Obama/Clinton tax plans VERY disappointing

bottom line is if they win presidency for 08 and raise taxes to much. they lose house and senate in 10 and presidency in 12.
 
I believe tax equality is a valid goal.

There's no effing way that Warren Buffet should be paying a lower tax rate than his secretary. The tax burden has increasingly been shifted away from corporations and the wealthy investor class, and onto the backs of the middle class. I don't see anything wrong with restoring the former balance and making it fairer.

As for adding more deductions and credits, yeah that makes it more complicated. I don't know that its the most horrible thing in the world to add more credits from middle income and working people.
 
"I believe tax equality is a valid goal. "

It's how you get there. I agree with the article; much of Obama's plan seems more geared toward WEALTH redistribution, not tax-burden redistribution. Close the loopholes, get rid of the breaks & advantages that the wealthy enjoy. Don't start a slide back to a top rate of 40-45%. No one should have to pay half of their income (when you factor in sales tax & other fees) to the government.

We're not talking about Warren Buffet, either. In my area, $100K a year is middle class. There's something wrong with creating a plan like universal healthcare & expecting only those people who have done well financially to pay for it.
 
Onceler said:
"I believe tax equality is a valid goal. "

It's how you get there. I agree with the article; much of Obama's plan seems more geared toward WEALTH redistribution, not tax-burden redistribution. Close the loopholes, get rid of the breaks & advantages that the wealthy enjoy. Don't start a slide back to a top rate of 40-45%. No one should have to pay half of their income (when you factor in sales tax & other fees) to the government.

We're not talking about Warren Buffet, either. In my area, $100K a year is middle class. There's something wrong with creating a plan like universal healthcare & expecting only those people who have done well financially to pay for it.
Click to expand...


I'm open to ideas about tweaking it.

But, its undeniable that the tax burden has been unfairly shifted to the middle class for the last decade. And that the wealth distribution in this country is trending towards a third world country; which is not only socially unjust but is a dangerous and unstable historical trend.
 
Cypress said:
I believe tax equality is a valid goal.

There's no effing way that Warren Buffet should be paying a lower tax rate than his secretary. The tax burden has increasingly been shifted away from corporations and the wealthy investor class, and onto the backs of the middle class. I don't see anything wrong with restoring the former balance and making it fairer.

As for adding more deductions and credits, yeah that makes it more complicated. I don't know that its the most horrible thing in the world to add more credits from middle income and working people.
Click to expand...

to a certain extent. cant be taxing the rich man at 75% again or we wont get any business investment and less loot in the stock market.. you know having a flat non growing economy again for decades like how it was back in the day.

its a balance. yes they should roll back the bush tax cut for over 250k and perhaps fire ssi tax back up after 250k.. but thats about it.
 
Chapdog said:
to a certain extent. cant be taxing the rich man at 75% again or we wont get any business investment and less loot in the stock market.. you know having a flat non growing economy again for decades like how it was back in the day.

its a balance. yes they should roll back the bush tax cut for over 250k and perhaps fire ssi tax back up after 250k.. but thats about it.
Click to expand...


No one is talking about taxing the fat cats at 75%. Fat cats pay extremely low tax rates on their investment income right now. Less, in many cases, the you and others in the working class pay on wages.
 
I'd just like to see our potential leaders talk more about fiscal responsibility. In the '90's, it was really refreshing to hear Clinton say we needed smaller, smarter gov't. I loved Gore's initiative on reinventing gov't, and the earnest efforts to balance the budget.

That's been abandoned, almost gleefully, during the Bush years, and I'm not seeing any signs of it in the campaign. It works both ways; it's not just about trimming gov't & making it more efficient; it's about keeping the tax burden low for all Americans; one third of a person's income is a perfectly reasonable goal. Just yesterday, the Senate pushed the top rate back up to 40%. To me, that's just unacceptable. Don't do that unless you have at least TRIED to show some fiscal responsibility.
 
Cypress said:
No one is talking about taxing the fat cats at 75%. Fat cats pay extremely low tax rates on their investment income right now. Less, in many cases, the you and others in the working class pay on wages.
Click to expand...

like i said.. im ok with some increases for the rich so long as there is corresponding decrease for the poor and middle.

what i would be angry about is if they increased taxes and increased spending. we already are paying like 2.6T annually in taxes to the govt. i think thats far to much so I DEFINITELY don't want to see it go up.
 
Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner.

Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/tax/article1996735.ece
 
Cypress said:
Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner.

Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/tax/article1996735.ece
Click to expand...


That's why I think it should be characterized as tax fairness.

Not the conservative talking point of "wealth redistribution and class warfare"
 
Cypress said:
Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner.

Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/tax/article1996735.ece
Click to expand...

A) hes got a point
B) he prob offsets a shit load with charity.
C) He paid over 8M in taxes
D) She paid 18K.
 
Cypress said:
Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner.

Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/tax/article1996735.ece
Click to expand...

Well, I'd prefer to see a hike in capital gains tax over a hike in actual income tax, without doubt. But that still concerns me: if I'm wealthy, I have a lot of investment options. If I lose more money on domestic options, it would be very easy for me to look elsewhere around the world, and put my money into interests abroad that were more profitable.
 
Cypress said:
That's why I think it should be characterized as tax fairness.

Not the conservative talking point of "wealth redistribution and class warfare"
Click to expand...
There is a difference between fairness and redistribution. It is the point that Oncelor has been making throughout the thread.
 
Onceler said:
Well, I'd prefer to see a hike in capital gains tax over a hike in actual income tax, without doubt. But that still concerns me: if I'm wealthy, I have a lot of investment options. If I lose more money on domestic options, it would be very easy for me to look elsewhere around the world, and put my money into interests abroad that were more profitable.
Click to expand...


Well, I'd prefer to see a hike in capital gains tax over a hike in actual income tax, without doubt.

Me too. I think putting the taxes on investement income back to where they were in the 1990s or 1980s would be fine. Our economy did better in those decades anyway.
 
Onceler said:
Well, I'd prefer to see a hike in capital gains tax over a hike in actual income tax, without doubt. But that still concerns me: if I'm wealthy, I have a lot of investment options. If I lose more money on domestic options, it would be very easy for me to look elsewhere around the world, and put my money into interests abroad that were more profitable.
Click to expand...

this is what they have to be careful with. seriously.. you tax the rich to much they will just move the money out of the country. Its just like with a state.. you get some tax fiend into MA once in awhile that threatens the fidelity's of MA and they simply tell them.. you raise our taxes we move headquarters out of MA and you will be out of office dickface.

Its a balance.
 
Start with a standard deduction of $30k (adjusted for inflation annually) for each adult and then tax every dollar over that $30k at 20%. This is simple, easy to understand, fair and progressive. It protects the low-income individuals and couples from paying federal income taxes. It provides the middle-income families a lower effective tax rate than the wealthy. This plan would encompass ALL income, including earned income, capital gains and dividend income.

A person making $30k pays an effective rate of 0%.

A person making $50k pays an effective rate of 8%.

A person making $100k pays an effective rate of 14%.

A person making $200k pays en effective rate of 17%.

A person making $1mm pays an effective rate of 19.4%

Everyone has the same deduction and takes it. Which causes the effective tax rate to increase the more you make.

To reduce the national debt I would propose we add an additional temporary bracket to the flat tax. Every dollar over $1 million (again adjusted for inflation annually) would be taxed at 30% rather than 20%. The additional 10% would be mandated to pay down the debt.

It is our responsibility to pay our own way and not dump trillions of dollars of debt on future generations. We need to begin electing leaders that are fiscally responsible. The future of our nation depends upon it. We are our own worst enemy. It will be our ever-increasing debt that leads to our demise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top