Obama Is Smart At Least Regarding Taxes

Annie

Annie

Not So Junior Member
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/07/abc-news-obamas.html

... Anne Mathias, an economist of the Stanford Group Company, has an interesting analysis of just who the top wage earners in the U.S. are -- and where they live. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, has proposed raising a number of taxes. Most notably perhaps he has discussed allowing the Bush income tax cuts (that Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., voted against but now supports) to expire. He says that Americans earning less than $250,000 per household will see their taxes cut, not raised.

Mathias points out that 95.1% of the American people are in households that earn less than $200,000 -- so overwhelmingly most Americans will not see their income taxes increased, if Obama's math is correct. ...

Abc_map_2There's another component to this -- check out this map, by Mathias, which is interesting: The designated areas are the top 50 major city areas by income, transplanted on an electoral map of the U.S. from 2004 featuring red Bush states and blue Kerry states. ...

As you can see, most of these top 50 major city areas, income-wise are either in blue blue blue states (California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, or New York) or red red red states (Alaska, Texas), with fewer in swing states (with some notable exceptions such as Philadelphia, Penn., or West Palm Beach-Boca Raton, Florida.)

Mathias' conclusion: Obama's proposed income tax increases are not very risky at all, numerically speaking, in terms of number of voters or states he will impact. Overwhelmingly most Americans will not be touched, and the ones who will are largely in electorally decided states already.
Click to expand...
 
We have to get rid of rich people to feed the poor? Well that's a travesty. Poor people starving to death is just unfortunate, but someone not being rich anymore is a tragedy.
 
Watermark said:
We have to get rid of rich people to feed the poor? Well that's a travesty. Poor people starving to death is just unfortunate, but someone not being rich anymore is a tragedy.
Click to expand...

Listen just cause you are poor doesn't mean you have to take it out on the rest of us.
 
Dilloduck said:
Tax the rich--feed the poor--til there are no--rich no more.

Quicksilver Messenger Service
Click to expand...

What QMS song is this from, because as far as I know it's Ten Years After (Alvin Lee) "I'd Love to Change the World"?
 
There will be far more people affected by Obama's tax plans that he admits to. There are MANY people well below $250K whose incomes are derived partially from investments. Obama's plans for capital gains and dividend taxes will hit those people hard.

This is especially true of retirees. A large percentage of retirees have investment portfolios as part of their retirement plan. Obama is going to triple (or more) the taxes on those retirement plans. Not everyone who depends on investment income as part of their household income are wealthy. About 1/3 of my income is derived from investments, and I am well below $100K total income. Obama's plan ignores that fact. And is therefore ignoring how many people nation wide will be adversely affected.
 
Good Luck said:
There will be far more people affected by Obama's tax plans that he admits to. There are MANY people well below $250K whose incomes are derived partially from investments. Obama's plans for capital gains and dividend taxes will hit those people hard.

This is especially true of retirees. A large percentage of retirees have investment portfolios as part of their retirement plan. Obama is going to triple (or more) the taxes on those retirement plans. Not everyone who depends on investment income as part of their household income are wealthy. About 1/3 of my income is derived from investments, and I am well below $100K total income. Obama's plan ignores that fact. And is therefore ignoring how many people nation wide will be adversely affected.
Click to expand...
And by ignoring that part, he is ignoring an important factor. Old people vote.
 
Damocles said:
And by ignoring that part, he is ignoring an important factor. Old people vote.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Mathias' conclusion that those most likely hit by Obama's tax plan are already in decided areas is way off the mark. The number of retirees who depend on investment income as part of their retirement is in the millions nation wide. And yes, we vote - far more often than other demographics. And don't think the average retiree is going to be snowed about what tripling the capital gains tax, and adding a similar rate to dividend income will do to us.
 
Actually I have a couple of Tbones laid out for me and my lady freind tomorrow.
Nice dinner, a little wine and some pool time,
 
uscitizen said:
Actually I have a couple of Tbones laid out for me and my lady freind tomorrow.
Nice dinner, a little wine and some pool time,
Click to expand...

Hope you are adding onions and mushrooms w/wine. Sounds yummy. Baked potatoes sound a welcome addition. Ummm....
 
Good Luck said:
There will be far more people affected by Obama's tax plans that he admits to. There are MANY people well below $250K whose incomes are derived partially from investments. Obama's plans for capital gains and dividend taxes will hit those people hard.

This is especially true of retirees. A large percentage of retirees have investment portfolios as part of their retirement plan. Obama is going to triple (or more) the taxes on those retirement plans. Not everyone who depends on investment income as part of their household income are wealthy. About 1/3 of my income is derived from investments, and I am well below $100K total income. Obama's plan ignores that fact. And is therefore ignoring how many people nation wide will be adversely affected.
Click to expand...

Well so what? Right now their being taxed at a lower rate then people who earn their income via employment. Why is invested income more important then earned income?

Hell right now a trust fund baby pays a fraction of the taxes you and I have to pay off our earned income. Why are the better then us? Why do they get a free lunch?
 
Kathianne said:
Hope you are adding onions and mushrooms w/wine. Sounds yummy. Baked potatoes sound a welcome addition. Ummm....
Click to expand...

I'm doing the heart healthy thing and grilling Mahi-Mahi filets and serving it with my homemade Mango Habanero salsa with wild rice risotto.

You'd like my salsa. It's pretty potent but not nuclear and it's awesome with either pork or fish.

Dice the following and mix in large bowl and let sit for an hour before serving. (store in tupperware bowl, will last a week or two in the fridge).

3 mangos
1 sweet onion (Vadalia)
1 cucumber, quartered and de-seeded
juice of one lemon or lime
1 habanero pepper
1/4 cup chopped cilantro
1/4 tsp salt
 
Ahh yes Mottley, but I have the luxury (?) of knowing something else is going to take me out so I do not have to worry about eating sinfully. As long as I don't blimp out anyway ;)
 
So long as there is an income tax, it should be a single-rate tax. This would be much simpler, and according to several economists, it would generate far greater revenue than the current tax system.

Put a tax of, say, 20% on all income exceeding $45,000. So if you make $50,000 per year, you would end up paying $1000 in taxes. If you make $70,000, you'd pay $5000 in taxes. Someone making $250,000 per year would pay $41,000 in taxes. You get the idea.

I hate the income tax, but so long as we have it, it ought to be simple and should not place a heavy burden on the lower and middle class.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top