Obama's tax plan, is the magic number $250k, $200k or $150k

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: alchemize
best answer I've found.

Pretty amazing. Over a million dollar swing on someone making $2.9m+. I mean, I can see some increase on "the rich", but if I was making that kind of coin and someone took away ANOTHER 1/3 of my pay I'd be getting real pissed.

Keep in mind that Obama's tax plan is very similar to that of 1990s. In fact, it states right in the plan I linked above that "no family will pay higher taxes tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s."

It is not like his plan is some kind of brand new thing that this country has never seen before or has not seen recently for that matter.

And Clinton's top tier tax rates were the lowest since the federal income tax began.

Not according to this chart. Where'd you get your data?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Vic
The Bush Tax Cuts

As usual you answer questions that nobody is asking.

As usual you spread FUD and bullshit.

The link there is Republican fiscal policy. Doubling the size of both the federal budget and the debt in less than 8 years. But you can still claim to be a small govt supporter because he cut taxes! It's a shell game for morons.

So you think he'll raise taxes on everybody making $42k and more like he has in the past?

I expect that taxes will have to be increased no matter who wins the election, as I've been saying here all year. You're bickering over partisan nonsense talking points that are completely ignorant of reality. You're looking to fault Obama's tax plans while McCain is pulling an obvious "read my lips." It's pathetic.

Repeat after me: $10.5 trillion. and rising fast at nearly $100k per second.

Nearly 80% of GDP. We haven't been in that kind of debt since after WWII. The interest alone is $450 billion per year, roughly the same as we spend on defense.

 

[extra]

Oh noez, the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy are being rolled back, it's the end of the world, the rich won't want to work anymore because the government is stealing all of their money. It'll be just like the 90's again, when there was no business innovation because the rich were taxed so much that it wasn't worth it for them to start businesses and try to make money! The economy will suffer, just like it did in the 90's! The federal deficit will be huge again, just like it was in the 90's, we are going to return to a terrible era of insane deficits again, it's going to be horrible, just like it was during Clinton's reign!

Oh....wait...

Rolling back ridiculous tax cuts that were irresponsible and should never have been put in place in the first place is just smart.

NOW if you want to bitch about Obama's SPENDING plans, go ahead....in reality he should be raising taxes and trying to shrink government for a while so we can get this insane debt paid down a bit, but come on.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Vic
And Clinton's top tier tax rates were the lowest since the federal income tax began.

Not according to this chart. Where'd you get your data?

Oh gee, sorry, they were lower for a couple years under GHW Bush. And hey, for a couple years under Coolidge too! Hmm... I think I see a commonality here...

Your own data shows that the average top tier rate during the history of the federal income tax has been well above 50%. No matter whether you think that's good or bad, it does make claims that Obama's projected 39% rate is "socialist" or "class war" seem a bit silly, wouldn't you say?

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Budmantom
I have heard tax cuts for people making under $250k, last night it was $150k and Biden says $150, I'm thinking it may be $42k or less... what is the "real" number?

Minimum wage, unless you're a party member. You need to find a history book, nations have been down this path before.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

This Fud about Obama's tax plan is getting old. It isn't that we should take from the rich and spread it around to the poor, but that we should give tax relief to the middle class so that they might have an opportunity to achieve wealth, thereby "spreading wealth around".

Secondly, some are clearly unfamiliar with history.

Teddy Roosevelt "Socialist" Advocate of Progressive Taxation

On Good Morning America, Joe the Plumber said that it was unfair for someone to have to pay more just because they make more. He called it "socialist," as do many conservatives. John McCain objected to this spreading the wealth around as being "class warfare."

How did this socialist germ -- the idea that wealthier people should pay higher taxes -- creep into the American bloodstream? Through John McCain's hero, Theodore Roosevelt. He championed the idea that the rich should not only pay more money but a higher rate, arguing explicitly that it contradicted the spirit of socialism.

Speaking about a progressive inheritance tax, Roosevelt said;

"A heavy progressive tax upon a very large fortune is in no way such a tax upon thrift or industry as a like would be on a small fortune. No advantage comes either to the country as a whole or to the individuals inheriting the money by permitting the transmission in their entirety of the enormous fortunes which would be affected by such a tax; and as an incident to its function of revenue raising, such a tax would help to preserve a measurable equality of opportunity for the people of the generations growing to manhood.

. . .

"But proposals for legislation such as this herein advocated are directly opposed to this class of socialistic theories. Our aim is to recognize what Lincoln pointed out: The fact that there are some respects in which men are obviously not equal; but also to insist that there should be an equality of self-respect and of mutual respect, an equality of rights before the law, and at least an approximate equality in the conditions under which each man obtains the chance to show the stuff that is in him when compared to his fellows."

Roosevelt later also endorsed a progressive income tax:

"At many stages in the advance of humanity, this conflict between the men who possess more than they have earned and the men who have earned more than they possess is the central condition of progress. In our day it appears as the struggle of freemen to gain and hold the right of self-government as against the special interests, who twist the methods of free government into machinery for defeating the popular will. At every stage, and under all circumstances, the essence of the struggle is to equalize opportunity, destroy privilege, and give to the life and citizenship of every individual the highest possible value both to himself and to the commonwealth......

"No man should receive a dollar unless that dollar has been fairly earned. Every dollar received should represent a dollar's worth of service rendered?not gambling in stocks, but service rendered. The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective, a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate."

The history of the Earned Income Tax Credit - the one thing that really does "redistribute wealth"? here

As a tax strategy to reduce poverty and its ill effects on the nation, the EITC was the idea of Richard Nixon, and was signed into law by Gerald Ford in March 1975. The program has received broad bipartisan support from its inception and has been expanded over the years.

The EITC provides a tax refund to all workers in poverty, who earn less than a certain amount annually--regardless of whether they pay income taxes. The EITC is designed to move people aware from federal welfare assistance and into lives of work.

. . .

Ronald Reagan referred to the EITC as "the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress." He increased funding for the effort, as well as the minimum baseline several times. George H. W. Bush expanded the EITC as well.

Senator John McCain has been a consistent supporter of the EITC. Last Saturday (October 18, 2008), the Washington Post reported that, "In fact, in 1999, Mr. McCain opposed efforts to change the earned-income tax credit, which gives payments to the working poor, and called it a 'much-needed tax credit for working Americans.' And in this campaign, he has proposed to use the tax code to do more such 'wealth-spreading."

So, explain to me again, in a way that makes sense in reality and historically, how Barack Obama's tax plan differs from any of the above-mentioned Republican presidents' and his current opponent, as well as what qualifies it as earning the label "socialist."

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Vic
And Clinton's top tier tax rates were the lowest since the federal income tax began.

Not according to this chart. Where'd you get your data?

Oh gee, sorry, they were lower for a couple years under GHW Bush. And hey, for a couple years under Coolidge too! Hmm... I think I see a commonality here...

Don't get all hissy because you were wrong. Just try to avoid factually-incorrect blanket statements in the future.

Your own data shows that the average top tier rate during the history of the federal income tax has been well above 50%. No matter whether you think that's good or bad, it does make claims that Obama's projected 39% rate is "socialist" or "class war" seem a bit silly, wouldn't you say?

Oh, certainly, but then, I don't remember using those terms, so I'm not going to defend them. And I'm certainly nowhere near those brackets anyway - my effective rate is only about 5%. Regardless, it's asinine to discuss a "projected" rate anyway, since all things said and written before the election will become irrelevant thereafter. I'll wait to see what actually goes before Congress.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Vic
The Bush Tax Cuts

As usual you answer questions that nobody is asking.

As usual you spread FUD and bullshit.

The link there is Republican fiscal policy. Doubling the size of both the federal budget and the debt in less than 8 years. But you can still claim to be a small govt supporter because he cut taxes! It's a shell game for morons.

So you think he'll raise taxes on everybody making $42k and more like he has in the past?

I expect that taxes will have to be increased no matter who wins the election, as I've been saying here all year. You're bickering over partisan nonsense talking points that are completely ignorant of reality. You're looking to fault Obama's tax plans while McCain is pulling an obvious "read my lips." It's pathetic.

Repeat after me: $10.5 trillion. and rising fast at nearly $100k per second.

Nearly 80% of GDP. We haven't been in that kind of debt since after WWII. The interest alone is $450 billion per year, roughly the same as we spend on defense.

So you are saying that it's blatantly obvious Obama is lying (no mater if it's 250, 200, 150 or 42)?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Budmantom
So you are saying that it's blatantly obvious Obama is lying (no mater if it's 250, 200, 150 or 42)?

Is that what I said? :roll:

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Dari
Maybe Biden meant to say 250K when he said 150K? And the 250K is for families while the 200K is for individuals who will see their tax go up 3%.

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
All these numbers going around are for families, what about individual tax payers? Are the numbers cut in half? Or is there a marriage penalty?

Yes, it looks like up to $250K for a "family" and $200K for a single taxpayer, thus there would be a marriage "penalty". I don't understand why in the heck he wants to do that. You're better off not getting married (or getting divorced) as it would result in $150K being taxed in a lower bracket. That's stupid.

It wasn't that long ago that we got rid of the "marriage penalty" in fed income tax, why go back?

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: ElFenix
there is almost no such thing as a marriage penalty. mostly there is a marriage benefit.

If a couple makes more than $250k, it may be more beneficial to them to file separately than joint if individuals aren't going to get taxed higher unless they make more than $200k+.

Yes, we had a "marriage penalty" for some time, but it was fixed several years ago (in the GWB tax package in 2001).

No, there is no benefit to being married under tax law, for a while (under Clinton) there was, in fact, a penalty (i.e., two people were better off tax-wise remaining unmarried).

No filing "married filing seperately" offers no benefit whatsoever and certainly wouldn't get rid of any marriage penalty (under married filing seperately, everything for MFJ is simply chopped in half). MFS usually results in higher tax than MFJ, but never less.

There are a number of apparently useless ideas in Obama's plan (politicians and tax are a joke). Obama is said not want to reduce/eliminate the AMT (but will adjust the AMT deduction for inflation). If so, the many people making less than $250K (or $200K) will not get a reduction at all, they'll still be paying AMT. Moreover, Obama wants to phase-out deductions etc, while not increasing the tax rate per se, it will result in additional tax for some of those (not in AMT) making substanialy less than $250K. In tax lingo, this is a *back door* rate increase. I.e., looks like he's being disengenuois.

Likewise, even if he raises (regular) tax rates on those making above $250K, since are in AMT they may not actuall pay more taxes.

Eliminating cap gains for small business? Small businesses don't have capital gains except very very rarely. So, this makes no sense that I can tell. If this is intended to make investing in small business more attractive, it doesn't look intellegent to me. We already have very low cap gain rates for (profitable) sales of small business stock, and a provision that allows a complete write-off (against regular income) for any investment lost.

Much of his plan looks like *populist BS* to me, but hard to say for sure because it's so vague. But his plan isn't going to pass Congress without a lot of changes anyway. And I don't believe for a minute in a tax cut for everybody making under $200K.

I'll also note that I didn't see in his plan anything about eliminating the *fund manager* loophole that let's Warren Buffet pay such low taxes. I also note that the Dems have always blocked closure of that loophole (especially Schumer). IMO, that's a bunch of hypocritical crap - the rich should pay more, unless they are really really rich :disgust: Fund managers are the highest earners and make more than corp CEO etc.

I could say worse stuff about this plan, there are hidden *gems* all over, but because his plan lacks detail so I'll refrain for the moment. (hint: People need to pay real close attention to his plan that 40 million don't even need to file tax returns. I'l bet these are same 40 million who already don't get taxed anyway, instead getting *refundable credits*)

Fern

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Budmantom
So you are saying that it's blatantly obvious Obama is lying (no mater if it's 250, 200, 150 or 42)?

Is that what I said? :roll:

Yes that is what you said:"I expect that taxes will have to be increased"

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Budmantom
So you are saying that it's blatantly obvious Obama is lying (no mater if it's 250, 200, 150 or 42)?

Is that what I said? :roll:

Yes that is what you said:"I expect that taxes will have to be increased no matter who wins the election."

Fixed. You have a pathetically transparent method of using half-truths and duhversions in your arguments. It's obvious your intent is to frustrate your opponents with your child-like "logic," but all you really do is come across looking like a partisan idiot.

IOW, if you're trying to imply that I'm saying it's blatantly obvious that Obama is lying about tax cuts, then by the same logic it would be equally true that I am saying it's blatantly obvious that McCain is lying about his own proposals of tax cuts/not increasing taxes. With McCain on the attack on this issue to cover up his own lies, who should we trust? The one with some kind of a plan, or the one who have us keep pretending there's no problem to fix?

In the meantime, the federal debt has gone up by nearly $1 Billion in the 2 hours since I posted it above.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Budmantom
So you are saying that it's blatantly obvious Obama is lying (no mater if it's 250, 200, 150 or 42)?

Is that what I said? :roll:

Yes that is what you said:"I expect that taxes will have to be increased no matter who wins the election."

Fixed. You have a pathetically transparent method of using half-truths and duhversions in your arguments. It's obvious your intent is to frustrate your opponents with your child-like "logic," but all you really do is come across looking like a partisan idiot.

IOW, if you're trying to imply that I'm saying it's blatantly obvious that Obama is lying about tax cuts, then by the same logic it would be equally true that I am saying it's blatantly obvious that McCain is lying about his own proposals of tax cuts/not increasing taxes. With McCain on the attack on this issue to cover up his own lies, who should we trust? The one with some kind of a plan, or the one who have us keep pretending there's no problem to fix?

In the meantime, the federal debt has gone up by nearly $1 Billion in the 2 hours since I posted it above.

So you are saying that Obama is blatantly lying?
(if he wins)

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Budmantom
So you are saying that Obama is blatantly lying?

No, I'm saying you are.

It's interesting how you think you can continue the same dishonest tactics even after you're called on them.

I'm curious, when did you stop beating your wife and raping little boys?

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Budmantom
So you are saying that Obama is blatantly lying?

No, I'm saying you are.

It's interesting how you think you can continue the same dishonest tactics even after you're called on them.

I'm curious, when did you stop beating your wife and raping little boys?

So what are you saying about Obama's tax plan?


Let's keep my wife and your husband out of this, why does it have to resort to personal attacks is it because you don't know... I'm sure it must be tough for somebody like yourself.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: ElFenix
there is almost no such thing as a marriage penalty. mostly there is a marriage benefit.

If a couple makes more than $250k, it may be more beneficial to them to file separately than joint if individuals aren't going to get taxed higher unless they make more than $200k+.

But the number of couples making that amount is so small it really doesn't matter.

The benefit of being married is the extra exemption, but that's not very useful if your spouse brings in much money. It is useful for single income households however.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Budmantom
I have heard tax cuts for people making under $250k, last night it was $150k and Biden says $150, I'm thinking it may be $42k or less... what is the "real" number?

Sorry if this is a repost but I searched and didn't find topic with a similar title.

Topic Title: Obama's tax plan, is the magic number $250k, $200k or $150k
Topic Summary: Are the evil ultra rich becoming poor?

Whichever number hits you up for more taxes works for me :thumbsup:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Budmantom
Let's keep my wife and your husband out of this, why does it have to resort to personal attacks is it because you don't know... I'm sure it must be tough for somebody like yourself.

It wasn't a personal attack, it's called the the loaded question fallacy, and I'm saying it's your SOLE method of arguing here.
And yet, for some reason, you continue to believe that you are worthy of reply, probably IMO because you are ignorant of what you're doing.

BTW, I already humored you and answered your question. Look 3 posts up. As always with negative political attacks, it is impossible to make them without a candidate putting himself under the same spotlight. Such has been McCain's persistent dilemma, and why McCain supporters continue to find themselves frustrated that their attacks won't stick.

 

[LumbergTech]

I heard it explained on the radio today by one of his campaign advisors

She said that people under 200k will receive a tax cut, people between 200-250k will not receive a tax increase, and may receive a cut

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: LumbergTech
I heard it explained on the radio today by one of his campaign advisors

She said that people under 200k will receive a tax cut, people between 200-250k will not receive a tax increase, and may receive a cut

Where does the $150k come in and how did they explain his recod and the $42k?

Thanks.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Budmantom
Let's keep my wife and your husband out of this, why does it have to resort to personal attacks is it because you don't know... I'm sure it must be tough for somebody like yourself.

It wasn't a personal attack, it's called the the loaded question fallacy, and I'm saying it's your SOLE method of arguing here.
And yet, for some reason, you continue to believe that you are worthy of reply, probably IMO because you are ignorant of what you're doing.

BTW, I already humored you and answered your question. Look 3 posts up. As always with negative political attacks, it is impossible to make them without a candidate putting himself under the same spotlight. Such has been McCain's persistent dilemma, and why McCain supporters continue to find themselves frustrated that their attacks won't stick.

Let's see if you can answer a simply question, it's your opinion:

How low do you think he will go?

My guess is $42k.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Budmantom
I have heard tax cuts for people making under $250k, last night it was $150k and Biden says $150, I'm thinking it may be $42k or less... what is the "real" number?

Sorry if this is a repost but I searched and didn't find topic with a similar title.

Topic Title: Obama's tax plan, is the magic number $250k, $200k or $150k
Topic Summary: Are the evil ultra rich becoming poor?

Whichever number hits you up for more taxes works for me :thumbsup:

I hope they give "the most educated American on the internet" a tax break, I'm sure you could use it

Be careful though Vic will dispute that title

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: alchemize
best answer I've found.

Pretty amazing. Over a million dollar swing on someone making $2.9m+. I mean, I can see some increase on "the rich", but if I was making that kind of coin and someone took away ANOTHER 1/3 of my pay I'd be getting real pissed.

No you wouldn't. You would spend 1/10th of that to hire a professional who will reduce your tax liability.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: ElFenix
there is almost no such thing as a marriage penalty. mostly there is a marriage benefit.

If a couple makes more than $250k, it may be more beneficial to them to file separately than joint if individuals aren't going to get taxed higher unless they make more than $200k+.

But the number of couples making that amount is so small it really doesn't matter.

The benefit of being married is the extra exemption, but that's not very useful if your spouse brings in much money. It is useful for single income households however.

Again, there is NO tax benefit to filing seperately.

No, getting married does NOt create an extra personal exemption. I individual has 1 exemption. When you get married each person still get's their same 1 exemption. Two people on a single tax return means two exemptions in total.

Fern

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Dari
Maybe Biden meant to say 250K when he said 150K? And the 250K is for families while the 200K is for individuals who will see their tax go up 3%.

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
All these numbers going around are for families, what about individual tax payers? Are the numbers cut in half? Or is there a marriage penalty?

Yes, it looks like up to $250K for a "family" and $200K for a single taxpayer, thus there would be a marriage "penalty". I don't understand why in the heck he wants to do that. You're better off not getting married (or getting divorced) as it would result in $150K being taxed in a lower bracket. That's stupid.

It wasn't that long ago that we got rid of the "marriage penalty" in fed income tax, why go back?

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: ElFenix
there is almost no such thing as a marriage penalty. mostly there is a marriage benefit.

If a couple makes more than $250k, it may be more beneficial to them to file separately than joint if individuals aren't going to get taxed higher unless they make more than $200k+.

Yes, we had a "marriage penalty" for some time, but it was fixed several years ago (in the GWB tax package in 2001).

No, there is no benefit to being married under tax law, for a while (under Clinton) there was, in fact, a penalty (i.e., two people were better off tax-wise remaining unmarried).

No filing "married filing seperately" offers no benefit whatsoever and certainly wouldn't get rid of any marriage penalty (under married filing seperately, everything for MFJ is simply chopped in half). MFS usually results in higher tax than MFJ, but never less.

There are a number of apparently useless ideas in Obama's plan (politicians and tax are a joke). Obama is said not want to reduce/eliminate the AMT (but will adjust the AMT deduction for inflation). If so, the many people making less than $250K (or $200K) will not get a reduction at all, they'll still be paying AMT. Moreover, Obama wants to phase-out deductions etc, while not increasing the tax rate per se, it will result in additional tax for some of those (not in AMT) making substanialy less than $250K. In tax lingo, this is a *back door* rate increase. I.e., looks like he's being disengenuois.

Likewise, even if he raises (regular) tax rates on those making above $250K, since are in AMT they may not actuall pay more taxes.

Eliminating cap gains for small business? Small businesses don't have capital gains except very very rarely. So, this makes no sense that I can tell. If this is intended to make investing in small business more attractive, it doesn't look intellegent to me. We already have very low cap gain rates for (profitable) sales of small business stock, and a provision that allows a complete write-off (against regular income) for any investment lost.

Much of his plan looks like *populist BS* to me, but hard to say for sure because it's so vague. But his plan isn't going to pass Congress without a lot of changes anyway. And I don't believe for a minute in a tax cut for everybody making under $200K.

I'll also note that I didn't see in his plan anything about eliminating the *fund manager* loophole that let's Warren Buffet pay such low taxes. I also note that the Dems have always blocked closure of that loophole (especially Schumer). IMO, that's a bunch of hypocritical crap - the rich should pay more, unless they are really really rich :disgust: Fund managers are the highest earners and make more than corp CEO etc.

I could say worse stuff about this plan, there are hidden *gems* all over, but because his plan lacks detail so I'll refrain for the moment. (hint: People need to pay real close attention to his plan that 40 million don't even need to file tax returns. I'l bet these are same 40 million who already don't get taxed anyway, instead getting *refundable credits*)

Fern

Thanks! Hopefully, others will realize the actual impacts of this plan.