Democrats: Please discredit this list of Obama tax increases for me.

[Cancel7]

The worst part of this campaign to me is the utter lack of focus on wasteful spending & fiscal responsiblity. There is a lot of talk about new programs, and I support things like universal healthcare if we can do it responsibly, but there hasn't been more than one sentence I have heard on making gov't more efficient, or reducing waste.

Obama said once, in an early debate, something to the effect of "our first thought shouldn't be how can we make taxes even higher," or something like that, but that was the last of it.

I definitely agree on cutting wasteful spending Onceler, and certainly we can cut the military budget and still be spending way too much. The problem always arises when you start talking about what your definition of “wasteful” is. Then add to that you have big-time corporate lobbyists who are spending big bucks to fight against cutting corporate welfare and governmental corporate spending, and you have the right wing like Cawacko jumping up and down to cut programs which mainly benefit the less fortunate while crying about oil companies, and you know, you are going to hit a wall there. And I call that a moral issue. It’s a matter of values, you bet it is.

Starve the children feed the oil companies?

 

[LadyT]

It is a free country if you don't like it there move. Why should I subsidize your being there ?

Like the lady living her car.

Please! Do I really have to post the list of donor states? If anything it will put states back in balance and closer to a ratio of 1 for federal monies out of state over what comes back to the state.

 

[uscitizen]

Please! Do I really have to post the list of donor states? If anything it will put states back in balance and closer to a ratio of 1 for federal monies out of state over what comes back to the state.

State tax and federal tax are different thing for different purposes.

 

[Chapdog]

Again, that's not a fair measure because then it becomes a regional issue and you can't paint a broad brush and just say $250k/year qualifies as the elite. That's just not true especially in the SF, NYC, and other NE metropolitan areas.

And there should be some concession or rebates offered to people in these areas.

and the whining liberal response i have gotten a hundred times from from talking about that: "Nobodies forcing you to live in those areas!"

 

[Onceler]

I definitely agree on cutting wasteful spending Onceler, and certainly we can cut the military budget and still be spending way too much. The problem always arises when you start talking about what your definition of “wasteful” is. Then add to that you have big-time corporate lobbyists who are spending big bucks to fight against cutting corporate welfare and governmental corporate spending, and you have the right wing like Cawacko jumping up and down to cut programs which mainly benefit the less fortunate while crying about oil companies, and you know, you are going to hit a wall there. And I call that a moral issue. It’s a matter of values, you bet it is.

Starve the children feed the oil companies?

I know; it's a fine line. I don't think there are a lot of programs there that you can just cut off the map entirely.

It's about changing the way gov't works, and efficiency. Between old ladies buying software, I sell to gov't, and you wouldn't believe the bureacracy that goes into one simple order. I think I'm one of the few people who actually read through the report on Al Gore's "reinventing gov't" project from the '90's. It was just getting going when they left office, and Bush abandoned it, but it was making some real headway, and they were starting to see significant results.

Gov't has to change the way it operates. There is waste at every level; it isn't just $700 screwdrivers for the Pentagon. It is systemic, and we've just grown to accept that it's how gov't works.

 

[Annie]

State tax and federal tax are different thing for different purposes.

Not as it should be. It's what makes the whole system of earmarks and pork possible. It's ridiculous that states send in so much money, then get part of it back. It certainly is not redistributed to poorer states in the amount the donor states give. Everytime it changes hands, more disappears.

 

[uscitizen]

and the whining liberal response i have gotten a hundred times from from talking about that: "Nobodies forcing you to live in those areas!"

Yep like the ones we get from the right about no jobs in and area or an old lady and her dog living in her car in a parking lot.

MOVE!

 

[uscitizen]

Not as it should be. It's what makes the whole system of earmarks and pork possible. It's ridiculous that states send in so much money, then get part of it back. It certainly is not redistributed to poorer states in the amount the donor states give. Everytime it changes hands, more disappears.

yep the main purpose of the exercise, to spread the money out as it changes/greases hands.

I will not disagree with you on that point.

 

[Cancel7]

I know; it's a fine line. I don't think there are a lot of programs there that you can just cut off the map entirely.

It's about changing the way gov't works, and efficiency. Between old ladies buying software, I sell to gov't, and you wouldn't believe the bureacracy that goes into one simple order. I think I'm one of the few people who actually read through the report on Al Gore's "reinventing gov't" project from the '90's. It was just getting going when they left office, and Bush abandoned it, but it was making some real headway, and they were starting to see significant results.

Gov't has to change the way it operates. There is waste at every level; it isn't just $700 screwdrivers for the Pentagon. It is systemic, and we've just grown to accept that it's how gov't works.

I definitely agree, and I hope that Obama takes a hard look at that report, and does something about it.

 

[LadyT]

No it’s not, and I really wasn’t addressing that. I just wanted to add to this discussion, that certain tax “raises”, like allowing the bush tax cuts for the top two percent, to expire, or the capital gains tax to be raised to the level it was at during the Clinton years, cannot be allowed to be used in the right wing mantra of “tax and spend liberal”. Many taxes have been irresponsibly cut during the Bush years, most of those cuts, did not go to people like you, and most of the raises won’t either.
Social Security is a different issue, and that’s going to affect people like you. Is it going to be “huge”? I’d like to see the weekly dollar numbers on that, and then we’d have to define huge. Also I know he is still going to leave a so-called donut hole in there, so I’m not sure it’d affect those 100kers, or just 200kers. And no 200 thousand isn’t rich, but it’s doing ok, and SS is going to need more funds. Ronald Reagan raised SS taxes, and we all survived, as did SS, and, I might add, Reagan’s reputation as a tax-cutter.

1) I'd argue that taxes have been irresponsibly raised over the last 100 years.

2) Again, I'd argue that they are already unbelievably high and any raise is substantial. For every $10K income limit increase that's at least an additional $600 more tha people would have to pay annually. Or said another way, premiums on their homeowners insurance.

 

[evince]

Again, that's not a fair measure because then it becomes a regional issue and you can't paint a broad brush and just say $250k/year qualifies as the elite. That's just not true especially in the SF, NYC, and other NE metropolitan areas.

And there should be some concession or rebates offered to people in these areas.

That is what tax writeoffs are for.

 

[LadyT]

State tax and federal tax are different thing for different purposes.

We're not talking about state taxes. I'm only speaking of federal taxes.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6936.html

The income is being redistributed disportionatly to a lot of the 'poorer' states. I'm simply proposing leveling the playing field. So that its more of a one to one ratio.

Why do you feel we should continue to pour our wallets into other states via federal tax receipts?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

That is what tax writeoffs are for.

that is the attitude that allows Buffett to pay a lower effective tax rate than his secretary.

 

[LadyT]

That is what tax writeoffs are for.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6936.html

clearly that's not working. The states with higher income per capita are still getting screwed.

 

[LadyT]

and the whining liberal response i have gotten a hundred times from from talking about that: "Nobodies forcing you to live in those areas!"

To answer you original question, I don't think Obama's tax plans are favorable to McCain in anyway shape or form. Do I think my portfolios will do better under Obama yes? Do I think getting us less focused on invasion and more focused on strengthening America will eventually lead to a stronger dollar and cheaper oil? Yes. Will less military spending help us in the long run? Yes.

I do think there is a high probability that any tax increases he proposes will be over turned.

 

[Socrtease]

My father is a board certified Neuropsychologist. He has busted his ass to get where he is now. He makes about 300k per year. He and my mother own a 2700+ sq foot house that they purchased back in 1981 for about 130k. They have worked over the years to fix it up, it has two rental units in the back, and is on about half an acre of land, it was just appraised this year at just over 400k. They also own a house that was converted to an office. It is over 3600 square feet and it is valued at about 500k. They also own two homes that are rental units, both worth more than 100k. Their worth is going to be more than one million dollars. My bet is, not knowing the specifics, there are probably a couple of 401k's worth at least a couple hundred thousand each, probably some other investments. My dad HAS paid taxes as he got richer, his taxes HAVE gone up. But the death tax will affect his estate. There are four kids in my family. NONE of us would get rich if my parents were killed in a car accident today. But with the size of his estate, we would probably have to sell stuff off, and I KNOW we will if the death tax goes up. A million dollars is NOT that much money any more. But that being said, I don't care how much money someone makes in their life. If they are smart, work hard, invest well and pass that on to their kids, then so be it. Inheritance tax should be called what it is, a jealousy tax. Someone worked hard to make that money and then invested wisely. That does not make them evil. We all got the families we got with no choice involved. A person should not be punished for having been born to hard workers and smart investors.

 

[LadyT]

My father is a board certified Neuropsychologist. He has busted his ass to get where he is now. He makes about 300k per year. He and my mother own a 2700+ sq foot house that they purchased back in 1981 for about 130k. They have worked over the years to fix it up, it has two rental units in the back, and is on about half an acre of land, it was just appraised this year at just over 400k. They also own a house that was converted to an office. It is over 3600 square feet and it is valued at about 500k. They also own two homes that are rental units, both worth more than 100k. Their worth is going to be more than one million dollars. My bet is, not knowing the specifics, there are probably a couple of 401k's worth at least a couple hundred thousand each, probably some other investments. My dad HAS paid taxes as he got richer, his taxes HAVE gone up. But the death tax will affect his estate. There are four kids in my family. NONE of us would get rich if my parents were killed in a car accident today. But with the size of his estate, we would probably have to sell stuff off, and I KNOW we will if the death tax goes up. A million dollars is NOT that much money any more. But that being said, I don't care how much money someone makes in their life. If they are smart, work hard, invest well and pass that on to their kids, then so be it. Inheritance tax should be called what it is, a jealousy tax. Someone worked hard to make that money and then invested wisely. That does not make them evil. We all got the families we got with no choice involved. A person should not be punished for having been born to hard workers and smart investors.

Not that I particualary care about the estate tax or jealousy tax as you call it, but that's a weak argument.

No one is being punished in scenario you just painted

#1) The owners of the estate being taxed are dead and gone so they aren't being punished.

#2) the people inheriting the money about didn't work for it or own it so they aren't being punished.

 

[Cancel7]

My father is a board certified Neuropsychologist. He has busted his ass to get where he is now. He makes about 300k per year. He and my mother own a 2700+ sq foot house that they purchased back in 1981 for about 130k. They have worked over the years to fix it up, it has two rental units in the back, and is on about half an acre of land, it was just appraised this year at just over 400k. They also own a house that was converted to an office. It is over 3600 square feet and it is valued at about 500k. They also own two homes that are rental units, both worth more than 100k. Their worth is going to be more than one million dollars. My bet is, not knowing the specifics, there are probably a couple of 401k's worth at least a couple hundred thousand each, probably some other investments. My dad HAS paid taxes as he got richer, his taxes HAVE gone up. But the death tax will affect his estate. There are four kids in my family. NONE of us would get rich if my parents were killed in a car accident today. But with the size of his estate, we would probably have to sell stuff off, and I KNOW we will if the death tax goes up. A million dollars is NOT that much money any more. But that being said, I don't care how much money someone makes in their life. If they are smart, work hard, invest well and pass that on to their kids, then so be it. Inheritance tax should be called what it is, a jealousy tax. Someone worked hard to make that money and then invested wisely. That does not make them evil. We all got the families we got with no choice involved. A person should not be punished for having been born to hard workers and smart investors.

Raising the minimum amount an estate would have to be before it qualifies for the estate tax, was completely on the table, and of course, that does need to be revisited from time to time. But the right wing did not want to talk about raising that minimum, they wanted to eliminate the estate tax period, and that is what they did.
That is wrong, and in fact, avoiding obligarchy is one of our founding principles which is the intent of the estate tax, and understanding that is why people like Warren Buffet are for that tax.

 

[Onceler]

I agree to an extent that part of the reason people work so hard is to be able to pass something onto their kids, and that should be their right. The spirit of the estate tax is much more geared toward the Paris Hiltons of the world, and toward preventing what some of the founders warned as an aristocracy of inherited wealth.

I think it's a matter of where you set the limits & the amounts that can be taxed. I agree overall that on the estate tax & other taxes, there needs to be a change of mindset on what constitutes "wealthy", because it's a lot different now than it was 10-20 years ago.

 

[Chapdog]

I agree to an extent that part of the reason people work so hard is to be able to pass something onto their kids, and that should be their right. The spirit of the estate tax is much more geared toward the Paris Hiltons of the world, and toward preventing what some of the founders warned as an aristocracy of inherited wealth.

I think it's a matter of where you set the limits & the amounts that can be taxed. I agree overall that on the estate tax & other taxes, there needs to be a change of mindset on what constitutes "wealthy", because it's a lot different now than it was 10-20 years ago.

not even 10-20 years ago. basically the dollar has lost half its value in the past 2 years.