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
|
|
|||||
|
346 votes
|
|
37% | |||
|
485 votes
|
|
51% | |||
|
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:
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.
Read More: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/09/obama-t...
Top Opinion
-
Rusty Shackleford 2012/07/09 16:13:16No
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...
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 ...
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.
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.
I would even go so far as to say a progressive tax on individuals and no corporate 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...
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.
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?
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.
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...
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.