Obama/Clinton tax plans VERY disappointing

Onceler said:
The idea is NOT to make the tax code more complex, and it is NOT to blatantly redistribute wealth:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a3yqQSjgNEEE&refer=home

WTF? Why doesn't ANYONE talk about gov't waste & inefficiency, and cutting costs?

Sucks. I swear, if Republicans weren't gun-fellating, [strike]warmongering,[/strike] mysoginist, polluting religious nutjobs, they'd probably get my vote....
Click to expand...

The one I struck in that is why I am not voting for them this time. The others are the reasons I have voted for them in the past. But we are at another point of agreement: We need fiscal responsibility in Washington!
 
leaningright said:
The one I struck in that is why I am not voting for them this time. The others are the reasons I have voted for them in the past. But we are at another point of agreement: We need fiscal responsibility in Washington!
Click to expand...

Well, I don't consider you a religious nutjob, polluter or mysoginist, and I respect your right to own a gun (just don't like the nuts who get fanatical about it).

I was in a ticked off mood last night. I realized that I don't have a party that represents me in America.
 
Onceler said:
Well, I don't consider you a religious nutjob, polluter or mysoginist, and I respect your right to own a gun (just don't like the nuts who get fanatical about it).

I was in a ticked off mood last night. I realized that I don't have a party that represents me in America.
Click to expand...

Don't worry. I have felt the same way since 2004. I'm getting used to it. By the way, the fanatical nut jobs......like the guy in the early youtube democratic debate.....are just that. They're nuts and fortunately don't comprise the majority of gun owners.
 
Damocles said:
There is a difference between fairness and redistribution. It is the point that Oncelor has been making throughout the thread.
Click to expand...


What's the difference? Basically, some Yale professor says that the Obama's plan is redistributive and suddenly that's how everyone is characterizing it. Well, what specifically is the problem?
 
Superfreak said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is basically what I would like to see. I am not so sure that paying down the debt should be entirely on the backs of millionaires but other than that I like it. I also would like to see the US tax moneys earned off shore taxed when it is brought back to the US at the same rates as all other income.
 
Damocles said:
There is a difference between fairness and redistribution. It is the point that Oncelor has been making throughout the thread.
Click to expand...

They're just political buzzwords, with no particular quantifiable meaning.

I'm interested in facts, although political framing has its value.

The facts are undisputable. The % of the tax burden on wealth and investment has been significantly shifted towards work and wages.
 
lucky there will be enough republicans to shoot down any huge tax increases.
The wussy dem male shows himlself better on this issue than any other.
Buffett paid $8,000,000 in taxes last year. I bet you he didn't have that phylosophy on the way up. Now that his grad kids grand kids will be billionaires he got religion.
 
Chapdog said:
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.
Click to expand...

No one here is really talking about where jobs come from. How are jobs created? I'd be curious to here the varying opinions on this.

I'll start with one. Entrepreneurs. Someone who has an idea and is willing to take a risk by starting a company. They can invest their own money or borrow money from family/friends, a bank, a VC firm etc. Anyhow if successful this small company can grow hire new people etc.

Policy issues such as taxes can encourage/discourage potential entrepreneurs to be willing to take risks to start new ventures.
 
Topspin said:
lucky there will be enough republicans to shoot down any huge tax increases.
The wussy dem male shows himlself better on this issue than any other.
Buffett paid $8,000,000 in taxes last year. I bet you he didn't have that phylosophy on the way up. Now that his grad kids grand kids will be billionaires he got religion.
Click to expand...

you notice Buffett is donating all his money as well which means he won't have to pay taxes on it unlike if he had waited until after his death and paid half his money in death taxes.
 
cawacko said:
No one here is really talking about where jobs come from. How are jobs created? I'd be curious to here the varying opinions on this.

I'll start with one. Entrepreneurs. Someone who has an idea and is willing to take a risk by starting a company. They can invest their own money or borrow money from family/friends, a bank, a VC firm etc. Anyhow if successful this small company can grow hire new people etc.

Policy issues such as taxes can encourage/discourage potential entrepreneurs to be willing to take risks to start new ventures.
Click to expand...


Bush's policies of cutting taxes on wealth and corporations has resulted in the weakest, and most stagnant job growth and wage growth in half a century.
 
Cypress said:
Has bush's policy of massively cutting corporate and investment taxes, led to strong job and wage growth?
Click to expand...

I asked the question where jobs come from. How are jobs created. Do they just appear out of thin air? I didn't ask about Bush's policy's.
 
Cypress said:
Has bush's policy of massively cutting corporate and investment taxes, led to strong job and wage growth?
Click to expand...

And actually yes those policies do work. Notice what happened in the market after '97 when Clinton cut taxes on investement gains. Bush cut taxes on investments in '03 and strong job creation followed.
 
unemployment is extreemly low cypress, you cant have much more than the few million jobs created when everyone is already working. Nice cut and paste from moveon.com.
Economics is not the strong suite of most turbo-libs.
 
Cypress said:
They're just political buzzwords, with no particular quantifiable meaning.

I'm interested in facts, although political framing has its value.

The facts are undisputable. The % of the tax burden on wealth and investment has been significantly shifted towards work and wages.
Click to expand...
Again I agree. But you must look at the reality as well as the "fairness", also not a quantifiable word. At least not any more than "redistributive". Both could be quantified by using the limits of the person speaking.

The reality is, if you burden them too much investment will go elsewhere and it will not be beneficial to the US economy.

As I said before, it may seem counterintuitive to "Just" or "Fair" but it is reality.

The best system so far presented in this thread is SF's too bad none of the candidates promote it. Get rid of the shelters and actually get taxes from everybody.
 
Cypress said:
Has bush's policy of massively cutting corporate and investment taxes, led to strong job and wage growth?
Click to expand...
Would a higher tax?

The reality is he inherited an economy at least headed towards recession, some report already in recession, then we had a major attack on financial institutions in the US in the same year. That we have staved off the recession for so long is quite amazing and it wouldn't have been done without tax cuts.

Stupid man can't figure out you must cut costs at the same time, at least slow the growth....
 
Socrtease said:
This is basically what I would like to see. I am not so sure that paying down the debt should be entirely on the backs of millionaires but other than that I like it. I also would like to see the US tax moneys earned off shore taxed when it is brought back to the US at the same rates as all other income.
Click to expand...

While I agree that technically it shouldn't be on the backs of the wealthy... the only way we are going to get the idiots in DC to pay down the debt is to set specific money aside to do so.
 
the dems could cut the shit out of spending and spur the economy.
If they get too much success in raising taxes chap is right, they will be limited to one term. Most middle class are trying to move up and don't buy into the cypress class warfare.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top