Obama Lays-Out $1.5T in New Taxes

[mrplunkey]

Flat tax will be a tax increase for 90-95% of the people.

It may not be as high as 90%-95%, but you are touching on a point that is absolutely correct: In general, higher income earners don't consume proportionally more than lower income earners. So what do they do with what's left over? Since the high income earners aren't consuming it, they have only one other choice: Invest it -- and God knows we don't need any more of that here in the US.

I say it's more "fair" to tax the people who can afford it.

That's an incredibly perverted view. If you were even mildly interested in "fair", you'd want people taxed when they consume income -- not when they created it. I'd much rather tax a two income family that burns through two professional incomes per year than a business owner who saves every penny he can earn to expand operations and create jobs.

 

[ledhead]

Yeah i have family in and around Newcastle. And that's where i hear alot of stuff from. Hands are gettin thrown over manufacturing jobs. And the whole moving around thing, i understand and agree to a point...but you also have to remember that stable cohesive family units are not born from the pack up and move every 3 years lifestyle. So those that are proponents of that will also have to understand the changes that will happen socially in this country when we move to the migratory work system...which i concur is coming. Meh, maybe people not settling down and having 10 children is a good thing. I personally was not planning on every having children so it's not big deal to me but it will be to others for sure.

You have to be kidding me??? This is freaky, real freaky..

 

[bren565]

Flat tax will be a tax increase for 90-95% of the people.

As was pointed out last month, on the only credible news source on TV (The Daily Show ), if you confiscated 100% of the wages of the lower 45% of the adult population, and also confiscated 100% of their assets, that still wouldn't raise as much money as just undoing the Bush tax cut on the top tax bracket.

Spreading the tax burden around with a "flat tax" is just a feel-good proposal for Conservatives, it won't tap into some huge new reservoir of tax revenue. It won't solve any problems, it just appeals to one particular view of supposed "fairness".

I say it's more "fair" to tax the people who can afford it.

the word fair, is horrifying, in itself, but 'afford' wow.. since people dont vote on taxes, the fact they can be altered is the scariest thing about governement, no voting in a congressman, isnt VOTING, no voting in obama isnt VOTING, people should VOTE on the tax code, the people should be notified,

also.. AFFORD.. well?

you can afford to live in a mud hut
you can afford to have no car
you can afford to be slapped every day when you wake up
you can afford to be beaten once in a while by your spouse
you can afford 10$ a gallon to get to work
you can afford to be in fear all your life
you can afford to have 10 kids and not feed them because of welfare..
and you can afford to have all of your money taken away except 100$ a week for bread and water.

the phrase " tax who can afford it ", is the most fucked up logic i have ever heard, because guess what? if taxation, liscensing, and fees were low..then EVERYONE COULD AFFORD SHIT!

because the free market provides real wealth by making living cheap. being a butt pirate like barry wont help anything, hes either a complete moron, or is a masochist and gets sick pleasure, from stirring up trouble

 

[digimon7068]

Yeah i have family in and around Newcastle. And that's where i hear alot of stuff from. Hands are gettin thrown over manufacturing jobs. And the whole moving around thing, i understand and agree to a point...but you also have to remember that stable cohesive family units are not born from the pack up and move every 3 years lifestyle. So those that are proponents of that will also have to understand the changes that will happen socially in this country when we move to the migratory work system...which i concur is coming. Meh, maybe people not settling down and having 10 children is a good thing. I personally was not planning on every having children so it's not big deal to me but it will be to others for sure.

get out! i used to work for carbis walker in new castle! anyway, new castle is a tough ass town, and it has been significantly economically blighted since way back before we even went through the "prosperous" clinton years...but, if you look just a little ways outside of new castle to areas like sharon and hermitage and meadville to the north or cranberry and pittsburgh to the south, you'll find economically stable, prosperous areas that were largely untouched by the downturn in the housing market (for example)...hell, you wanna talk blight, look across the border to youngstown for chrissakes! now there's a town that hasn't caught a break for years! i guess my point is that new castle isn't my idea of a litmus test for the health of the economy and the job market...that town has been on its knees for a while now...long before any of this bad shit happened.

but, where i live now is north and east of there and this town and the ones around it are busier than hell (industry-wise) and the only people that are unemployed (and there's quite a few) are the ones that want to be...it ought to be a crime.

 

[youpissmeoff]

lol

Nobody is saying the wealthy dont pay more.

Hence the use of the term "effective" in my argument.



Loopholes can and do benefit taxpayers at every level (hence the meme of 50% of the country paying no federal income taxes). Nobody is arguing that. What's being argued (at least on my end) is the effective rate the top 1% are paying.

Hence the support for the Bowles-Simpson tax plan - or any tax plan that lowers rates, simplifies the code, and eliminates deductions and loopholes.

Douche.

You did not read the article - average family making over 1 million pay 29% in taxes.

 

[jnevin]

I don't think that it creates an entitlement culture in the same fashion that I don't see the mass advertising create the consumerism culture. Hells bells! I could start blaming the fat kids on McDonald's and the lending on the banks (vs the ones taking the bad loans), no?



It's a sad state of affairs when the heads are SO polarized where anything that is cut causes people to say that XXX (insert blame group) is the devil / Nazis / terrorists.

I did loans for 10 years and the majority of loans that went "bad" were conforming conventional loans approved through Fannie/ Freddie/ FHA (HUD) guidelines set by the gov't. People would be too stubborn to go from 5.75% to 6.5-8% even if it would erase their debt, fix their credit, and save them hundreds or thousands of dollars per month. Back then 2 years was more than enough to fix credit. Subprime loans were actually hard to get. You had to build a case to an underwriter to get one through and you never knew if it'd go until the last minute. Yeah, people got gouged if they went through the wrong guy, but just about every lender I dealt with had a financial benefits worksheet that had to be filled out to see if a higher rate would actually benefit them.

 

[brownbrown]

the word fair, is horrifying, in itself, but 'afford' wow.. since people dont vote on taxes, the fact they can be altered is the scariest thing about governement, no voting in a congressman, isnt VOTING, no voting in obama isnt VOTING, 1. people should VOTE on the tax code, the people should be notified,

also.. AFFORD.. well?

you can afford to live in a mud hut
you can afford to have no car
you can afford to be slapped every day when you wake up
you can afford to be beaten once in a while by your spouse
you can afford 10$ a gallon to get to work
you can afford to be in fear all your life
you can afford to have 10 kids and not feed them because of welfare..
and you can afford to have all of your money taken away except 100$ a week for bread and water.

2.the phrase " tax who can afford it ", is the most fucked up logic i have ever heard, because guess what? if taxation, liscensing, and fees were low..then EVERYONE COULD AFFORD SHIT!

because the free market provides real wealth by making living cheap. being a butt pirate like barry wont help anything, hes either a complete moron, or is a masochist and gets sick pleasure, from stirring up trouble

1. That is one of dumbest ideas yet. The first thing that would happen is the rich would vote for the poor to pay all teh taxes and vice versa. Tell me what giving more power to the banks has done? Leaving them to their own devices was the main cause of this mess.
2. It's not that hard to understand. If someone makes 20k a year and pays 10% more in taxes, it affects them MORE than if someone that makes 1.5Million gets taxed 10% more.
The acutal dollar value of a loaf of bread is the exact same for both of them. BUT that loaf of bread is MORE expensive to the person that makes 20k because it take a lager percentage of their income. The millionaire can AFFORD to buy 5 loafsm and throw 4 away. the person making 20K can not AFFORD to do that and still pay rent, get gas for their old car, ect.
If the blinders are on that tight then We are Doomed as a Country if the idiologs get the reigns.

 

[rappert]

You guys are against people making a million a year or more paying more in taxes??? Really?

Why should they pay less than me..I bust my ass for a lousy 50k a year. Why does warren buffets secretary pay more in taxes (percentage wise) than he does. Many of the people who would be most affected by these tax proposals are on board with them (see: buffet, gates etc)

Posted with my Droid EO Forum App

 

[mrplunkey]

You guys are against people making a million a year or more paying more in taxes??? Really?

Why should they pay less than me..I bust my ass for a lousy 50k a year. Why does warren buffets secretary pay more in taxes (percentage wise) than he does. Many of the people who would be most affected by these tax proposals are on board with them (see: buffet, gates etc)

Posted with my Droid EO Forum App

You fell for the talking point. No one is advocating the rich pay less taxes. They already pay the most at the highest rate.

This talking point is a trick to force people who receive money that had already been taxed to be taxed again at 25% instead of 15%, when the right answer should be zero.

 

[ledhead]

You fell for the talking point. No one is advocating the rich pay less taxes. They already pay the most at the highest rate.

This talking point is a trick to force people who receive money that had already been taxed to be taxed again at 25% instead of 15%, when the right answer should be zero.

LOl... and lol@ the rest of these people who do not know what this dude is really doing. It is called a Undistributed Profit Tax, that is the correct economic rhetoric..

I wonder who influenced him?? The Revenue Act of 1936.