• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Obama's Tax policies ? Good or Bad

andy04

Senior member
Dec 14, 2006
999
0
71
So Obama has been saying that 95% of Americans will pay less taxes and indirectly he says that the rest 5% will pay more taxes. Well... the top 5% create jobs and employ the rest of the 95% so dont you think that if Obama unfairly tragets their wealth, they will take their business elsewhere or off line? They will cut employments and salaries? After all dont they have to maintain and grow their profit margin so that they can survive and compete at the global level? Dont you think pass the wealth around is Socialist and Communist?

Here are some details
The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19% of the income but pay 37 % of the income tax. The top 10 % pay 68 % of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 % - those below the median income level - now earn 13 % of the income but pay just 3 % of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don?t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare

Median income of Americans have actually fallen in the past few years which along with inflation has forced people to borrow more. This is due to the fact that jobs have been shipped overseas and Americans had to compete with cheaper labor. Instead of giving business incentives for running their operations in America if Obama taxes them more - wont the situation get worst ? According to the Chief Executive magazine, 75% CEOs ?fear? Obama.
Keeping an eye on them so that they dont run the companies to the ground and run away with money is one thing, but punishing them for making more money even if they are running a good business and bringing in profit is ridiculous IMO.

Discuss
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,063
495
126
I do find it interesting our income tax system has become more progressive over the ~20 years yet the gap in wealth continues to grow at ever faster rates while wages remain stagnant.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
2
0
I thought that the trickle down approach has been debunked by most economists smarter than me...
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,038
5,125
126
Someone will have to pay more taxes to pay to clean up the messes created in the last 8 years. You didn't really think Iraq war was a freebie, or that these bailouts are?
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
62,627
15,974
136
Originally posted by: Genx87
I do find it interesting our income tax system has become more progressive over the ~20 years yet the gap in wealth continues to grow at ever faster rates while wages remain stagnant.
Our income tax system has actually become significantly more regressive over the last ~20 years as capital gains are taxed at a rate lower than earned income, particularly when including SS taxes. The gap in wealth is a predictable outcome of regressive taxation.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
Originally posted by: Genx87
I do find it interesting our income tax system has become more progressive over the ~20 years yet the gap in wealth continues to grow at ever faster rates while wages remain stagnant.
That's because rich people know how to put their money to work. They also know how to minimize their tax burden.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
5
0
The gap between rich and poor grew under Clinton and shrank under Bush.

That is because the stock market explosion at the end of Clinton's term allowed the rich to make tons of money, while the poor stayed idle.
However, Clinton did raise taxes on the rich while Bush cut taxes on the rich.

I think the whole rich-poor dynamic is very complicated. And the idea that we can raise taxes on the rich to make the problem go away is naive. The rich are rich because they control their destiny and their incomes. The poor sit around and wait for others to help them out. Unless that changes the rich will stay rich and the poor will stay poor.
 

TheSlamma

Diamond Member
Sep 6, 2005
7,625
4
81
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The gap between rich and poor grew under Clinton and shrank under Bush.

That is because the stock market explosion at the end of Clinton's term allowed the rich to make tons of money, while the poor stayed idle.
However, Clinton did raise taxes on the rich while Bush cut taxes on the rich.

I think the whole rich-poor dynamic is very complicated. And the idea that we can raise taxes on the rich to make the problem go away is naive. The rich are rich because they control their destiny and their incomes. The poor sit around and wait for others to help them out. Unless that changes the rich will stay rich and the poor will stay poor.
I think we should stop taxing everyone and just keep getting loans and printing more money..

I learned this from the GOP college of economics.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Originally posted by: andy04
Dont expect to get any logical discussion here
Originally posted by: andy04
Wake up before its too late and realize the reality of you drug addict, terrorist, black Muslim master who taking donation from foreign countries and who knows, maybe terrorist nations too and buying up ½ an hour of all major TV channel time to cloud the judgment of American people.
Sorry I can't take any thread started by OP seriously.
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
Isn't the Obamaplan just rolling back some of the deficit-funded tax cuts of the the Bush administration?

If a tax rate was good enough for Reagan shouldn't it be good enough for you?
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Top 5% pay 57% of income taxes

So, the other 95% pay 47%.

If we were in a surplus, I could imagine shifting some of that burden; but how to get our national finances in order and cut taxes for 95% of taxpayers (I assume he means only individuals and I won't even bother here to mention that quite a few in that 95% strata don't even pay income taxes) I cannot believe possible. Then, for reasons I won't go into here, we're gonna do this while we're in a recession and also add a bunch of new programs?

And to think people buying into this ridicule others for their *leaps of faith* (whether belief in God etc)

IMO, Obama's tax plan oughtta be called the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" tax Plan.

I find believing in *invisible sky people* easier than believing in that plan.

What was Hillary's phrase? Oh, yeah "a wilfull suspension of disbelief".

Fern

 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Originally posted by: Fern
Top 5% pay 57% of income taxes

So, the other 95% pay 47%.

If we were in a surplus, I could imagine shifting some of that burden; but how to get our national finances in order and cut taxes for 95% of taxpayers (I assume he means only individuals and I won't even bother here to mention that quite a few in that 95% starta don't even pay income taxes) I cannot believe possible. Then, for reasons I won't go into here, we're gonna do this while we're in a recession and also add a bunch of new programs?

And to think people buying into this ridicule others for their *leaps of faith* (whether belief in God etc)

IMO, Obama's tax plan oughtta be called the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" tax Plan.

I find believing in *invisible sky people* easier than believing in that plan.

What was Hillary's phrase? Oh, yeah "a wilfull suspension of disbelief".

Fern
I believe! I believe! Not only will Obama balance the budget AND cut my taxes, he'll also give me free healthcare! That's not illogical or unrealistic at all!
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,830
2
0
Do you think the richest 5% will FIRE people if they are taxed more? Why don't they fire them now if it makes them richer?
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Do you think the richest 5% will FIRE people if they are taxed more?
No, but they'll probably work harder at hiding it better. A co-worker of mine used to work in tax planning for a major NY law firm. The "poorest" client he had had a net worth of $85M, and most were well into $100M+. These people were happy to spend $100K+ annually in tax attorney fees to save millions on taxes. The rich will adapt.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
5
0
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Do you think the richest 5% will FIRE people if they are taxed more? Why don't they fire them now if it makes them richer?
It not about them firing people.

It is about them not being able to employee people because they have less money.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
141
116
The bottom 95% drive the American economy.

The bottom 95%, through sheer numbers, buy nearly all the consumables, the cars, consumer electronics, gas, groceries, homes, vacations, etc.

If the bottom 95% is doing better, they spend more, and the companies selling those goods do better. If the bottom 95% struggle, the economy struggles.

Trickle down DOESN'T WORK. Build it strong from the foundation up.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The gap between rich and poor grew under Clinton and shrank under Bush.

That is because the stock market explosion at the end of Clinton's term allowed the rich to make tons of money, while the poor stayed idle.
However, Clinton did raise taxes on the rich while Bush cut taxes on the rich.

I think the whole rich-poor dynamic is very complicated. And the idea that we can raise taxes on the rich to make the problem go away is naive. The rich are rich because they control their destiny and their incomes. The poor sit around and wait for others to help them out. Unless that changes the rich will stay rich and the poor will stay poor.
Yet, you leave out the 80% of us in the middle who are being squeezed to death. I'm neither rich or poor and percentage wise probably pay way more in taxes than either group.

Also, your first line better have a link, I've yet to read or hear anyone making that claim before.

Under Bush the income gap between "the rich" and joe plumber has grown dramatically by all estimates.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,830
2
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Do you think the richest 5% will FIRE people if they are taxed more? Why don't they fire them now if it makes them richer?
It not about them firing people.

It is about them not being able to employee people because they have less money.
Don't they hire people to make money? If they're being taxed more, shouldn't they hire more employees and therefore make more money?
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
2
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The gap between rich and poor grew under Clinton and shrank under Bush.

That is because the stock market explosion at the end of Clinton's term allowed the rich to make tons of money, while the poor stayed idle.
However, Clinton did raise taxes on the rich while Bush cut taxes on the rich.

I think the whole rich-poor dynamic is very complicated. And the idea that we can raise taxes on the rich to make the problem go away is naive. The rich are rich because they control their destiny and their incomes. The poor sit around and wait for others to help them out. Unless that changes the rich will stay rich and the poor will stay poor.
All in all not a bad post from prof johN :0

 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Carter promised health care and less tax, Clinton promised a middle class tax cut and health care, and now obama wants to promise a middle class tax cut and medical care.

Well, to be honest, do you really think that Nancy Pelosi is going to put a middle class tax cut on the top of the agenda for the house of representatives?

What track record do democrats have for cutting taxes?

On the bright side we just gave Social Security people a pay hike. If they are lucky they might be able to buy a tank of gas with it.

The more money you make, the easier it is to shelter your earnings. An S corp here a tax accountant there and wallah most of your earnings disappear into the papperwork.

 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,830
2
0
Originally posted by: jpeyton
The bottom 95% drive the American economy.

The bottom 95%, through sheer numbers, buy nearly all the consumables, the cars, consumer electronics, gas, groceries, homes, vacations, etc.

If the bottom 95% is doing better, they spend more, and the companies selling those goods do better. If the bottom 95% struggle, the economy struggles.

Trickle down DOESN'T WORK. Build it strong from the foundation up.
Exactly. Isn't that what economic stimulus packages are all about? Conservatives are quick to point out that the top brackets create jobs, but they ignore the source of the business that they actually do.

But also, the rich don't create jobs as charity, like emperors on high putting the minions to work. They hire people to do jobs that are worth more to them than the salaries they pay out. The idea of not hiring or firing because your taxes are higher seems like a fallacy to me.

"Oh dear, my taxes went up, so I better fire my employees who cost more than they benefit me. Why oh why did I not fire these costly employees when my taxes were low so that I'd be even richer? I must lack common sense!"
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,830
2
0
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The gap between rich and poor grew under Clinton and shrank under Bush.

That is because the stock market explosion at the end of Clinton's term allowed the rich to make tons of money, while the poor stayed idle.
However, Clinton did raise taxes on the rich while Bush cut taxes on the rich.

I think the whole rich-poor dynamic is very complicated. And the idea that we can raise taxes on the rich to make the problem go away is naive. The rich are rich because they control their destiny and their incomes. The poor sit around and wait for others to help them out. Unless that changes the rich will stay rich and the poor will stay poor.
All in all not a bad post from prof johN :0
Except he assumes that the poor sit around and wait for others to help them out. In reality the poor are working to make the rich richer, and if they weren't poor the rich would have to build robots to do poor peoples' jobs.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,561
3
0
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Originally posted by: jpeyton
The bottom 95% drive the American economy.

The bottom 95%, through sheer numbers, buy nearly all the consumables, the cars, consumer electronics, gas, groceries, homes, vacations, etc.

If the bottom 95% is doing better, they spend more, and the companies selling those goods do better. If the bottom 95% struggle, the economy struggles.

Trickle down DOESN'T WORK. Build it strong from the foundation up.
Exactly. Isn't that what economic stimulus packages are all about? Conservatives are quick to point out that the top brackets create jobs, but they ignore the source of the business that they actually do.

But also, the rich don't create jobs as charity, like emperors on high putting the minions to work. They hire people to do jobs that are worth more to them than the salaries they pay out. The idea of not hiring or firing because your taxes are higher seems like a fallacy to me.
Actually, that's the biggest crock of sh*t out there. During the "high tax" days of Bill Clinton his average number of new jobs was higher than Bushes BEST month of new jobs (or just about).
And Clinton did it with a lower U.S. population.

 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: jpeyton
The bottom 95% drive the American economy.

The bottom 95%, through sheer numbers, buy nearly all the consumables, the cars, consumer electronics, gas, groceries, homes, vacations, etc.

If the bottom 95% is doing better, they spend more, and the companies selling those goods do better. If the bottom 95% struggle, the economy struggles.

Trickle down DOESN'T WORK. Build it strong from the foundation up.
The bottom don't pay taxes anyway. We need to tax them more for what they cost us.

Obama's tax plan is nothing more than wealth redistribution. He has even said himself to Joe the plumber.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY