• 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!

White House Tax Plan Would Ask More of Millionaires

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
28,068
Reaction score
14,212
Location
Boca
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
President Obama on Monday will call for a new minimum tax rate for individuals making more than $1 million a year to ensure that they pay <br><br>
at least the same percentage of their earnings as middle-income taxpayers, according to administration officials. With a special joint Congressional committee starting work to reach a bipartisan budget deal by late November, the proposal adds a new and populist feature to Mr. Obama’s effort to raise the political pressure on Republicans to agree to higher revenues from the wealthy in return for Democrats’ support of future cuts from Medicare and Medicaid. Mr. Obama, in a bit of political salesmanship, will call his proposal the “Buffett Rule,” in a reference to Warren E. Buffett, the billionaire investor who has complained repeatedly that the richest Americans generally pay a smaller share of their income in federal taxes than do middle-income workers, because investment gains are taxed at a lower rate than wages.

Mr. Obama will not specify a rate or other details, and it is unclear how much revenue his plan would raise. But his idea of a millionaires’ minimum tax will be prominent in the broad plan for long-term deficit reduction that he will outline at the White House on Monday. Obama’s proposal is certain to draw opposition from Republicans, who have staunchly opposed raising taxes on the affluent because, they say, it would discourage investment. It could also invite scrutiny from someconomists who have disputed Mr. Buffett’s assertion that the megarich pay a lower tax rate over all. Mr. Buffett’s critics say many of the rich actually make more from wages than from investments.

snip

Behind the arguments of Mr. Obama, Mr. Buffett and others about the inequity of the tax system is the difference between taxpayers’ marginal tax rate, popularly known as their tax bracket, and the effective tax rate they end up paying after subtracting for deductions, credits and other breaks.marginal tax rate is the percentage paid on the last dollar a person earns. The current system has six marginal tax rate percentages — 10, 15, 25, 28, 33 and 35 — and each applies to a progressively higher amount of income. In theory, a wealthy filer pays the lower rates on income within each bracket, but the bulk of their income is taxed at the top 35 percent rate. Middle-class taxpayers generally pay marginal rates of 15 percent or 25 percent. But investors like Mr. Buffett pay no more than 15 percent on most of their income because that rate applies to capital gains, dividends and “carried interest,” which is the compensation paid to hedge fund partners and investment managers like Mr. Buffett.

Another reason many wealthy Americans pay a smaller share of their income in federal taxes is that the Social Security payroll tax does not apply to
income above $106,800; most people do not reach the cutoff and pay the tax on all their income. Counting income and payroll taxes, Mr. Buffett
has said he paid an effective tax rate of 17.4 percent for 2010 compared with an average 36 percent rate for many employees of his company,
Berkshire Hathaway. Mr. Obama’s proposal, Mr. Buffett and others with taxable income of more than $1 million would pay a minimum tax rate closer to his
employees’ rates. But Mr. Obama will leave the details of how such a rate would be calculated — whether to focus on the overall federal tax
burden of middle-income individuals generally, or their marginal rates — to the debate over rewriting the tax code.

The rest of the article can be found here

The effective tax rate is at least 3% less than it was during 2000, when we had a balanced budget. Conversely, tax revenue as a percentage of total income (using the income approach to national output) is at its lowest level since 1950, when tax revenues made up 14.4% of GDP (FWIW, they were 20.6% in 2000). No credible long term deficit reduction can occur without restoring a competent policy. The starve the beast mentality does not take into account fluctuations in the business cycle, and is now taking its toll on our politicians ability to not only fund itself (ala August 2nd), but to enact the necessary fiscal policy to combat the persistently high unemployment rate.
 
Last edited:
snip

The rest of the article can be found here

The effective tax rate is at least 3% less than it was during 2000, when we had a balanced budget. Conversely, tax revenue as a percentage of total income (using the income approach to national output) is at its lowest level since 1950, when tax revenues made up 14.4% of GDP (FWIW, they were 20.6% in 2000). No credible long term deficit reduction can occur without restoring a competent policy. The starve the beast mentality does not take into account fluctuations in the business cycle, and is now taking its toll on our politicians ability to not only fund itself (ala August 2nd), but to enact the necessary fiscal policy to combat the persistently high unemployment rate.

Finally someone in our government is thinking in the right direction.
 
Still say we need a flat on all income levels above the slightly the poverty line and allow no deductions.

Put a similar flat tax on all business without any loopholes. Singling out the people who start up the new businesses and create the jobs sounds great until you inhibit growth with taxes and over regulations.

It's a dumb idea that flies in the face of what has gone before and failed.

What's a fair share?

We have 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax, is that fair?
 
Last edited:
Still say we need a flat on all income levels above the slightly the poverty line and allow no deductions.

Put a similar flat tax on all business without any loopholes. Singling out the people who start up the new businesses and create the jobs sounds great until you inhibit growth with taxes and over regulations.

It's a dumb idea that flies in the face of what has gone before and failed.

What's a fair share?

We have 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax, is that fair?

That is a question that you will never get a liberal to answer because to do so would create an opening that destroys their entire argument. What is it about Obama supporters who always focus on what someone else makes and supporting the amount of money that Congress spends? never do you hear a liberal complaining about how money is wasted by Congress but only who they can get more money from. If you feel that Congress isn't getting enough money then close the loopholes on the 47% that don't pay any FIT or how about creating policies that put 25 plus million unemployed and under employed Americans back to work paying their fair share?

You won't hear that but instead nothing but class warfare
 
That is a question that you will never get a liberal to answer because to do so would create an opening that destroys their entire argument. What is it about Obama supporters who always focus on what someone else makes and supporting the amount of money that Congress spends? never do you hear a liberal complaining about how money is wasted by Congress but only who they can get more money from. If you feel that Congress isn't getting enough money then close the loopholes on the 47% that don't pay any FIT or how about creating policies that put 25 plus million unemployed and under employed Americans back to work paying their fair share?

You won't hear that but instead nothing but class warfare

this board crawls with tax hikers who constantly whine that the top one percent (or the rich) don't pay their fair share even though the top few percent are the ONLY Group that pay MORE Of the federal income tax burden share than their share of the national income. to them fair share is whatever is needed to buy the votes of the envious who want more handouts without paying for it
 
We have 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax, is that fair?

That's because they aren't hiring. If they actually employed more people, they would make a smaller share of the overall percentage that's paid into income taxes. If less people are working, they have no income, therefore they can't pay income taxes.
 
this board crawls with tax hikers who constantly whine that the top one percent (or the rich) don't pay their fair share even though the top few percent are the ONLY Group that pay MORE Of the federal income tax burden share than their share of the national income. to them fair share is whatever is needed to buy the votes of the envious who want more handouts without paying for it

Bingo, in fact, the bottom 30% actually pay -3%, getting back more than was withheld.

Surprisingly, Wolf Blitzer had to school the DNC Chair on this very issue. I vomit in my mouth a little every time I think that she's my Congressman.
PolitiFact Florida | Debbie Wasserman Schultz says Wolf Blitzer was wrong to say the wealthiest pay the most in taxes
 
no loopholes save one : give them a preferential tax rate if they directly create jobs with the money. that's one main argument i've seen against "raising" the tax rate on the very wealthy; so let them deliver on the job creation promise.

problem solved.
 
Wasserman Schultz is like the Bachmann of the democrats.
Crazy that these people continue to get elected.

Main reason, seriously gerrymandered district. And she usually runs uncontested or when she does have competition, its some whackjob more liberal than she is.
 
Mr. Obama will not specify a rate or other details, and it is unclear how much revenue his plan would raise.

At least he's consistant.
 
no loopholes save one : give them a preferential tax rate if they directly create jobs with the money. that's one main argument i've seen against "raising" the tax rate on the very wealthy; so let them deliver on the job creation promise.

problem solved.

I agree with this, and I believe some of the tax codes attempt this via some of the loopholes, however, they clearly do not work. They may stimulate the economy slightly or create a very small number of jobs, a number that would be increased had the money not been carelessly used to satisfy the requirement for the loopholes - i.e. some just throw money away simply to avoid the higher paying taxes without giving it much attention
 
Still say we need a flat on all income levels above the slightly the poverty line and allow no deductions.

Put a similar flat tax on all business without any loopholes. Singling out the people who start up the new businesses and create the jobs sounds great until you inhibit growth with taxes and over regulations.

It's a dumb idea that flies in the face of what has gone before and failed.

What's a fair share?

We have 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax, is that fair?

We've gone over this in other threads .. the answer to the question is applying the definition of the word fair in order to determine what a "fair share" is.

Since some people cannot understand the concept of fair .. this gets difficult. Everyone know that the poor have nothing to give in the sense that they would be forced to go into debt or starve or live without a shelter were they to pay the same percentages as the top percentiles.

If you think one person being able to pay taxes which to them is "chump change" and another having to go into debt, starve or live without shelter is fair .. you must have some serious issues and should probably see a counselor (not saying this is you, but some people think this way).

The most "fair" way to calculate a fair share (and don't go off on that "life isn't fair" strawman as you yourself are trying to state that progressive taxation isn't "fair") would be to compare the average low level living costs (i.e. average costs to live without disease, malnutrition etc.) over a state and perhaps the whole country, depending on how you view it, and use those living costs in a predetermined ratio of average low level living costs to income level. e.g. use a formula set up below:

average low level living costs/income level

This would be the truest "fair" way to calculate a "fair share" - given one's ave. low level living costs to income level ratio, a tax could be created so that the actual burden of the cost is proportional across all income levels - that's fair
 
Still say we need a flat on all income levels above the slightly the poverty line and allow no deductions.

Put a similar flat tax on all business without any loopholes. Singling out the people who start up the new businesses and create the jobs sounds great until you inhibit growth with taxes and over regulations.

It's a dumb idea that flies in the face of what has gone before and failed.

What's a fair share?

We have 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax, is that fair?

Yes it is, as the 1% earns about 50% of the discretionary income, which is what our income tax system is taxing. You suffer from the common misconception that income taxes are designed to tax dollar $1 of income. They are not. The US income tax code includes exemptions, credits and standard deductions to shelter people from paying tax on the income that pays for their necessities so that the tax is really assessed discretionary income.
 
OMG...a thread that includes the title 'Tax' and there has yet to be a TurtleDud sighting. I hope he is OK. Maybe someone should send the sheriff to check on him.
 
snip



The rest of the article can be found here

The effective tax rate is at least 3% less than it was during 2000, when we had a balanced budget. Conversely, tax revenue as a percentage of total income (using the income approach to national output) is at its lowest level since 1950, when tax revenues made up 14.4% of GDP (FWIW, they were 20.6% in 2000). No credible long term deficit reduction can occur without restoring a competent policy. The starve the beast mentality does not take into account fluctuations in the business cycle, and is now taking its toll on our politicians ability to not only fund itself (ala August 2nd), but to enact the necessary fiscal policy to combat the persistently high unemployment rate.

I think the if the republicans were smart they would offer a reverse Buffett Rule where everybody pays the same percentage Buffett alleges to pays. I think most people would be more happy only paying 17.4 percent instead of the 36 percent rate that Buffett alleges that his secretary pays.


I though you had to make almost $200,000 a year to pay that percentage not $60,000, something is not right about his claim. 2011-2012 Tax Rates – Federal Income 2011-2012 Tax Brackets
 
no loopholes save one : give them a preferential tax rate if they directly create jobs with the money. that's one main argument i've seen against "raising" the tax rate on the very wealthy; so let them deliver on the job creation promise.

problem solved.

Businesses will not create jobs because they get tax breaks. They will create jobs if there's more consumption.

This idea of giving tax breaks to "create jobs" is a scam.
 
I think the if the republicans were smart they would offer a reverse Buffett Rule where everybody pays the same percentage Buffett alleges to pays. I think most people would be more happy only paying 17.4 percent instead of the 36 percent rate that Buffett alleges that his secretary pays.


I though you had to make almost $200,000 a year to pay that percentage not $60,000, something is not right about his claim. 2011-2012 Tax Rates – Federal Income 2011-2012 Tax Brackets

In many ways irrelevant. His secretary pays 25% on her income, where as he pays 15% on his. His point still stands and is very valid.
 
You're not likely to get this info on FOX so I'll give you some helpBBC News - Obama plans taxes and spending cuts to reduce deficit

Do you think replies like this are cute? Does it somehow make you feel witty? It's neither. The article is from NBC and has nothing to do with Fox. Yours is just a lame response.

Now your article DOES NOT include a single actual detail either. No specific rate. Just claims of this or that and we know Obama's track record there. So next time, just stuff your lame response under your hat.
 
Last edited:
The problem isn't how much the rich are paying in taxes. The problem is in how much the middle class is NOT getting in terms of fair compensation for their labor. I'm sure I don't need to tell anyone that the rich have gotten dramatically richer in the past few decades while the people that work for them have stagnated. THAT'S the real problem. Raising taxes on the rich is a crude and inaccurate tool for addressing the disparity. Myself, I would rather more money in my paycheck than broader government benefits.

If the right wants to complain about Obamacare and government control, then they should be arm twisting CEO's to give across the board pay raises to their employees. There will be a cold day in hell before that happens.
 
The problem isn't how much the rich are paying in taxes. The problem is in how much the middle class is NOT getting in terms of fair compensation for their labor. I'm sure I don't need to tell anyone that the rich have gotten dramatically richer in the past few decades while the people that work for them have stagnated. THAT'S the real problem. Raising taxes on the rich is a crude and inaccurate tool for addressing the disparity. Myself, I would rather more money in my paycheck than broader government benefits.

If the right wants to complain about Obamacare and government control, then they should be arm twisting CEO's to give across the board pay raises to their employees. There will be a cold day in hell before that happens.

Like the way GM and Chrysler did for years?
 
In many ways irrelevant. His secretary pays 25% on her income, where as he pays 15% on his. His point still stands and is very valid.

How would he pay only 15% if people who make over $383,350 a year are in the 39.6% bracket according to this link? It seems to me He is leaving out why he only pays 15%. If he was all that concerned about paying more taxes he would set an example by not using any exemptions and donate what he feels is his fair share. He claims his secretary pays 36% for making 60,0000 a year which is also fishy,so either he doesn't know how much is secretary makes or what conditions require that she pay that much or he is lying.
 
How would he pay only 15% if people who make over $383,350 a year are in the 39.6% bracket according to this link? It seems to me He is leaving out why he only pays 15%. If he was all that concerned about paying more taxes he would set an example by not using any exemptions and donate what he feels is his fair share. He claims his secretary pays 36% for making 60,0000 a year which is also fishy,so either he doesn't know how much is secretary makes or what conditions require that she pay that much or he is lying.

It's not applying tax breaks/credits/loopholes. Yeah, 39.6% is the technical rate but after all breaks and such he actually only pays 15%.
 
It's not applying tax breaks/credits/loopholes. Yeah, 39.6% is the technical rate but after all breaks and such he actually only pays 15%.

Why is it that liberals and progressives(all the same) always worry about how much money is going to the Federal Govt. instead of focusing on how the govt. spends that money?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom