Obama: Tax the rich to help grow the economy
Mopeder
2012/04/13 15:35:00
|
|
|||||
|
24 votes
|
|
40% | |||
|
36 votes
|
|
60% | |||
President Obama said Tuesday that the nation faces a stark economic choice: Continue giving tax breaks to the nation's wealthiest citizens or risk gutting essential programs that help grow the middle class.
"Let me me ask you, what's the better way to make our economy stronger?," Obama told an enthusiastic crowd in Boca Raton, Fla. "Do we give ... tax breaks to every millionaire and billionaire in the country? Or should we make investments in education and research and health care and our veterans?"
Obama also told students at Florida Atlantic University that "what drags our entire economy down" is when"the gap between those at the very, very top and everybody else keeps growing wider and wider and wider and wider."
The president also decried Republican budget plans that would give more tax breaks to the wealthy, and he dared the GOP to specify the kinds of budget cuts it would make in order to reach its goal of a lower federal debt.
"The money's got to come from somewhere," Obama said.
The Democratic-run Senate has scheduled a vote on the Buffett Rule for Monday, though Republicans are sure to block it.
The proposal is named for billionaire investor Warren Buffett, who says it's unfair for him to pay a lower tax rate than his secretary.
The reason: Investment income is taxed at lower rates than salaries and wages. Proponents of the Buffett Rule have not said whether they would increase investment taxes, or establish some sort of flat tax for millionaires and billionaires.
Obama cited the anecdote about Buffett and his secretary in his speech, saying "now that's wrong -- that's not fair." The president said the share of national income flowing to the wealthiest 1% has climbed to levels last seen in the 1920s, yet the rich are also paying the lowest tax rates of the past half-century.
"We've got to choose which direction we want this country to go," Obama said. "Do we want to keep giving those tax breaks to folks like me who don't need them? Or do we want to keep investing in those things that keep our economy growing and keep us secured? That's the choice."
Obama spent part of his speech on more conservative themes, saying at one point that "government is not the answer to everything," and discussing programs that have been cut on his watch. Obama also said none of his proposals would include tax hikes for those making less than $250,000 a year.
But there are some things government should do, he added, including education, research, health care and other "investments" that can help Americans better themselves.
"In this country, prosperity has never trickled down from the wealthy few," Obama said. "Prosperity has always come from the bottom up, from a strong and growing middle class."
![Accept - Metal Heart [Full Album]](http://images.sodahead.com/polls/003702865/5651702370_0_large.jpeg "Accept - Metal Heart [Full Album]")
The answer is lower spending and leaving revenue alone. Obama paid 160K at roughly 20% rate, Romney paid $3.4 Million at a rate of roughly 14% because his income is from investments, investments of money already taxed - Both are wealthy but Who paid more in taxes? The top 50% paid 97% of all income taxes, 47% paid no income taxes (per IRS- the people who know) The top tier pays 38% of all income taxes paid. Sounds like fair share to me.
The IRS took in 2.4 Trillion in taxes in 2011 - and this administration spent greater than
3 Trillion. A company would be faced with bankruptcy at this continued spending - but politicians give it a lovely name. It is deficit spending - give it a try at your bank and let me know how this works out for you.
Paying more in taxes means less investment, less investment means companies have less money...
The answer is lower spending and leaving revenue alone. Obama paid 160K at roughly 20% rate, Romney paid $3.4 Million at a rate of roughly 14% because his income is from investments, investments of money already taxed - Both are wealthy but Who paid more in taxes? The top 50% paid 97% of all income taxes, 47% paid no income taxes (per IRS- the people who know) The top tier pays 38% of all income taxes paid. Sounds like fair share to me.
The IRS took in 2.4 Trillion in taxes in 2011 - and this administration spent greater than
3 Trillion. A company would be faced with bankruptcy at this continued spending - but politicians give it a lovely name. It is deficit spending - give it a try at your bank and let me know how this works out for you.
Paying more in taxes means less investment, less investment means companies have less money, less money means lower growth, and lower growth means fewer jobs. That is economics 101. Obama need two courses; economics 101 and a long course on Marbury vs Madison. He is completely out of touch.
The Buffett rule is a good start toward fairness. If all income is taxed at the same minimum rate, say 30%, we will see no more cases like Mitt Romney, who pays at a 14% capital gains rate.
As far as creating jobs? It won't make one bit of difference except in the minds of Repub sheeple. Didn't work before, wont work now or in the future. Business as usual guarantees only one thing. More of the same!
Where should we cut off spending? Food banks for the elderly? Hot lunches for impoverished children? Should we tell the seniors and the toddlers to pull themselves up by their bootstraps?
Let's be realistic, OK?
This means, necessarily, we need more money in the pockets of middle-class and lower-income folks, and lowering their taxes is the easiest way to do this. The shortfall in the deficit needs to be covered by taxes on those who have been prospering in the economy.
I can use a tax break. What do you think my chances are of getting one? Not good, you say? Because I am not rich? You are right, and that is exactly my point.
Mitt thinks the system is fine as it is, but then he has money stashed in the Cayman Islands and in a Swiss bank account. Do you know how many presidents have had Swiss bank accounts? None.
The Buffett Rule merely says no one in the top tax bracket should pay less than 30%, regardless of how they earn their money. Sounds good to me, since I am not in that bracket.
It should sound good to you too, unless you are a member of the 1%, and then you wouldn't be on SH. You would be out building your stack.