Please President Obama, knock off

[byu71]

the old rip on the rich crap.

Quit the crap with the hard working people vs the "rich". Are people really that stupid to think the "rich" aren't hard working? He quotes the polls that say 64% of the public support raising taxes on the rich, note then he says millionaires and billionaires. Are people stupid enough to not recognize he fails to mention the $250,000 aires who are also going to have their taxes raised under his plan? I will bet if we took a vote we take 20% of Pac and Vikings money, we could 64% of us voting yes?

Why the sam hell can't he just say, we are in a mess. Doesn't matter how we got here, we are here. I think we need more tax revenue. I personally thank and think we all should thank the hard working rich for the amount they pay in taxes. We need to ask for more though and all of America will appreciate it. Not the sacrifice our military makes, but you will be making a great sacrifice and we need you to for our children and grandchildren's sake.

If you make this sacrifice, we will pass a law that says for every dollar in tax increases, we will cut $2 in spending.

What's wrong with that approach, except of course it is easier to hate the rich and figure they got lucky or screwed somebody.

[Uncle Ted]

Obama needs to look at history and economics. When taxes were 90% on the "rich" only very small percentage of the tax revenue came from taxes paid in that bracket. Rich people stopped making money when they hit that upper bracket. Why work harder if your reward is that you get to keep only 10% of it? (Of course, if you are a good mormon then that last 10% is the Lord's.) Just think '71... you could have more time for golf or the (other) things you love. Making more money wouldn't be worth it. Rich people can easily adjust (or even hide) their income when given an incentive. If Obama is successful in raising the tax rate on the rich then you can bet you will see the well off retiring early, rolling those huge 401Ks/IRAs into Roth IRAs and moving money out of the stock market and into muni's or some other tax free or tax efficient investment. Those that don't retire will adjust their work loads or scaling back their business because it isn't worth the extra effort to pay just to see Uncle Sam take a larger share.

Many times in history when tax rates were cut the tax revenue went up. For example, when both Kennedy and Reagan cut the rate(s) the tax revenue when up significantly. Raising tax rates on the rich may actually back fire for increasing tax revenue. It did for the states that recently increased the tax rate on the rich like Maryland.

If Obama wants to significantly increase revenue from taxes then he will need to raise taxes on the middle class... but good luck with that and getting re-elected.

[il Padrino Ute]

Yes, Obama does think people are stupid enough to believe that the rich aren't working. It's one of the reasons he was elected.

Of course, when he says rich, he doesn't mean himself. Having only paid about 25% says as much.

[byu71]

Obama needs to look at history and economics. When taxes were 90% on the "rich" only very small percentage of the tax revenue came from taxes paid in that bracket. Rich people stopped making money when they hit that upper bracket. Why work harder if your reward is that you get to keep only 10% of it? (Of course, if you are a good mormon then that last 10% is the Lord's.) Just think '71... you could have more time for golf or the (other) things you love. Making more money wouldn't be worth it. Rich people can easily adjust (or even hide) their income when given an incentive. If Obama is successful in raising the tax rate on the rich then you can bet you will see the well off retiring early, rolling those huge 401Ks/IRAs into Roth IRAs and moving money out of the stock market and into muni's or some other tax free or tax efficient investment. Those that don't retire will adjust their work loads or scaling back their business because it isn't worth the extra effort to pay just to see Uncle Sam take a larger share.

Many times in history when tax rates were cut the tax revenue went up. For example, when both Kennedy and Reagan cut the rate(s) the tax revenue when up significantly. Raising tax rates on the rich may actually back fire for increasing tax revenue. It did for the states that recently increased the tax rate on the rich like Maryland.

If Obama wants to significantly increase revenue from taxes then he will need to raise taxes on the middle class... but good luck with that and getting re-elected.

Take a guy who is making 4 million. $400,000 to tithing. Another couple of hundred thousand to charity. Tax on remaining 3.4 million including state and city $1,500,000. He is left with half.

He was this income because he built a company over 30 years. Worked tons of hours and fought off going out of business several times leaving him broke. However, he made it. His company hires over 350 people with a payroll of several million.

Obama raise his taxes another 7% or roughly $200,000. He has a chance to invest a further $2,000,000 on another product line hiring more people. Should he take the chance or should he just sit back and live the good life. We could all live on on two million pretty well. Maybe buy some distressed real estate. I think it gets harder and harder to make that decision.

I know a guy who just threw 1million of his own money to keep his construction company a float. Mainly because he doesn't want to close the company down and throw hundreds out of work. He could close down and live real, real well of off his properties. At what tax rate does he tell his emloyees he's sorry, but it isn't worth it anymore. I know this guy well. From the age of 24 to 46 he put in 15 hours a day and went basically belly up once. Obama is now talking about him by association as the non working rich.

[myboynoah]

Obama needs to look at history and economics. When taxes were 90% on the "rich" only very small percentage of the tax revenue came from taxes paid in that bracket. Rich people stopped making money when they hit that upper bracket. Why work harder if your reward is that you get to keep only 10% of it? (Of course, if you are a good mormon then that last 10% is the Lord's.) Just think '71... you could have more time for golf or the (other) things you love. Making more money wouldn't be worth it. Rich people can easily adjust (or even hide) their income when given an incentive. If Obama is successful in raising the tax rate on the rich then you can bet you will see the well off retiring early, rolling those huge 401Ks/IRAs into Roth IRAs and moving money out of the stock market and into muni's or some other tax free or tax efficient investment. Those that don't retire will adjust their work loads or scaling back their business because it isn't worth the extra effort to pay just to see Uncle Sam take a larger share.

Many times in history when tax rates were cut the tax revenue went up. For example, when both Kennedy and Reagan cut the rate(s) the tax revenue when up significantly. Raising tax rates on the rich may actually back fire for increasing tax revenue. It did for the states that recently increased the tax rate on the rich like Maryland.

If Obama wants to significantly increase revenue from taxes then he will need to raise taxes on the middle class... but good luck with that and getting re-elected.

http://cougaruteforum.com/showpost.php?p=576523&postcount=13

[I.J. Reilly]

'71, would you be in favor of more income stratification, i.e., moving people who make more than $1 million/yr into a different tax bracket? Why or why not?

I think this chart is a little misleading. It's not how income brackets are broken up for tax purposes and if you aggregate all of the people who make $500,000+ (which even in New York City or San Francisco would place you above "middle class" living standards) their total taxable income would be above those that make $100,000-$200,000. As well, if this chart includes all income (capital gains, residuary, gift, etc.) as opposed to just wage-based income, I would be willing to bet that those whose annual income exceeds $200,000 pay a lower effective rate than those in the $100,000-$200,000 annual income category.

[SteelBlue]

From the Economist's "Democracy in America" blog: Obama's budget plan: Unseriously unfair

If any country's upper-crust pays its fair share, America's does.

But you wouldn't know it listening to Mr Obama. He repeatedly and misleadingly portrayed the tax burden carried by America's top earners as unfairly light, and the top-rate tax cuts under President Bush as a leading cause of America's dire fiscal straits. He even proposed that itemised deductions available to every other American taxpayer be eliminated for the top 2%, which strikes me as precisely the sort of thing a country that values fairness would not do. In any case, to the extent our woes flow from a paucity of revenue, the problem is that America's vast middle-class pays too little, not that its rich do. The widely-admired Scandinavian countries collect a much larger portion of GDP in taxes not because their top earners bear a relatively larger tax burden than do America's top earners, but because they don't. The president's confusion on this matter was evident in his open admission that "I agreed to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans because it was the only way I could prevent a tax hike on middle-class Americans". But without a tax hike on middle-class Americans, there's simply no hope for serious deficit reduction. That is, there's no hope as long as Mr Obama insists on cutting spending with a "scalpel" and "not a machete". Were he really serious about deficit-reduction, Mr Obama would have let all the Bush tax cuts expire.

[byu71]

'71, would you be in favor of more income stratification, i.e., moving people who make more than $1 million/yr into a different tax bracket? Why or why not?

I really don't know at this point in time. I would like to hear a serious debate on the matter. I would really like the F'en press to do their job and call both the republicans and democrats on the horse crap they throw out.

What I would really like as my first post indicated would be to have the President of the US get off his idiotic and totally dishonest crap about the rich. You can parade out Bernie Madoff, the idiots on Wall St. and in the Banks who along with Congress participated in the mortgage fiasco as the "evil rich", but they are a part of the rich, not the rich.

Once we stopped the over the top crap, then we could debate. How much trouble are we in? If we raise taxes on $250,000 aires and above, will it actually hurt the economy and slow revenue or not. We can debate whether there should be a matching decrease in spending for the increase in taxes. I have no faith that if taxes are raised that the jackass politicians won't just tax the tax increase plus additional borrowings and spend a hell of a lot more.

Sorry for rambling, but I guess that happens when my answer to your question is, I don't know.

I do know though if I decided I would go along with a raise in taxes, it wouldn't be because the rich, don't work, screw people, have too much political influence and basically are evil people out there ripping off the rest of America.

[Goatnapper'96]

'71, would you be in favor of more income stratification, i.e., moving people who make more than $1 million/yr into a different tax bracket? Why or why not?




I think this chart is a little misleading. It's not how income brackets are broken up for tax purposes and if you aggregate all of the people who make $500,000+ (which even in New York City or San Francisco would place you above "middle class" living standards) their total taxable income would be above those that make $100,000-$200,000. As well, if this chart includes all income (capital gains, residuary, gift, etc.) as opposed to just wage-based income, I would be willing to bet that those whose annual income exceeds $200,000 pay a lower effective rate than those in the $100,000-$200,000 annual income category.

I think both plans presented have some serious flaws. Ryan's plan makes some assumptions about DOD spending and discretionary spending, as a percentage of GDP, that is not possible to see to come to fruition, IMO. The President's plan is ridiculous because even if he taxed all the folks above $250,000 there would never be enough money without also significant cuts to spending.

To answer your question further stratifications of income would not bother me a great deal. However, if taxes are going to be increased I think they should be increased on everyone - IIRC the tax cuts were across the board. I also believe that the spending problems significantly exceed the lack of revenue problems, and as such I think Rep Ryan is addressing the bigger problem more accurately.

However, I think '71's thread was about the President fanning the flames of class warfare. I don't think this is particularly effective because it does not really address the problem - even from a revenue perspective. The rich cannot afford everything Obama wants to do. It is obvious the the Progressives have a childish emotional deep issue with the extension of the tax cuts staying ubiquitous, but some of us wish the President would stop spending so much capital on an issue that really won't solve the problem. He had a chance to do something about this specific issue in the 110th Congress and his pissed down his own leg.

[Goatnapper'96]

I really don't know at this point in time. I would like to hear a serious debate on the matter. I would really like the F'en press to do their job and call both the republicans and democrats on the horse crap they throw out.

What I would really like as my first post indicated would be to have the President of the US get off his idiotic and totally dishonest crap about the rich. You can parade out Bernie Madoff, the idiots on Wall St. and in the Banks who along with Congress participated in the mortgage fiasco as the "evil rich", but they are a part of the rich, not the rich.

Once we stopped the over the top crap, then we could debate. How much trouble are we in? If we raise taxes on $250,000 aires and above, will it actually hurt the economy and slow revenue or not. We can debate whether there should be a matching decrease in spending for the increase in taxes. I have no faith that if taxes are raised that the jackass politicians won't just tax the tax increase plus additional borrowings and spend a hell of a lot more.

Sorry for rambling, but I guess that happens when my answer to your question is, I don't know.

I do know though if I decided I would go along with a raise in taxes, it wouldn't be because the rich, don't work, screw people, have too much political influence and basically are evil people out there ripping off the rest of America.

I believe that the general public would not be bothered for taxes to be increased on the rich for the reasons you state. But I think they need to be educated that the overwhelming amount of money available is within the middle class. If there is going to be a commitment to increasing revenues then the great American Public needs to understand that it will require everyone to pay more taxes.

It is my opinion but I believe that the majority of Americans, and especially the ever courted "independents," believe the fundamental problem is that the US government spends too much money. This is why even though there is public support to tax the hell out of the rich, President Obama will lose this debate. The public is getting more and more focussed on spending and believes the bigger issue is with spending. In then end I hope there is a tax increase because I think we need extra revenue, and because it will be neccesary in order to get anything accomplished because of how emotional the December loss wrt the extension of the tax cuts was to the base of the Democrat Party, but I will be real disapointed in the Republicans if they do not drastically alter the future of US government spending. More and more the public considers this a crisis and it is the Republican's opportunity to never let a crisis go to waste.

[WashingtonCoug]

Yes, Obama does think people are stupid enough to believe that the rich aren't working. It's one of the reasons he was elected.

Of course, when he says rich, he doesn't mean himself. Having only paid about 25% says as much.

Does anybody wonder if the method Obama may have used was to lie, cheat and steal his way to the top? Could it be that Obama's view of the rich being evil is from his own rise to the top? He figures if you don't lie, cheat and steal to get there, it must have been handed to you.

[NorthwestUteFan]

'71, would you be in favor of more income stratification, i.e., moving people who make more than $1 million/yr into a different tax bracket? Why or why not?

First, What would you say to a TRULY progressive tax, that adds 1% for every $1M earned? Say we go back to the 39.3% top rate, and add 1% for each million, so everything beyond ~$60M gets a 100% tax rate. It won't happen because Hollywood, Wall Street, and K Street would struggle mightily against it. If it DID happen, tax code compliance would go through the floor and people would find whatever loopholes they could (offshoring, tax free stuff, etc).

Second, what do you think of "The Donald's" suggestion, that ALL trusts above $1M be hit with a one-time 14.5% tax in exchange for eliminating the 55% inheritance tax?

I think this chart is a little misleading. It's not how income brackets are broken up for tax purposes and if you aggregate all of the people who make $500,000+ (which even in New York City or San Francisco would place you above "middle class" living standards) their total taxable income would be above those that make $100,000-$200,000. As well, if this chart includes all income (capital gains, residuary, gift, etc.) as opposed to just wage-based income, I would be willing to bet that those whose annual income exceeds $200,000 pay a lower effective rate than those in the $100,000-$200,000 annual income category.

The problem with the current tax brackets is that people who make $250k+ are lumped in with people like A Rod making $27.5M and Oprah, who makes ~$220M.

I posted elsewhere that I was shocked at how little I paid this year in taxes in relation to how much I earned. That 47% of workers pay net zero income taxes flies in the face of all logic. If we are to have equality of vote, equal protection under the law, etc., we should also have (nominally anyway) equal liability under the tax code.

Finally, the tax rate on investment income should ALWAYS be lower than the tax rate on wages. Investment implies risk.

[byu71]

I believe that the general public would not be bothered for taxes to be increased on the rich for the reasons you state. But I think they need to be educated that the overwhelming amount of money available is within the middle class. If there is going to be a commitment to increasing revenues then the great American Public needs to understand that it will require everyone to pay more taxes.

It is my opinion but I believe that the majority of Americans, and especially the ever courted "independents," believe the fundamental problem is that the US government spends too much money. This is why even though there is public support to tax the hell out of the rich, President Obama will lose this debate. The public is getting more and more focussed on spending and believes the bigger issue is with spending. In then end I hope there is a tax increase because I think we need extra revenue, and because it will be neccesary in order to get anything accomplished because of how emotional the December loss wrt the extension of the tax cuts was to the base of the Democrat Party, but I will be real disapointed in the Republicans if they do not drastically alter the future of US government spending. More and more the public considers this a crisis and it is the Republican's opportunity to never let a crisis go to waste.

I think the public gets it on the revenue vs spending thing. I guess I just worry if he demagogues (sp) it enough and it doesn't get corrected in the media except on FOX, maybe the public gets swayed.

I hear, the millionaires and billionaires. I would like to have someone in the media present a chart showing Obama's tax plan, basically back to pre-Bush and how much will be raised from those making $250,000 to a million and how much will be raised from the millionaires and billionaires. Where is he is going to get "his" revenue is from the $250,000 to $999,000 aires. That is a harder sell. He can't keep saying the "millionaires and billionaires".

[Eddie]

I'd love to hear the president say "We're in trouble. Doesn't matter how we got here, we need to get out. We appreciate the wealthy for all that they do, and we're going to have to ask them to do a little more." Then talk about whatever tax increase he is looking at for the "rich".

Of course, I'd love to have him follow up with something along the lines of "And as for the rest of you, we need your help too. The Government can't afford to continue to be your sugar-daddy. You're going to have to get off your @$# and get to work to support yourself."

I say that - but I think there are two stereotypes that are off.

First - that the "wealthy" are the folks who don't work and just drive around in limo's going shopping, to sporting events, or to their yacht or the airport for vaction. Some wealthy folks inherrited it and don't do much. Most worked their tails off to get it - and continue working to maintain it.

Second - that the "poor" are sitting around in their government subsidized housing, eating chips and drinking beer bought with foodstamps, and watching a 52" TV that they got with the huge federal tax refund. Many of the poor are working full-time minimum wage jobs, some are working more than one.

What is real is that there will have to be changes made in order to "fix" the economy. And it is going to take the participation of everyone. Increased financial contributions from some, decreased benefits for others.

[Goatnapper'96]

I think the public gets it on the revenue vs spending thing. I guess I just worry if he demagogues (sp) it enough and it doesn't get corrected in the media except on FOX, maybe the public gets swayed.

I hear, the millionaires and billionaires. I would like to have someone in the media present a chart showing Obama's tax plan, basically back to pre-Bush and how much will be raised from those making $250,000 to a million and how much will be raised from the millionaires and billionaires. Where is he is going to get "his" revenue is from the $250,000 to $999,000 aires. That is a harder sell. He can't keep saying the "millionaires and billionaires".

From a political perspective I think Obama will be forced to realize it is a losing proposition for him. If the Republicans sense this, they may not budge on tax increases. I am afraid that they will think that Obama will have to either capitulate and thus he and his base will take another demorilizing loss or it will keep the issue in the forefront of the general publics mind and be a boon to Republican Senators and the Republican Presidential candidate (don't look now but a Mormon is 1% behind the sitting President) especially if someone like Chris Christie (who has recently become more outspoken on social conservative issues - I am not thinking that is for the fine folk of the Garden State) throws his hat in the ring. If Obama continues to do little more than pound the wardrums of class warfare the Republicans could get greeedy and begin to believe that if they drag this out it will give them even more power and control coming out of 2012 elections. I am not sure I like that scenario as it is likely to lead to overreach and an elastic swing in the other direction.