Obama's Tax policies ? Good or Bad

[piasabird]

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.

I disagree with this logic. When a corporation does poorly the CEO often gets a bonus anyway. They use some language like "He steered the company through tough economic times ensuring they would be positioned for a recovering economy"! All they do is lay off a bunch of poor slobs working for them and they keep making a profit. The averge worker just can not win!

 

[OCGuy]

:music: The government knows whats best for my money
lets give it to the people who dont deserve it
Tax Tax Tax, give give give give
Fuck it, lets just collective farm! :music:


^ New hit single folks. You heard it here first.

 

[Fern]

Washington DC is the *Master* at stumbling into the *Law of Unintended Consequences*.

I think it difficult to forsee what all the consequences will be.

First, given currently reduced demand I must assume *rich* people are already taking a pay cut because business is down.

Now we wanna bump up their taxes? OTOH, perhaps tax cuts for the lower 95% will stimulate demand a bit?

But in the first order, I think one must consider taxes a regular *business cost*; so what do most businesses do when costs rise? I'm thinking raise prices. I.e., an inflationary circle jerk may be the result. That's just a guess; I still don't think Congress will pass the plan as is.

(Gawd, just had a horrible thought - how much Pork will be slipped into that bill?)

Fern

 

[Fingolfin269]

Does this 100% sum actually total all people or just those who pay taxes? I don't mind giving people a tax cut but I don't want people who are already paying no taxes to somehow end up getting even more of a free government handout.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: spidey07
The bottom don't pay taxes anyway.

The bottom 95% most certainly do pay taxes.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: spidey07
The bottom don't pay taxes anyway.

The bottom 95% most certainly do pay taxes.

You are a joke. The "bottom" 95%? What is the federal income tax rate of someone making ~20K per year?

 

[LumbergTech]

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 what constitutes "helping yourself out" can vary between hard work and outright fraud and robbery.

I don't really believe that a lot of the rich legitimately earn their incomes. That isn't to say that being rich means that someone doesn't deserve the fruit of their own labor.

My only point is that it isn't only that poor people are lazy, many of them making willing decisions to not go along with the status quo and that is generally not profitable at all. I think that many people feel that the path to richness ( for a large portion of the rich) is one where you simply do almost whatever it takes to get to a position of power, that, or you are born into it and really didn't do anything to generate the original amount of wealth that is driving your family through the generations.

yes, it is a complicated issue, and it isn't just about wealth distribution, but about wealth obtainment, holding on to it..etc..

 

[evident]

Originally posted by: jonks

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.

this

 

[HendrixFan]

Those numbers are extremely skewed. If you take the very poor (a growing percentage of the population) and subtract the EIC they receive, they end up "paying" negative taxes. You average in their negative number with the middle class and you will show the middle class as having a much smaller tax burden than they actually do.

EIC is basically welfare, you cannot "pay" negative taxes, it isnt a tax credit. But for computing purposes it allows the numbers to be thrown off wildly, encouraging this type of class warfare battle.

Edit: EIC shows as an expense under IRS, it is not listed as a tax receipt. $41B expense for this year.

 

[smashp]

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.

They will have Less Profit.

They can still hire emploees to grow the company. And guess what, those employees are costs that go against your Gross to reduce your Net.

Not to mention all the other "business expences" that can be written off to reduce the Net.

You are just spreading Pure 100% FUD

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: spidey07

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.

What part of "drive the economy" do you not understand?

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: spidey07

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.

If you work, you pay taxes. period

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: Fern
Top 5% pay 57% of income taxes

So, the other 95% pay 43% (Ed. fixed your math for you).

Honest question (to which I don't know the answer): How much money do the rich control compared to the poor? Do the top 5% have 5% of the overall wealth in the country, or do they have 50% (or more)?

Overly simplistic scenario: Imagine a system with 100 people. 99 of these people have $1,000.00. 1 person has $1,000,000.00. 1% of the population holds 91% of the wealth. Would we expect that person to pay 1% of the taxes or 91%? If we phrase it as "1% of the population pays 91% of the taxes," it seems incredibly unfair. But given the distribution of wealth, that would be the fair share...

So, what is the distribution of wealth in the top 5% versus the remaining 95% in our country?

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: Fern
Top 5% pay 57% of income taxes

So, the other 95% pay 43% (Ed. fixed your math for you).

Honest question (to which I don't know the answer): How much money do the rich control compared to the poor? Do the top 5% have 5% of the overall wealth in the country, or do they have 50% (or more)?

Overly simplistic scenario: Imagine a system with 100 people. 99 of these people have $1,000.00. 1 person has $1,000,000.00. 1% of the population holds 91% of the wealth. Would we expect that person to pay 1% of the taxes or 91%? If we phrase it as "1% of the population pays 91% of the taxes," it seems incredibly unfair. But given the distribution of wealth, that would be the fair share...

So, what is the distribution of wealth in the top 5% versus the remaining 95% in our country?

Don't let anyone here fool you, the rich pay more in taxes because they control the vast amount of the wealth. You can read more here.

In terms of wealth, the top quartile has 87% of this country's wealth. The bottom quartile accounts for 0%. Income is not quite as bad as the top quartile account for 65% of total income where the bottom quartile accounts for 4%. There is a real reason so many people don't pay taxes. You can't squeeze blood from a turnip.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: jonks

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.

Damn, didn't notice that until this post and I already voted.

 

[351Cleveland]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I thought that the trickle down approach has been debunked by most economists smarter than me...

If it has... why has Obama said that he would reconsider raising taxes (meaning considering NOT doing it) if economic conditions continued to worsen? If it DOESNT work... why does it matter whether or not you raise taxes?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: Fern
Top 5% pay 57% of income taxes

So, the other 95% pay 43% (Ed. fixed your math for you).

Honest question (to which I don't know the answer): How much money do the rich control compared to the poor? Do the top 5% have 5% of the overall wealth in the country, or do they have 50% (or more)?
-snip-

We do not know. There is no way to know. We don't ask our people/citizens for that data.

It's private information.

Anybody who says they "know" is only guessing.

(Note: Taxable income does not neccesarily = rich people. I.e., you can have a ton of wealth without much income showing up on your tax return, or vice-versa.)

Fern

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: Fern
Top 5% pay 57% of income taxes

So, the other 95% pay 43% (Ed. fixed your math for you).

Honest question (to which I don't know the answer): How much money do the rich control compared to the poor? Do the top 5% have 5% of the overall wealth in the country, or do they have 50% (or more)?
-snip-

We do not know. There is no way to know. We don't ask our people/citizens for that data.

It's private information.

Anybody who says they "know" is only guessing.

(Note: Taxable income does not neccesarily = rich people. I.e., you can have a ton of wealth without much income showing up on your tax return, or vice-versa.)

Fern

Yes, we do. The Federal Reserve has the Survey of Consumer Finances. The sample size is relatively small but not inconsequential. You can read more here.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: Fern
Top 5% pay 57% of income taxes

So, the other 95% pay 43% (Ed. fixed your math for you).

Honest question (to which I don't know the answer): How much money do the rich control compared to the poor? Do the top 5% have 5% of the overall wealth in the country, or do they have 50% (or more)?
-snip-

We do not know. There is no way to know. We don't ask our people/citizens for that data.

It's private information.

Anybody who says they "know" is only guessing.

(Note: Taxable income does not neccesarily = rich people. I.e., you can have a ton of wealth without much income showing up on your tax return, or vice-versa.)

Fern

Yes, we do. The Federal Reserve has the Survey of Consumer Finances. The sample size is relatively small but not inconsequential. You can read more here.

That would be correct. The Survey for 2007 should be available in early 2009. There are also the Statistics of Income (SOI) from the Internal Revenue Service.


The FUD factor is off the chart in this thread - but that is to be expected. Let's start with the Biggest Lie:

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The gap between rich and poor grew under Clinton and shrank under Bush.

The United States has witnessed only one such time of unequal wealth distribution than that during the term of George W. Bush ? 1928. Period. To argue otherwise is utter crap. There has been a huge redistribution of wealth upward in the United States over the last 8 years not only in income distribution but net worth.

Not only is the middle class being 'squeezed' in income distribution, net worth is declining as the value of residential real estate and personal vehicles fall.

I laff at the pranksters who whine that the 'rich' pay 50%+ of income taxes. That's because they have 50%+ of all income and rising as the percentage of income tax revenue has fallen over the last 8 years. The top 1% in the Untied States control 35% of net worth - the top 5% over 60% of net worth - the top 10% control 75% of the net worth in the United States.

The 'middle class' (or 70% of the population) control 25% of net worth. Twenty percent of the United States population has zero or negative net worth.


Increase in Individual Income Tax Receipts - Presidential Term

21.42% Increase in Individual Income Tax Receipts - George Bush
111.03% Increase in Individual Income Tax Receipts - Bill Clinton


Individual Income Tax Receipts (millions of dollars)

2008 . . . . . . $1,219,661
2007 . . . . . . $1,163,472
2006 . . . . . . $1,043,908
2005 . . . . . . . .$927,222
2004 . . . . . . . .$808,959
2003 . . . . . . . . $793,699
2002 . . . . . . . . $858,345
2001 . . . . . . . . .$994,339

2000 . . . . . . . $1,004,462
1999 . . . . . . . . . $879,480
1998 . . . . . . . . . .$828,586
1997 . . . . . . . . . .$737,466
1996 . . . . . . . . . .$656,417
1995 . . . . . . . . . .$590,244
1994 . . . . . . . . . . $543,055
1993 . . . . . . . . . .$509,680



% Increase in Nominal GDP - Presidential Term
GDP (in billions of dollars)

1993 - - - $6,657.4
1994 - - - $7,072.2
1995 - - - $7,397.7
1996 - - - $7,816.9
1997 - - - $8,304.3
1998 - - - $8,747.0
1999 - - - $9,268.4
2000 - - - $9,817.0

2001 - - - $10,128.0
2002 - - - $10,469.6
2003 - - - $10,960.8
2004 - - - $11,685.9
2005 - - - $12,433.9
2006 - - - $13,194.7
2007 - - - $13,807.6
2008 - - - $14,400 (est)


% Increase in Nominal GDP - Presidential Term

47.46% Increase in GDP - Bill Clinton
42.18% Increase in GDP - George Bush (and declining)


Feel free to explain as to the meaning of GDP increasing 42% while individual income tax receipts only increase 21% in the last 8 years. Extra credit will be given if your response includes reference to the doubling of the Federal Debt over the last 8 years with an 'IOU' obligation to social security now approaching $3 trillion.

VooDoo Economics does not work.

Tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts is not a coherent fiscal policy.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: spidey07

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.

They may not pay federal taxes, but they pay something in the form of sales and other state/city/local taxes. Just to get that straight.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: Fern
Top 5% pay 57% of income taxes

So, the other 95% pay 43% (Ed. fixed your math for you).

Honest question (to which I don't know the answer): How much money do the rich control compared to the poor? Do the top 5% have 5% of the overall wealth in the country, or do they have 50% (or more)?
-snip-

We do not know. There is no way to know. We don't ask our people/citizens for that data.

It's private information.

Anybody who says they "know" is only guessing.

(Note: Taxable income does not neccesarily = rich people. I.e., you can have a ton of wealth without much income showing up on your tax return, or vice-versa.)

Fern

Yes, we do. The Federal Reserve has the Survey of Consumer Finances. The sample size is relatively small but not inconsequential. You can read more here.

That would be correct. The Survey for 2007 should be available in early 2009. There are also the Statistics of Income (SOI) from the Internal Revenue Service.


The FUD factor is off the chart in this thread - but that is to be expected. Let's start with the Biggest Lie:

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The gap between rich and poor grew under Clinton and shrank under Bush.

The United States has witnessed only one such time of unequal wealth distribution than that during the term of George W. Bush ? 1928. Period. To argue otherwise is utter crap. There has been a huge redistribution of wealth upward in the United States over the last 8 years not only in income distribution but net worth.

Not only is the middle class being 'squeezed' in income distribution, net worth is declining as the value of residential real estate and personal vehicles fall.

I laff at the pranksters who whine that the 'rich' pay 50%+ of income taxes. That's because they have 50%+ of all income and rising as the percentage of income tax revenue has fallen over the last 8 years. The top 1% in the Untied States control 35% of net worth - the top 5% over 60% of net worth - the top 10% control 75% of the net worth in the United States.

The 'middle class' (or 70% of the population) control 25% of net worth. Twenty percent of the United States population has zero or negative net worth.


Increase in Individual Income Tax Receipts - Presidential Term

21.42% Increase in Individual Income Tax Receipts - George Bush
111.03% Increase in Individual Income Tax Receipts - Bill Clinton


Individual Income Tax Receipts (millions of dollars)

2008 . . . . . . $1,219,661
2007 . . . . . . $1,163,472
2006 . . . . . . $1,043,908
2005 . . . . . . . .$927,222
2004 . . . . . . . .$808,959
2003 . . . . . . . . $793,699
2002 . . . . . . . . $858,345
2001 . . . . . . . . .$994,339

2000 . . . . . . . $1,004,462
1999 . . . . . . . . . $879,480
1998 . . . . . . . . . .$828,586
1997 . . . . . . . . . .$737,466
1996 . . . . . . . . . .$656,417
1995 . . . . . . . . . .$590,244
1994 . . . . . . . . . . $543,055
1993 . . . . . . . . . .$509,680



% Increase in Nominal GDP - Presidential Term
GDP (in billions of dollars)

1993 - - - $6,657.4
1994 - - - $7,072.2
1995 - - - $7,397.7
1996 - - - $7,816.9
1997 - - - $8,304.3
1998 - - - $8,747.0
1999 - - - $9,268.4
2000 - - - $9,817.0

2001 - - - $10,128.0
2002 - - - $10,469.6
2003 - - - $10,960.8
2004 - - - $11,685.9
2005 - - - $12,433.9
2006 - - - $13,194.7
2007 - - - $13,807.6
2008 - - - $14,400 (est)


% Increase in Nominal GDP - Presidential Term

47.46% Increase in GDP - Bill Clinton
42.18% Increase in GDP - George Bush (and declining)


Feel free to explain as to the meaning of GDP increasing 42% while individual income tax receipts only increase 21% in the last 8 years. Extra credit will be given if your response includes reference to the doubling of the Federal Debt over the last 8 years with an 'IOU' obligation to social security now approaching $3 trillion.

VooDoo Economics does not work.

Tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts is not a coherent fiscal policy.

:beer: and :thumbsup:

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: andy04
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

Business looks at tax as a cost of doing business. Surely people don't believe that they are going to eat the increase in tax's and not pass them along to those that purchase their goods and services.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Business looks at tax as a cost of doing business. Surely people don't believe that they are going to eat the increase in tax's

they don't do that

and not pass them along to those that purchase their goods and services.

they generally don't do that either.

they usually squeeze wages more than anything else. and guess whose wages they squeeze?

 

[OrByte]

interesting discussion fellas.

keep it up, my head might esssplode but Im trying to learned sum edumakation.

 

[Ozoned]

Does the Obama plan take into account the current tax cuts that expire on Jan.1st 2011?