Obama: Raise Taxes, Penalize Business

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Craig, your example sounds very similar to the WTO... is that what you had in mind? Curious.

No, I'm not sure why it does that. I'm thinking of the free tade agreements, e.g., CAFTA.

Not a big fan of the whole "wealth redistribution" mentality, to me it's all just whining. You can bet that many who are "whining" about it would be slightly annoyed if THEY were getting taxed more than their neighbor when they worked just as hard to build their wealth. It's usually the people who are jealous that whine about it.

I think many have this view and it's extremely harmful.

Jealousy should have nothing to do with it. It's about creating opportunity.

I think it's simply that one, not enough people have any education on the issue of the harms of excessive concentrations of wealth, and two, it's one of those folksy commonsense myths.

The ironic thing is, it splits the many in the middle class from the many who are poor, who have a lot more in common interests from the few who are ultra wealthy.

Instead, you see the many in the middle talking as if they are in one group with the ultra wealthy, siding against the poor. It's preventing better policies that would help them a lot.

The French revo9lutionists might have chopped off the heads of the Rich, but liberals are l*strengthening* capitalism by their policies, creating opportunity.

The 'American Dream', the normal desire for our nation, is for succeeding generations to do better. When the excessive concentration of wealth limits opportunity...

I can ask you to read books all day, but in recommending probably 20 books in dozens of posts in the last year, I've yet to hear one person one read book. Waste of time I guess.

Jealosy is just a theory of why people may think redistribution from wealthy individuals is such a good idea. If they want to help the poor, don't you think they would donate? Overall, it should be their choice IMO.

I definitely agree that creating opportunity for the poor is a good thing. However, I don't see how taking money from the ultra wealthy and redistributing it to the poor is a productive idea. It doesn't seem fair to me. The poor have many opportunities in this country to get an education if they choose to, are we supposed to hold their hand and force them to change their mentality? The poor have a chance to jump classes to "weatlhy" if they choose to, for there are many opportunites for financial aid to go to college, as well as private loans (assuming they're fiscally responsible). I speak from personal experience of growing up without electricity/hot water, maybe I'm biased.

If you recommended a few books, I would check them out.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
For example, say the profit tax is 10% and the oil company makes $100. The government gets $10. In order to stay at a profit level of $100, the oil company will now raise prices at the pump to get to the $112 profit threshold. 10% of that is $11.20, $112 minus $11.20 = $100.80 pure profit. The higher price difference is therefore transferred directly from the people to the government. The oil company is still going to make its $100 profit! 😉

That's not 100% true, because if they determine that they will sell less gasoline at $112 than at $100, then they will likely choose not to increase it to $112.

Adding/raising the tax merely changes the maximum profit equations. Companies will (should) always strive for maximum profits, the tax will change the calculations that determine where your profits are maximized.

Certainly some of the cost(s) involved will be passed on to the consumer, but it is not nearly as simple as you make it out to be. Also please realize that Oil is an exceptionally bad example as it is a very inelastic good (people "need" it, thus people would buy roughly the same amounts at 100 or 112). Most other goods are much more elastic, making my point even stronger for those goods.

It's a perfectly good example, because the proposal is to tax oil profits. I see your point regarding other goods, but the oil companies are who is being targeted by Obama's profit tax plan.

 

[Jhhnn]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
You've apparently become somewhat addled and/or desperate in the recent past, CSG-

What would CNN and The Tax Policy Center base their conclusions on, if it weren't the proposals made by the candidates themselves?

It's not like these projections appear out of thin air, or from Dick Cheney's Ouija board...

And you've obviously been blinded by the "hope" shtick. What you posted was an analysis of the supposed result but not the actual policies and what Obama considers the "middle class" - which is what was being discussed.

Now if you were not replying the my line of conversation, then I apologize but it looks like you were engaging in it.

Sigh. I'd suggest you read the OP again, CSG.

So far, this empty suit has been specific on two things: he is going to increase the Capital Gains tax, and now he wants to impose a windfall profits tax. Do you see a pattern here?

It has nothing to do with what Obama considers to be middle class, but you seem to want to turn this thread and others in that particular direction. WRT Obama's tax proposals, your attempt to make some kind of point is moot, anyway, as the analysis of the results of his proposals indicates that there will be no negative effects for returns under $250K. Well, unless you're prepared to argue that families living on more than $250K/yr are merely middle class... given that they're in the top 3% of incomes...

And your whole song and dance wrt policy vs results of policy is quite obtuse- policy intends results, that's why it's policy, fer crissakes...

Edit- $250K/yr, not $250/yr...

 

[Butterbean]

Obama's social secuity tax bump is right put of the 70's when people tried NOT to earn money because it just raised their taxes. I don't know how anyone can think this guy is "new and smart". From Hugh Hewitt's site:

" 'Currently, The Social Security Payroll Tax Applies To Only The First $102,000 A Worker Makes. Obama Supports Increasing The Maximum Amount Of Earnings Covered By Social Security'


That's from Obama's website, and it is one of the key issues in the campaign ahead. Obama's vast array of proposed tax hikes --6.2% on every dollar above 102K in income, doubling the capital gains tax, bringing back the highest rate on death taxes etc-- would be a shock to the economic health of the country far more devastating than the run-up in gas prices because there are no ways to avoid or minimizze taxes. The Obama plan would take a period of economic weaknesses and turn it into a recession or even a near depression.

21.8% of American families make over $100,000 per household, and 11 million Americans made more than $100,000 in 2005, with another 4 million in the income categories just below that level. Tens of millions of Americans strive to reach the six figure level, and if the cannot they hope their children will. Obama is planning to congratulate them on their achievment by adding an enormous burden to their entire careers: $6.20 out of every additional hundred they make off the top, then it is on the federal, state and local taxes on the rest.

The rate of social security has steadily climbed over the years, but its drag on productivity has been curbed by the cap on the amount of income it has been levied upon. The cap has been a sort of beacon to the middle and upper-middle class: Cross this line and the government will at least stop taking the first 6.2% of your wages.

Obama is proposing a massive tax increase on the most productive people as his "save social security" plan. The impact on the individuals and their families would be enormous, and the disincentive to earn more than 100K and to shift economic benefits into other than salary would be enormous.

This is a radical proposal, consistent with the rest of Obama's sweeping vision for the Euroization of the American economy. "


http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog

 

[Jhhnn]

You're raving out in the weeds as usual, Butterbean. Obama's proposals call for the SS payroll tax to remain as is, except that it'll pick up again on individual incomes above $250K....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200.../obama_social_security

That's somewhere in the top 1%, since it applies to individual income rather than family income...

 

[fskimospy]

Oh Butterbean, as much as you disappoint me with another post full of errors, false attribution, and poor comprehension of issues... you did manage to keep any mention of homosexuals out of this post. I'm sure it wasn't easy, but I'm proud of you.

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: Butterbean
Obama's social secuity tax bump is right put of the 70's when people tried NOT to earn money because it just raised their taxes. I don't know how anyone can think this guy is "new and smart". From Hugh Hewitt's site:

" 'Currently, The Social Security Payroll Tax Applies To Only The First $102,000 A Worker Makes. Obama Supports Increasing The Maximum Amount Of Earnings Covered By Social Security'


That's from Obama's website, and it is one of the key issues in the campaign ahead. Obama's vast array of proposed tax hikes --6.2% on every dollar above 102K in income, doubling the capital gains tax, bringing back the highest rate on death taxes etc-- would be a shock to the economic health of the country far more devastating than the run-up in gas prices because there are no ways to avoid or minimizze taxes. The Obama plan would take a period of economic weaknesses and turn it into a recession or even a near depression.

21.8% of American families make over $100,000 per household, and 11 million Americans made more than $100,000 in 2005, with another 4 million in the income categories just below that level. Tens of millions of Americans strive to reach the six figure level, and if the cannot they hope their children will. Obama is planning to congratulate them on their achievment by adding an enormous burden to their entire careers: $6.20 out of every additional hundred they make off the top, then it is on the federal, state and local taxes on the rest.

The rate of social security has steadily climbed over the years, but its drag on productivity has been curbed by the cap on the amount of income it has been levied upon. The cap has been a sort of beacon to the middle and upper-middle class: Cross this line and the government will at least stop taking the first 6.2% of your wages.

Obama is proposing a massive tax increase on the most productive people as his "save social security" plan. The impact on the individuals and their families would be enormous, and the disincentive to earn more than 100K and to shift economic benefits into other than salary would be enormous.

This is a radical proposal, consistent with the rest of Obama's sweeping vision for the Euroization of the American economy. "


http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog

Seeing as how Europe is doing a lot better than America right now, I think a little Euroization of the American economy is in order.

Or do you think Euros having a higher standard of living than Americans is just fine, and would like to continue on the current path?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: marincounty

Seeing as how Europe is doing a lot better than America right now, I think a little Euroization of the American economy is in order.

Or do you think Euros having a higher standard of living than Americans is just fine, and would like to continue on the current path?

I'm really reluctant to say this about anyone, but in this case it's true. I feel like almost anyone can be reasoned with, but you're probably wasting your time replying to Butterbean. I honestly believe that he's crazy. Like actual, diagnosable insanity.

 

[Butterbean]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
You're raving out in the weeds as usual, Butterbean. Obama's proposals call for the SS payroll tax to remain as is, except that it'll pick up again on individual incomes above $250K....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200.../obama_social_security

That's somewhere in the top 1%, since it applies to individual income rather than family income...

His website only mentions raising the ceiling and does not mention any "donut hole" (a Republican idea in 2005 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/?did=1&id=6989229& ) which seems to be a vague fudge hes trying to add to look like hes looking out for middle class who are now more nervous

. If the "donut hole" werre to become reality the "gain" is said to be so small as to make the plan not even worth doing (as you said "That's somewhere in the top 1%"). However the top ten states that would be most damaged by the plan (Democratic mostly) might not think so:

New Jersey (10.7%)
Maryland (9.6%)
Connecticut (9.5%)
Virginia (9.0%)
Massachusetts (8.9%)
California (8.8%)
New York (8.0%)
Illinois (7.02%)
Colorado (6.96%)
New Hampshire (6.8%)

http://taxprof.typepad.com/tax...05/biggest-losers.html

 

[Butterbean]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Oh Butterbean, as much as you disappoint me with another post full of errors, false attribution, and poor comprehension of issues... you did manage to keep any mention of homosexuals out of this post. I'm sure it wasn't easy, but I'm proud of you.

Facts, attribution and comprehension are fine. Since the homosexualized media is full of
funky marriage stories today my perv quotient is maxed out today. Someday I'll post about Obama's push to expand the justice dept and push it into local affairs (his words) and protect "gender rxpression". Luckily the homosexual groups are already pushing for gender neutral bathrooms in schools (part of gender expression) to combat "heterosexism".
Only a guy protected by the media could hope to get elected with such bizarro world ideas.

 

[Butterbean]

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: Butterbean
Obama's social secuity tax bump is right put of the 70's when people tried NOT to earn money because it just raised their taxes. I don't know how anyone can think this guy is "new and smart". From Hugh Hewitt's site:

" 'Currently, The Social Security Payroll Tax Applies To Only The First $102,000 A Worker Makes. Obama Supports Increasing The Maximum Amount Of Earnings Covered By Social Security'


That's from Obama's website, and it is one of the key issues in the campaign ahead. Obama's vast array of proposed tax hikes --6.2% on every dollar above 102K in income, doubling the capital gains tax, bringing back the highest rate on death taxes etc-- would be a shock to the economic health of the country far more devastating than the run-up in gas prices because there are no ways to avoid or minimizze taxes. The Obama plan would take a period of economic weaknesses and turn it into a recession or even a near depression.

21.8% of American families make over $100,000 per household, and 11 million Americans made more than $100,000 in 2005, with another 4 million in the income categories just below that level. Tens of millions of Americans strive to reach the six figure level, and if the cannot they hope their children will. Obama is planning to congratulate them on their achievment by adding an enormous burden to their entire careers: $6.20 out of every additional hundred they make off the top, then it is on the federal, state and local taxes on the rest.

The rate of social security has steadily climbed over the years, but its drag on productivity has been curbed by the cap on the amount of income it has been levied upon. The cap has been a sort of beacon to the middle and upper-middle class: Cross this line and the government will at least stop taking the first 6.2% of your wages.

Obama is proposing a massive tax increase on the most productive people as his "save social security" plan. The impact on the individuals and their families would be enormous, and the disincentive to earn more than 100K and to shift economic benefits into other than salary would be enormous.

This is a radical proposal, consistent with the rest of Obama's sweeping vision for the Euroization of the American economy. "


http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog

Seeing as how Europe is doing a lot better than America right now, I think a little Euroization of the American economy is in order.

Or do you think Euros having a higher standard of living than Americans is just fine, and would like to continue on the current path?

Europe isn't that hot. EU inflation just went to 16 yr record. In UK Labour is getting crushed in elections because of its endless taxes for stupid global warming plans, immigration etc. Ireland is hot because it got smart on taxes and lowered them - and just the other day they flushed the EU plan down the potty. Good for Ireland.

We are doing bad here because of our own stupidity - Democrat and Republican - and not because Europe has anything special. Besides that hardly a Euro country could defend itself. France couldn't even fight off kids that set the place on fire for weeks. Europe is de-balled and pointing at the toss pot of history