Otherwise people would want to pay for it. It is clearly time for a flat tax. Everyone pays the same exact rate, no exemptions. It is not the job of anyone to subsidize the conscious decision of others. Lets play adult and take some responsibility for ourselves. I know democrats hate personal responsibility because they like to live recklessly and then expect everyone else to
    Pay for their irresponsibility. Look at how the democrats cries when they even had to pay for their own Social Security. Look how Obama could not even fill his cabinet position with democrats that actually paid their taxes. Obama vetted democrat after democrat politician and none of them actually paid their taxes. These are the ones that have the nerve to lecture us.

    Everyone needs to pay something and everyone needs to have some skin in the game. 49% did not pay a dime in federal income taxes, yet can vote to spend other peoples money on themselves. Remember, the main concept this country was founded on is equal individual rights where everyone is treated equally by the government. Under the current tax code corrupt politicians steal and vilify a minor...

    Look how the democrats crowd about even paying for their own social security you greedy jerkoff. If nobody wants to pay for it, it is not that important. Otherwise people would want to pay for it. It is clearly time for a flat tax. Everyone pays the same exact rate, no exemptions. It is not the job of anyone to subsidize the conscious decision of others. Lets play adult and take some responsibility for ourselves. I know democrats hate personal responsibility because they like to live recklessly and then expect everyone else to
    Pay for their irresponsibility. Look at how the democrats cries when they even had to pay for their own Social Security. Look how Obama could not even fill his cabinet position with democrats that actually paid their taxes. Obama vetted democrat after democrat politician and none of them actually paid their taxes. These are the ones that have the nerve to lecture us.

    Everyone needs to pay something and everyone needs to have some skin in the game. 49% did not pay a dime in federal income taxes, yet can vote to spend other peoples money on themselves. Remember, the main concept this country was founded on is equal individual rights where everyone is treated equally by the government. Under the current tax code corrupt politicians steal and vilify a minority to buy votes from a majority. Look, every time Obama and the democrats speak the promise more of other peoples money on things they ate not even willing to spend their own money on.

    Really, everyone should pay the same exact amount if we really are going to treat everyone fairly, but everyone needs to pay something. The government is vastly wasteful and 49% don't care because they do not pay a freaking dome of it. Instead they violate the rights of the few that actually pay the tab by demanding more and more. It is getting to where those that pay freaking nothing and take the most have the freakink nerve to vilify those paying for everything. What one makes is nothing but a result of their personal choices and work ethic. The same percentage of a smaller amount is still a much smaller contribution than another EQUAL citizen paying far more for no other reason than they have worked harder and taken more risk. A flat tax by definition is a progressive tax because those that do make more still pay far more. A flat tax is the only tax that provides a system of checks and balances where every time someone's demands spending they actually have to contribute as well. It is a natural mechanism to control spending.
    (more)
  • Squatch Joe Six... 2012/07/18 19:11:49
    Squatch
    Do you even pay taxes?
  • Joe Six... Squatch 2012/07/23 12:56:26
    Joe Six pack
    YES, everyone pays taxes, be it income, sales or local. The more you earn the more you should pay.
  • Hutch 2012/07/11 22:43:02
    No
    Hutch
    they already pay their overly fair share.. time for the lesser to pay their fair share.. EVERYONE needs to pay taxes or no one pays taxes.
  • Libertarian NOT Conservative 2012/07/11 22:33:47
    No
    Libertarian NOT Conservative
    +2
    Unless he's truly stupid (which I do not believe he is), even President Obama knows that the tax that he's talking about would fund the government for an additional week or so at current spending levels. Therefore, he's not actually offering solutions but rather inciting classism for the sake of the upcoming election. Even his own party recognizes this and were forced to hold off the vote on this.
  • Jkirk3279 Liberta... 2012/07/12 01:17:18
    Jkirk3279
    +1
    I think you must have failed Math.

    Actually, that's familiar. It's basically a quote from the 1980's Republican rumor mill, "If the government confiscated all the wealth of all the millionaires it would only fund the government for one day".

    Ahem. Except that the top 1% own or control 42% of the wealth in America.

    That old saying is false. 42% of the wealth in America? Seriously, that would run everything for a long while.

    Plus, we're not talking about just the millionaires. We're talking about everybody above $250,000.

    There are a LOT more of them than millionaires.

    Clinton raised their taxes 3%, just 3%, and balanced the Budget two years running.

    Wouldn't that be nice? Not to constantly worry that we don't have enough money to run everything?

    Interesting story: North Carolina raised their State Taxes 3% on people making more than $400,000 a year a while back.

    That offered a great opportunity. Compare what the guys making $350,000, and the guys making $400,000, did when the tax went into effect.

    Would the richer guys sell their houses and leave the State in disgust? Would they close their businesses and lay everybody off?

    Would the guy making only $350,000 come out of his house in the morning to see moving vans lined up all down the street?

    Well, guess what. N...



    I think you must have failed Math.

    Actually, that's familiar. It's basically a quote from the 1980's Republican rumor mill, "If the government confiscated all the wealth of all the millionaires it would only fund the government for one day".

    Ahem. Except that the top 1% own or control 42% of the wealth in America.

    That old saying is false. 42% of the wealth in America? Seriously, that would run everything for a long while.

    Plus, we're not talking about just the millionaires. We're talking about everybody above $250,000.

    There are a LOT more of them than millionaires.

    Clinton raised their taxes 3%, just 3%, and balanced the Budget two years running.

    Wouldn't that be nice? Not to constantly worry that we don't have enough money to run everything?

    Interesting story: North Carolina raised their State Taxes 3% on people making more than $400,000 a year a while back.

    That offered a great opportunity. Compare what the guys making $350,000, and the guys making $400,000, did when the tax went into effect.

    Would the richer guys sell their houses and leave the State in disgust? Would they close their businesses and lay everybody off?

    Would the guy making only $350,000 come out of his house in the morning to see moving vans lined up all down the street?

    Well, guess what. Nothing happened. At that income level, 3% is nothing much.

    Less money to stash in the Cayman Islands or Swiss Bank Accounts.

    The people that have benefited the most from living in America should be the ones most motivated to fix the problems before the bovine excrement strikes the rotating air movement device.
    (more)
  • drdos1943 Jkirk3279 2012/07/12 11:54:50
    drdos1943
    I would not mind paying another 3% in taxes except for one thing. It would just add to bloated government and waste. Let me see significant spending cuts first...and then I'd be in favor of a 6% increase on myself and others like me.
  • Squatch Jkirk3279 2012/07/23 13:56:18
    Squatch
    I hear what you are saying, but the reason that a lot of these people control the wealth is that they are business owners.
    Steve Jobs was one of those wealthy guys before he died, but the reason he was rich was because he provided products to the American people that we loved and wanted to buy.
    Because of our free enterprise system the average American is who made most of these people who they are by purchasing their products.
    Would you rather see a Socialist system where the GOV says "You did not build that" and takes the money away from these people.
    Historically, Socialist sytems and Washington DC have been so corrupt that it is doubtful they will do any better job distributing the extra money.
    Steve Jobs should not be demonized because he provided you a Mac or and i-phone.
  • Mary Ann 2012/07/11 22:25:57 (edited)
    No
    Mary Ann
    No. just simply no. BTW: The Bush-era tax cuts on the first $250,000 of taxable income. So if you make $300K, you still benefit, the tax cut applies to the first $250K. It's not $250K or less. Obama is hopeful that most American have no clue about the details to this proposal.....
  • Jkirk3279 Mary Ann 2012/07/12 01:23:35
    Jkirk3279
    You might be confused...

    The Bush-era tax cuts applied to everybody, but the lower income bracket didn't get much.

    The government spend millions of dollars printing checks to send out to everybody though.

    It was the big earners that the tax cuts were targeted at.

    Obama's plan is, and always has been, to keep the taxes on the people below $250,000 the same, and raise them 3% above that.

    Now, that means that Sam, making $249,999 and George, making $255,000 pay nearly the same taxes.

    George pays the SAME taxes on his first $250,000 as Sam did. And for the FIRST dollar over that, George pays another three cents.

    Which in this case comes to $150 more than Sam.
  • Mary Ann Jkirk3279 2012/07/13 15:57:01
    Mary Ann
    I doubled back just in case....I got it right
  • Magnus ☮ RP ☮ 2012 ☮ 2012/07/11 22:24:19
    It depends
    Magnus ☮ RP ☮ 2012 ☮
    WHAT THIS NATION REALLY NEEDS IS ACTUAL, PATRIOTIC AND HONEST MEN AND WOMEN TO LEAD US, NOT THESE SNIVELING LITTLE MARXIST BRAT CHILDREN WE HAVE TODAY! WE NEED OUR LOCAL, STATE AND ESPECIALLY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS TO SPEND WITHIN THEIR MEANS, AND USE THE REST TO START PAYING OFF THIS DEBT *NOW*. WE NEED THEM TO ADHERE TOO AND FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION AND TO EXERCISE ONLY THOSE POWERS EXCLUSIVELY GRANTED TO THEM, AND TO DO NOTHING WHICH IS DENIED THEM BY THE SELF-SAME. WE NEED AMERICA TO BECOME AMERICA AGAIN, DAMMIT! TAXATION AFTER TAXATION AFTER TAXATION AND FRIVOLOUS LEGISLATION AND PROGRAM AND DEPARTMENT ONE AFTER THE OTHER IS NOT HEALING THIS NATION, IT IS KILLING IT! THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND OVERALL ECONOMICAL AND SOCIAL CONDITION OF THIS NATION TODAY IS THE PROOF OF THAT! STOP SPENDING, TAXING AND REGULATING US TO DEATH - RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION NOW!!!
  • Jkirk3279 Magnus ... 2012/07/12 01:32:35
    Jkirk3279
    And yet the Federal tax rates in America haven't been this low in sixty years.

    Given Inflation, you have to turn today's dollars into the amount of time it takes to buy a loaf of bread so we can compare now to then; basically they use 1965 dollars as a reference.

    And surprise. Taxes, in terms of the labor it takes to pay them haven't been this low since 1952.

    The PROBLEM is that wages for 98% of us haven't risen since Reagan. Companies are more productive, more profitable, and Wall Street is kicking ass, but wages haven't even kept pace with Inflation.

    In fact, wages for most of us have fallen.

    If the Minimum Wage were brought up to $12.00 per hour, people could suddenly relax a bit. No more working as a Supervisor for ten years, getting your pay cut to $10.30, and ending up going bankrupt.

    That would push wages up across the board for the working class.

    Oh, and I suggest you go READ the Constitution, rather than letting people tell you what's in it. It's not a list of Mother May I rules. It sets the framework, but allows Congress to pass laws, and regulations. And despite what the Tenthers will tell you, the Constitution doesn't set the States above the Federal government.
  • Magnus ... Jkirk3279 2012/07/12 02:31:00
    Magnus ☮ RP ☮ 2012 ☮
    Sorry, not even going to get into this with a Progressive. Every time I do, it goes nowhere so let's just jump ahead now and avoid actually having to go nowhere, shall we? I won't change your mind, you won't change mine. I was asked my opinion, I gave it and that should have been the end of this.

    And not that it is any of your concern, but I have in fact read every single letter of our highest law of this land - and with understanding and no need of "interpretation". That said, perhaps you should revisit Amendments 1-10, especially #10 and perhaps you'll spot the major problems we have with the Fed of at least the last century. Further, yes it does in fact grant Congress the legislative power, WHEN THE LEGISLATION IS NOT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM IN CONFLICT OR OUTRIGHT CONTEMPT OF ANY LIMITATION IMPOSED AGAINST IT BY THE VERY SELF-SAME. The Constitution should and is supposed to ALWAYS supersede the Congressional and/or Judicial legislation WHERE THEY CONFLICT.
  • KrSpo Magnus ... 2012/07/12 04:59:55
    KrSpo
    Actually no, the Judicial branch is there to decide what is constitutional or not. you have it backwards.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/12/19 03:14:50

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals