How will Obama v. Democrats v. Republican Battle Play Out?

[helpme2010]

Oh stop the BS.. The nation was running up huge deficits after Bush took office when he cut taxes, signed Medicaid Part D into law and expanded the defense/intelligence budget by three fold over the years.

We need to start paying for the services again.

I have to say DH's quote about the rich will be giving us jobs when we cut the taxes for them. This is simply not true. Maybe a small percentage, but this has been proven not to be true over the last decade. I have noticed CEO's will cut your job to make themselves more profit, even when times are good. They will be the first to try to get someone much cheaper to take over your job (even when that person isn't qualified to do the job).

Many of the wealthy simply hoard the money or invest it into the most lucrative returns for themselves which often include offshore investments. This money barely trickles down. And is that how we want our system to work? The richest people trickling down crumbs to the poor?

[HHM]

My point is more to the over all philosophical issue of WHY should the rich pay more in tax. Why do we punish success with an increased tax burden. This is where I think Warren Buffet is a hypocrite. He has come out and said that rich people should pay more in taxes. Yet, do you see him "giving" his billions to the government. NO, he is giving it to private charities. If limousine liberals want to pay more in taxes, by all means, do so. Do you know any that actually DONATE their money to the government....<insert cricket sounds> The people hurt by the tax burden are not the super wealthy. But it is the up and coming wealthy. A professional couple in Los Angeles, earning combined income of $450,000 a year, that 35%, or 38% tax hit (and that is JUST INCOME TAX, that is not social security and Medicare), Realistically, their effective tax burden is HALF their income. If someone making $3MM per year, half there income may not be as noticeable. But it is those people, in the $200K-$600K that are the small business owners (The doctors with a small medical practice with 10 employees, the general contractor, the roofing company), they employee 70% of the nations workers, and they are the ones most hurt by income tax increases. Why is it RIGHT for the government to TAKE half of someones income? I am not saying there should be no tax, there are services that the government provides that no other entity can do, but punishing success is not the way to do it.

As I pointed out in a earlier post, my largest monthly expense, by far, is income tax, social security, and Medicare. It really shouldn't be that way.

Someone pointed this out too me the other day, we punish people for working by taxing them, yet, if they don't work, we pay them unemployment.

[helpme2010]

HHM, you make some good points here. As for the wealthy who are supporting a higher rate for the rich, not giving their taxes, they are stating that the law should be passed, but of course would not be foolish enough to donate their percentage to the government if the law isn't passed. I had this wish that we could have a charity fund called "Eliminate the Deficit" whereby people could donate their funds to the eliminate the deficit fund. But of course we know that would never work because our country is one of always creating a deficit, so it would simply be run back up again. Just like if we tried to put a fund in for social security to be increased, when we all know it will be spent.

I understand the argument about how it isn't fair to tax the rich more than the poor, kind of an anti-robin hood belief, and I would be all for this if we weren't in the situation we are in with the recession and in my opinion an unfair rise with many wealthy at the expense of the poor, especially with Bush policies. I was ok with the Bush tax cuts when he first introduced them, thinking, this is fine as long as we can grow our economy at a rate to cover them. Since this didn't happen and we went into a recession and taking into account what China is going to do to us, I believe its time to rethink our strategy. I think we have had a wealth shift to a very minute percentage getting a massive wealth increase, while massively increasing the bottom of the poor. Look at the massive amount of foreclosures and BK's going on. Look at the record unemployment numbers. Sometimes government has to step in when the wealth distribution goes beyond what is reasonable or in my opinion moral. I am even for a compromise, if 250,000 is too low, then bump it to 500,000 or 600,000, but somewhere, we should draw the line and give back to help society that is suffering.

I also am for some social programs and for unemployment extensions because many of these people were the middle class that are now in poverty and I want these people to get the help they need from a system they paid into, until they can get back into that middle class again.

[WhatMoney]

The people hurt by the tax burden are not the super wealthy. But it is the up and coming wealthy. A professional couple in Los Angeles, earning combined income of $450,000 a year, that 35%, or 38% tax hit (and that is JUST INCOME TAX, that is not social security and Medicare), Realistically, their effective tax burden is HALF their income. If someone making $3MM per year, half there income may not be as noticeable. But it is those people, in the $200K-$600K that are the small business owners (The doctors with a small medical practice with 10 employees, the general contractor, the roofing company), they employee 70% of the nations workers, and they are the ones most hurt by income tax increases. Why is it RIGHT for the government to TAKE half of someones income? I am not saying there should be no tax, there are services that the government provides that no other entity can do, but punishing success is not the way to do it.

As I pointed out in a earlier post, my largest monthly expense, by far, is income tax, social security, and Medicare. It really shouldn't be that way.

The Federal tax rate for a couple making $450,000 plus SS and Medicare is not half your income. The 35% is a marginal bracket, not the tax on your entire income.

This couple would pay 26.1% of their net 450,000 income in Federal income taxes in 2010. Add in SS and Medicare, with the present top rate limit, and your taxes including the FICA taxes would be about 28% of your income, nowhere close to 50%.

If you live in a high income tax state you might add about 8% income tax, but you can always move to a state that has no state income tax.

Also, 98% of small businesses do not NET $250,000/yr, and would not be affected by a 3% marginal increase in income above $250,000. A business with a net profit of $250,000 would pay about 25.8% in income tax, ignoring any business tax credits.

A "small business" earning a net taxable income of $500,000 would be taxed at 29.9% with the Bush tax cuts in place, and would be taxed at about 32% if the tax cuts for over 250,000 were eliminated - that's the per cent tax rate on the entire income.
(This would be 3% increase on net income between $212,600 and $379,650, and a 4.6% increase on income over $379,650, if the pre-Bush tax rates were restored.)

If the rich are not taxed progressively, most will hoard and invest overseas to become even richer, at the expense of the middle class. They will not create American jobs when they can build factories and employ cheaper labor overseas. This has been the case for trickle down economics since the 1980's. The only trickle down you get from the super rich is a warm yellow liquid on your head.

2010 tax calculator:
http://www.dinkytown.net/java/TaxMargin.html

[HHM]

HHM, you make some good points here. As for the wealthy who are supporting a higher rate for the rich, not giving their taxes, they are stating that the law should be passed, but of course would not be foolish enough to donate their percentage to the government if the law isn't passed. I had this wish that we could have a charity fund called "Eliminate the Deficit" whereby people could donate their funds to the eliminate the deficit fund. But of course we know that would never work because our country is one of always creating a deficit, so it would simply be run back up again. Just like if we tried to put a fund in for social security to be increased, when we all know it will be spent.

I understand the argument about how it isn't fair to tax the rich more than the poor, kind of an anti-robin hood belief, and I would be all for this if we weren't in the situation we are in with the recession and in my opinion an unfair rise with many wealthy at the expense of the poor, especially with Bush policies. I was ok with the Bush tax cuts when he first introduced them, thinking, this is fine as long as we can grow our economy at a rate to cover them. Since this didn't happen and we went into a recession and taking into account what China is going to do to us, I believe its time to rethink our strategy. I think we have had a wealth shift to a very minute percentage getting a massive wealth increase, while massively increasing the bottom of the poor. Look at the massive amount of foreclosures and BK's going on. Look at the record unemployment numbers. Sometimes government has to step in when the wealth distribution goes beyond what is reasonable or in my opinion moral. I am even for a compromise, if 250,000 is too low, then bump it to 500,000 or 600,000, but somewhere, we should draw the line and give back to help society that is suffering.

I also am for some social programs and for unemployment extensions because many of these people were the middle class that are now in poverty and I want these people to get the help they need from a system they paid into, until they can get back into that middle class again.

The problem is, the money collected in taxes is not really redistributed except for social security, and those living on social security are POOR and receiving social security doesn't keep them from being poor.

The government can only act as a safety net, it really can't level the income division. If you really want to boost the economy, Take the next 5 years, 10 trillion dollars and pay off the mortgage of anyone with a mortgage of $250,000 or less. But that won't happen, the government is too bloated, too wasteful, and no one really has the will to change it.

[backtoschool]

I agree that there is a huge government bureaucracy that is paid for by taxes and that for the most part is unneeded. If we get rid of all of those government jobs, and kick the bureaucrats to the street and take that money that we are saving by not paying them salaries, and pay down the deficit or lower the tax rate on the "upwardly mobile", will we help the economy?

I don't think so.

If we get rid of government agencies that are not critical, we will now have hundreds of thousands of unemployed bureaucrats. The money we were paying the bureaucrats will go to paying off our deficit I assume. (otherwise why bother adding hundreds of thousands of bureaucrats to the unemployment lines) The lower deficit will stabilize the dollar, which will make our exports more expensive, which will cause a trade imbalance, which will lead to more jobs lost. Net improvement to the economy? None.

The tax savings of the "upwardly mobile" might lead to marginal growth in consumer spending, which could lead to economic growth, or it may not. The "upwardly mobile" may just save the money and that will lead to no net growth for the economy.

When I look at possible outcomes of lowering taxes, I don't see any clear path to those lower taxes leading to economic growth.

If it is a question of "fairness", those who are "upwardly mobile" could always go live in a place that doesn't tax their earnings. Perhaps Europe? Nope their taxes would be much higher in Europe. How about Central America? Again, they would be taxed at a much higher rate in Central America. They could move to China I suppose, but it is hard to tell if one is being taxed or not when the currency is regulated and its value changes by central control.

So I suppose the upwardly mobile will have to make due with 2/3 of their 450k a year for now. With home prices lower, and food prices stable and deflation the norm, they are getting more for their money and can hire some of the downwardly mobile to do their menial tasks for them. This is what the upwardly mobile do in other third world countries where there is a huge income disparity between the rich and the poor.

[HHM]

But I think your missing the point, the government has a marginal affect on the economy in the first place. Government (at least a government with sufficient resources) can prevent a crisis, and can create an environment for growth, but for the most part, the government has little impact on the economy. So arguing that the upwardly mobile should pay higher taxes because it won't lead to an economic benefit is disingenuous because the government cannot really affect the economy. Also, let's keep in mine, the poor don't actually pay tax. So let's dispel that myth right here. So its not a question of should the rich pay more tax than the poor, the poor pay zero tax. No one has yet addressed the fundamental question as to WHY the upwardly mobile SHOULD pay the majority of their income in taxes. I critique both sides on this issue that tax policy is about the economy, it is not. I am equally critically of both sides. But giving money to the government never made the economy better.

Europe has finally figured this out, what do you think all those austerity programs are for. They have learned that you cannot keep raising taxes and be economically viable. They have FINALLY learned that a government care taker system doesn't work.

[WhatMoney]

But it is those people, in the $200K-$600K that are the small business owners (The doctors with a small medical practice with 10 employees, the general contractor, the roofing company), they employee 70% of the nations workers, and they are the ones most hurt by income tax increases.

I am going to repeat once again that 98% of small businesses do not net $250,000/yr, and would not have their taxes raised if the bush tax cuts were only extended to those netting less than $250,000.

The inheritance tax break for the ultra-rich is even more damaging to the economy and the deficit:

Van Hollen, appearing on "Fox News Sunday," indicated that Democrats would like to get a separate vote on the inheritance tax, a provision that he said would cost $25 billion for just 6,600 people.

"That doesn't help the economy," Van Hollen said. "It hurts the deficit."

How does sending an extra $25 Billion to only 6,600 already wealthy heirs help the economy? That is an average of an extra $3.8 Million each to only 6,600 heirs. Is that the best way to distribute government revenue to stimulate the economy?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101213/pl_nm/us_usa_taxes

[backtoschool]

But I think your missing the point, the government has a marginal affect on the economy in the first place. Government (at least a government with sufficient resources) can prevent a crisis, and can create an environment for growth, but for the most part, the government has little impact on the economy. So arguing that the upwardly mobile should pay higher taxes because it won't lead to an economic benefit is disingenuous because the government cannot really affect the economy. Also, let's keep in mine, the poor don't actually pay tax. So let's dispel that myth right here. So its not a question of should the rich pay more tax than the poor, the poor pay zero tax. No one has yet addressed the fundamental question as to WHY the upwardly mobile SHOULD pay the majority of their income in taxes. I critique both sides on this issue that tax policy is about the economy, it is not. I am equally critically of both sides. But giving money to the government never made the economy better.

Europe has finally figured this out, what do you think all those austerity programs are for. They have learned that you cannot keep raising taxes and be economically viable. They have FINALLY learned that a government care taker system doesn't work.

Europe's austerity programs still offer far more benefits (paid for by far higher tax rates) than the US. The austerity programs are to keep from defaulting on loans, not to keep taxes down. (Think Ireland here...)

But I do agree with you that the government cannot really affect the economy except for providing cheap money to banks (that supposedly they will lend out to businesses and consumers thereby creating growth). The government can also calm its citizens in a fiscal crisis by offering "insurance" that their money is safe (think fdic here). In order to provide that cheap money to banks and to provide the insurance to depositors, the government needs to have money, which requires taxes. The fdic and the fed absorbed a huge amount of bank defaults and pumped a huge amount of money in into the economy in the last three years. If that money was not being at least partially covered by tax dollars we would have printed so much money that the currency would have collapsed like Weinmar Germany. (I am not saying that this still may not happen. If we keep printing money it will...)

I totally agree with you HHM that we cannot keep raising taxes and have a healthy, growing economy. I am just not sure where the line should be drawn. We need to pay the deficit down a bit and we need to collect some tax money. I am unsure of what is the "fairest" and most economically sound policy here.

Interesting discussion.

[HHM]

I am going to repeat once again that 98% of small businesses do not net $250,000/yr, and would not have their taxes raised if the bush tax cuts were only extended to those netting less than $250,000.

The inheritance tax break for the ultra-rich is even more damaging to the economy and the deficit:



How does sending an extra $25 Billion to only 6,600 already wealthy heirs help the economy? That is an average of an extra $3.8 Million each to only 6,600 heirs. Is that the best way to distribute government revenue to stimulate the economy?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101213/pl_nm/us_usa_taxes

But its a slippery slope. What is an additional $25 billion, then next year, its only an additional $5 billion, then next year it is $10 billion, where does it stop? You are arguing the narrow point of the Bush Tax cuts, but the democrats don't want to stop there, and remember, the Dems ultimately want to repeal all the tax cuts. There are proposals to raise the estate tax to 50% and to 100%. There are those that would like to see the effective tax rate return to 90% for the wealthy. That is the problem. And proposals would raise taxes on those earning less than $250,000 per year.

But, here is the thing, why have a Death Tax, why can't someone build up wealth and pass it along to their family. AGAIN, NO ONE IS ANSWERING (or is avoiding answering because there is not good answer), is why have a death tax in the first place. Why is it FAIR. You guys are trying to counter an argument that I am NOT making. You assume my reason for keeping taxes low is because it is better for the economy, I am not saying that. I am arguing from a fundamental principal of fairness and freedom. I just think it is wrong that a person, any persons, largest monthly expenses should be taxes.

[tobee43]

How will Obama v. Democrats v. Republican Battle Play Out?

isn't that what the essence of the question posed here....how will it play out?....it won't....taxes, health reform, unemployment, employment....denfense spending...no defense spending...on and on we go. key issues we all would like to see "resolve" or in least some type of movment, in one respect or another.


while we can all continue to ask the question about raises taxes....how about raises government revenues in some areas....

how about some creative thinking....maybe a bit of foresight thrown into to the pot of stew and get this country up and running.

there will always be birth, taxes and death.....we should behold that the single one in that group we may have any control to help direct is taxes...however, how??? you vote for someone you thinks will push the country into the right direction, only to find we are now so deep in the hole we may never see sunlight ....or at least, i may not again in my lifetime.

[frogger]

Oh stop the BS..

I totally agree, however I'm not referring to the back and forth BS that is on this thread. Everyone has their own opinions, either on one side of the fence or the other.

If you have a "D" by your name, we pretty much know your opinion.

If you have a "R" by your name, we pretty much know your opinion.

And therein lies the rub..... people are doing exactly what the politicians want. Infighting, blame placing, my side is right, my president was different, my congressman is special.

As long as they can keep the status quo going, nothing is going to change. There's not a hill of beans difference between the "R" or the "D".

THEY ARE ALL TO BLAME, along with us for tolerating it.

Since we can't say "off with their heads", let's just make all of them unemployeed.

Nothing is going to change until the people of this country wake up, and I don't see that happening until the people start getting hungry.

The ma$$e$ are a$$e$.....

[tobee43]

frogger you forgot the BIG "I".......

[helpme2010]

frogger you forgot the BIG "I".......

Also, while our country sits here and plays political games with both parties refusing to get anything done right now, we borrow more money from China, while China continues to grow and kick our A$$es all over the map. And many of our citizens continue to fall into poverty.

China of course is polluting the daylites out of their population and doesn't care about the rights of its citizens and doesn't offer democracy. But why can't our government simply get together and do what will work to help us get jobs and stay the economic leader of the world???

[WhatMoney]

Also, while our country sits here and plays political games with both parties refusing to get anything done right now, we borrow more money from China, while China continues to grow and kick our A$$es all over the map. And many of our citizens continue to fall into poverty.

China of course is polluting the daylites out of their population and doesn't care about the rights of its citizens and doesn't offer democracy. But why can't our government simply get together and do what will work to help us get jobs and stay the economic leader of the world???

Why do you think it is simple for the government to "get jobs and stay the economic leader of the world?" The jobs are gone forever because it's cheaper to produce products in other countries. As long as capitalism and corporate profits rule the country, the jobs will continue to move to whatever country allows the maximum profit for corporate America.

You are blaming the government for allowing free capitalism. The weaker the government the more jobs will be lost. If you want an example of a Libertarian weak federal government nirvana, I suggest you check out Somalia.