• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama budget resurrects rejected tax increases

Where the hell did you get the $70 billion figure?

The administration. They said extending the bush cuts would cost $700 billion over 10 years = $70 billion/year.
 
So Obama is trying to get tax increases that already failed. Shows how incompetent he is.

Obama budget resurrects rejected tax increases - Yahoo! News

President Barack Obama's budget proposal resurrects a series of tax increases that were largely ignored by Congress when Democrats controlled both chambers. Republicans, who now control the House, are signaling they will be even less receptive.

The plan unveiled Monday includes tax increases for oil, gas and coal producers, investment managers and U.S.-based multinational corporations. The plan would allow Bush-era tax cuts to expire at the end of 2012 for individuals making more than $200,000 and married couples making more than $250,000. Wealthy taxpayers would have their itemized deductions limited, including deductions for mortgage interest, charitable contributions and state and local taxes.

"These policies were unfair and unaffordable when enacted and remain so today," Obama said in his budget message.

You know what I think is incompetent? Continuing to give tax breaks to the rich while claiming that you want to balance the budget. Republicans have admitted they do not have a plan to balance the budget yet (Paul Ryan has admitted this), and yet they will not raise taxes. They don't want to cut Defense spending. Cutting medicare/medicaid has proven to be very difficult, especially since it was already trimmed and overhauled during the new Health Care bill that just passed. That leaves non defense discretionary spending - a category that gets picked on every time the budget comes up. Because of this, non defense discretionary spending already runs fairly efficiently and smoothly. There is not much to cut.

So how do you balance a budget when you can't cut anything and you can't raise taxes? That's incompetent.
 
The failure to renew a tax cut with a sunset provision is not a "tax increase," it's the continuation of current law. Please reflect this fact in future statements, so as to be more accurate.



Supporting current tax policy in order to deal with a massive revenue shortage is "incompetent"? See, I would be more likely to say that the people trying to eviscerate the budget and cut taxes in the middle of a revenue shortage were the incompetent ones, but perhaps incompetence isn't even the right word for Republican politics: More like corruption.



Good. It's important that Republican priorities be on full display. The American people are being asked to sacrifice with smaller budgets, and are then being told that people who make 6,000 times more than they do should get tax cuts and contribute even less to the nation. What the Republican Party thinks of the American people is abundantly clear.



Good. This would slightly defray the enormous external costs they impose on the economy.



Oh no! The poor, poor wealthy! How can Obama victimize them like this???



Thank you, President Obama. I would have been a lot less diplomatic, but I'm glad we have a President who is so amiable toward people who give no consideration in return.

Tax cuts that expire increase taxes no other way to look at it. All I see Obama doing is spendind and helping unions and grow the government. This is a sure way to destroy this country
 
You know what I think is incompetent? Continuing to give tax breaks to the rich while claiming that you want to balance the budget. Republicans have admitted they do not have a plan to balance the budget yet (Paul Ryan has admitted this), and yet they will not raise taxes. They don't want to cut Defense spending. Cutting medicare/medicaid has proven to be very difficult, especially since it was already trimmed and overhauled during the new Health Care bill that just passed. That leaves non defense discretionary spending - a category that gets picked on every time the budget comes up. Because of this, non defense discretionary spending already runs fairly efficiently and smoothly. There is not much to cut.

So how do you balance a budget when you can't cut anything and you can't raise taxes? That's incompetent.

Is Obama going to do IT? No!! So that argument is pure BS
 
It's like saying the reason I'm broke is because I don't make enough money...meanwhile I make $80K/year and gamble it all away.

That's the liberal argument though, not the 800lb gorilla. That these programs that were put in place because of a crisis (Depression, war), are *vital* to our nation, and so, naturally, since they *must* be paid for, you have to raise taxes? And of course, since the people who needs these *vital* things can't actually afford it, we'll force the people who don't need it, to foot the bill. And then we'll run our political campaing on continuing those handouts to the majority, which gives us enough votes to compete. That's obviously a biased analysis of the argument, but you get the point.

Poppycock! In order to maintain a budget, you must have enough income to pay your debts. Very few of us get through life without incurring debts. The key is having enough income to pay your bills. If your debt exceeds your income then you have a problem. You can balance your budget in two ways. Increasing income and cutting spending. Beginning with Reagan, the new paradigm in Washington has been to both increase spending and decrease income, by slashing taxes for the top income earners. Our two unfunded wars (over $3 trillion) and the unfunded tax cuts for the rich (almost i trillion over just two years) while we simultaneously cut our income by cutting taxes for the super wealthy are glaring examples of this new paradigm.
 
Last edited:
The majority is calling for cut spending the election showed that

That's a talking point. Cut spending means what? What spending are they going to cut? Hell, Boehner did not even want to cut spending on an engine that was going to cost 3 billion to make, and everyone admitted was not necessary in anyway.

Why? Because it would cut jobs in Ohio. Everyone wants to cut until it's their program being cut.

Is Obama going to do IT? No!! So that argument is pure BS

Do what? Raise taxes? I wish. I am still not sure to this day why the democrats agreed to extending the tax cuts.
 
Poppycock! In order to maintain a budget, you must have enough income to pay your debts. Very few of us get through life without incurring debts. The key is having enough income to pay your bills. If your debt exceeds your income then you have a problem. You can balance your budget in two ways. Increasing income and cutting spending. Beginning with Reagan, the new paradigm in Washington has been to both increase spending and decrease income, by slashing taxes for the top income earners. Our two unfunded wars (over $3 trillion) and the unfunded tax cuts for the rich (almost i trillion over just two years) while we simultaneously cut our income by cutting taxes for the super wealthy are glaring examples of this new paradigm.

hate to confuse anyone with facts. But the extention of the Bush tax rates for those above $250 thousand was about $150 billion, not chump change but also not your exagerated numbers. Again the statistic Obama used was $700 billion over 10 years.
 
hate to confuse anyone with facts. But the extention of the Bush tax rates for those above $250 thousand was about $150 billion, not chump change but also not your exagerated numbers. Again the statistic Obama used was $700 billion over 10 years.

As previously posted:

"Obama's new budget puts forward a plan to achieve $1.1 trillion in deficit reductions over the next decade, according to an administration official who spoke to the Associated Press on condition of anonymity in advance of the formal release of the budget.

Those reductions -- averaging just over $100 billion each year -- are achieved mainly by squeezing social programs. A deal struck to extend the Bush tax cuts for just two years, meanwhile, increased the deficit by $858 billion dollars. More than $500 billion of that bargain constituted tax cuts, with billions more funding business tax breaks and a reduction in the estate tax. Roughly $56 billion went to reauthorize emergency unemployment benefits.

The president's budget was expected to mostly target "non-defense discretionary spending," which makes up less than one-quarter of the overall budget, making balancing the budget with such cuts mathematically impossible.

Indeed, the driver of the deficit is tax cuts. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that as a result of the tax cut deal, the projected deficit in Obama's budget will reach a "record" level of $1.6 trillion this year, though that figure, relative to the size of the American economy, is far lower than many other governments around the world, according to data compiled by the Central Intelligence Agency. And the relative deficit is well below the levels of the 1940s, a time of economic prosperity. "President Barack Obama's 2012 budget proposal projects this year's deficit will reach $1.6 trillion, the largest on record, as December's tax-cut deal begins to reduce federal revenues, a senior Democrat said Sunday," the Journal reported Sunday evening. (The deficit is only a record if it is neither adjusted for inflation nor considered relative to the size of GDP.)"
Obama Budget Proposal: Cuts To Target Working Poor, Middle Class & Students (LIVE UPDATES)
 
As previously posted:

"Obama's new budget puts forward a plan to achieve $1.1 trillion in deficit reductions over the next decade, according to an administration official who spoke to the Associated Press on condition of anonymity in advance of the formal release of the budget.

Those reductions -- averaging just over $100 billion each year -- are achieved mainly by squeezing social programs. A deal struck to extend the Bush tax cuts for just two years, meanwhile, increased the deficit by $858 billion dollars. More than $500 billion of that bargain constituted tax cuts, with billions more funding business tax breaks and a reduction in the estate tax. Roughly $56 billion went to reauthorize emergency unemployment benefits.

The president's budget was expected to mostly target "non-defense discretionary spending," which makes up less than one-quarter of the overall budget, making balancing the budget with such cuts mathematically impossible.

Indeed, the driver of the deficit is tax cuts. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that as a result of the tax cut deal, the projected deficit in Obama's budget will reach a "record" level of $1.6 trillion this year, though that figure, relative to the size of the American economy, is far lower than many other governments around the world, according to data compiled by the Central Intelligence Agency. And the relative deficit is well below the levels of the 1940s, a time of economic prosperity. "President Barack Obama's 2012 budget proposal projects this year's deficit will reach $1.6 trillion, the largest on record, as December's tax-cut deal begins to reduce federal revenues, a senior Democrat said Sunday," the Journal reported Sunday evening. (The deficit is only a record if it is neither adjusted for inflation nor considered relative to the size of GDP.)"
Obama Budget Proposal: Cuts To Target Working Poor, Middle Class & Students (LIVE UPDATES)

The number you are pointing to is the TOTAL reduction in taxes for the two year period, not just the taxes for those over $250K per year. It also includes the 2% reduction in social security tax which helps mostly lower incomes as it is capped at around $105K.

Keep trying you will get there.
 
The number you are pointing to is the TOTAL reduction in taxes for the two year period, not just the taxes for those over $250K per year. It also includes the 2% reduction in social security tax which helps mostly lower incomes as it is capped at around $105K.

Keep trying you will get there.

I see now where I misread, you are correct the $858 billion was the amount the deficit was increased by, and "the More than $500 billion of that bargain constituted tax cuts, with billions more funding business tax breaks and a reduction in the estate tax."

Thanks!
 
The number you are pointing to is the TOTAL reduction in taxes for the two year period, not just the taxes for those over $250K per year. It also includes the 2% reduction in social security tax which helps mostly lower incomes as it is capped at around $105K.

Keep trying you will get there.

That's true. Just not extending the tax cuts, while helping, would not be a huge number. I am not opposed to slightly raising the taxes on those who make over $500,000 past the "normal level". They have had a free lunch for long enough. The country needs their help and its their patriotic duty to help keep the country that pays them such a nice salary solvent.
 
oh my gosh.........how many times a year do most people fly? and is there some reason why we should believe that airlines are looking out for US? lol!

It's not the job of a private corporation to look out for anyone but themselves. It's the government's job to protect US. Part of that job entails not passing legislation that will cost us more money and kill jobs in the middle of a depression.
 
That's true. Just not extending the tax cuts, while helping, would not be a huge number. I am not opposed to slightly raising the taxes on those who make over $500,000 past the "normal level". They have had a free lunch for long enough. The country needs their help and its their patriotic duty to help keep the country that pays them such a nice salary solvent.

How you figger they've had a, "free lunch"? Those are the folks that make up the 5% of the population that pay 50% of the taxes.

I think we should leave their taxes alone and instead lower the earned income credit by 10%. Or, we can do away with the tax credit on solar panels, that no one can afford, anyway.
 
How you figger they've had a, "free lunch"? Those are the folks that make up the 5% of the population that pay 50% of the taxes.

I think we should leave their taxes alone and instead lower the earned income credit by 10%. Or, we can do away with the tax credit on solar panels, that no one can afford, anyway.

Effective Tax Rates of the Richest 400 Americans

My favorite part of this whole story is that the top 500 made almost as much as the bottom 90% of Americans. These people make hordes of money off of the backs of hard-working people.

The top-line finding drawing the most attention is that these 400 earned about $138 billion, collectively, in 2007, the most recent year of data. In contrast, the bottom 90 percent of Americans, over 24 million filers, earned $247 billion.

But the tax rate for these guys does not really end up being that high:

The second thing to note is that the overall tax rates are really not that high. Contrary to concerns about socialism or a government takeover, the richest Americans, those earning an average of $345 million in 2007, paid about 16.5 percent in federal income taxes.

income_taxes_on_the_richest_400_american_tax_filers.png


I call paying a marginal rate of 17% while earning billions to be eating lunch for free.
 
Last edited:
Effective Tax Rates of the Richest 400 Americans

My favorite part of this whole story is that the top 500 made almost as much as the bottom 90% of Americans. These people make hordes of money off of the backs of hard-working people.



But the tax rate for these guys does not really end up being that high:



income_taxes_on_the_richest_400_american_tax_filers.png


I call paying a marginal rate of 17% while earning billions to be eating lunch for free.

17% of a billion dollars comes out to be $170,000,000, and you call that a free lunch?

I'll take that, "free lunch", any day, my friend.

Seems to me, that the government is the one that is greedy.
 
Effective Tax Rates of the Richest 400 Americans

My favorite part of this whole story is that the top 500 made almost as much as the bottom 90% of Americans. These people make hordes of money off of the backs of hard-working people.



But the tax rate for these guys does not really end up being that high:



income_taxes_on_the_richest_400_american_tax_filers.png


I call paying a marginal rate of 17% while earning billions to be eating lunch for free.

I am impressed with your post! Most people seem to be ignorant of how much the tax rates have been slashed for the top income earners and the resulting effect of shift of tax burden more on the middle class, who are already struggling with astronomical health care costs.
 
I am impressed with your post! Most people seem to be ignorant of how much the tax rates have been slashed for the top income earners and the resulting effect of shift of tax burden more on the middle class, who are already struggling with astronomical health care costs.

Thanks!

Yeah, I am studying to be an actuary so if there is anything I understand it is probability/stats and money. They have forced more information about the ways to accumulate money, compound interest, buy derivatives, etc than I would have ever thought.

So I am not easily fooled when it comes to charts and graphs that get thrown around to trick the average person. I am not an accountant, though, so tax codes are elusive to me, but one major thing I have been learning about is the use of derivatives and other financial means to hide taxable money.

If people only knew how money flows they would change their tune about tax rates!
 
Nice dodge, folks! :lamo
 
Nice dodge, folks! :lamo

Dodge? I just did not feel like responding to you. Between the bonds, derivatives, dividends, and interest these people earn, they make well over the amount of taxes they pay. They make money just by having money.
 
Thanks!

Yeah, I am studying to be an actuary so if there is anything I understand it is probability/stats and money. They have forced more information about the ways to accumulate money, compound interest, buy derivatives, etc than I would have ever thought.

So I am not easily fooled when it comes to charts and graphs that get thrown around to trick the average person. I am not an accountant, though, so tax codes are elusive to me, but one major thing I have been learning about is the use of derivatives and other financial means to hide taxable money.

If people only knew how money flows they would change their tune about tax rates!

LOL! I thought we were supposed to feel sorry for the bankers and hedge fund managers that have suffered so?
 
Dodge? I just did not feel like responding to you. Between the bonds, derivatives, dividends, and interest these people earn, they make well over the amount of taxes they pay. They make money just by having money.

You are exactly right:

"A remarkable study (Norton & Ariely, 2010) reveals that Americans have no idea that the wealth distribution (defined for them in terms of "net worth") is as concentrated as it is. When shown three pie charts representing possible wealth distributions, 90% or more of the 5,522 respondents -- whatever their gender, age, income level, or party affiliation -- thought that the American wealth distribution most resembled one in which the top 20% has about 60% of the wealth. In fact, of course, the top 20% control about 85% of the wealth"

"The ratio of CEO pay to factory worker pay rose from 42:1 in 1960 to as high as 531:1 in 2000"

"Most amazing of all, the top 0.1% -- that's one-tenth of one percent -- had more combined pre-tax income than the poorest 120 million people (Johnston, 2006)."

"Furthermore, if the top 20% have 84% of the wealth (and recall that 10% have 85% to 90% of the stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity), that means that the United States is a power pyramid. It's tough for the bottom 80% -- maybe even the bottom 90% -- to get organized and exercise much power."

"only 39 of the 134 countries have worse income inequality."

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power
 
That's true. Just not extending the tax cuts, while helping, would not be a huge number. I am not opposed to slightly raising the taxes on those who make over $500,000 past the "normal level". They have had a free lunch for long enough. The country needs their help and its their patriotic duty to help keep the country that pays them such a nice salary solvent.

Again I am not against the progressive income tax. In fact I would like to see a bracket for the "super rich". Those with incomes of 5+ million. Make that rate 70%. I am not sure which part of the country you live in but if you are in the northeast, an apartment in NY for 2 bedrooms can easily cost 2-3 million so $500K is not rich.
 
Back
Top Bottom