Joe pays 15%
Jack pays 10%

If we are to make things equal across the board.. Should Jack pay 15% & Joe pay 20% by giving them both a 5% increase still causing Joe to pay more and Jack lesser percentage? Is that fair or should they both instead pay 15%?

Paying higher taxes then when?

The Bush tax breaks weren't permanent - they were supposed to expire in 10 years, and now they've been in place for 12!

Obama and the D's are proposing that they DO NOT expire for 98% of Americans, as the majority of American citizens are having a tough time right now. The top 2% are doing just fine, so their rates bounce back to where they were.

I don't see the controversy, and most people can not relate to the outdated idea of continuing to favor the top 2%.

Obama won the first time around because Bush was an idiot.

Obama won the second time around because the fringe on the right hijacked the GOP and scared away the electorate.

Defending the top 2% and calling the poor names will not fix the Republican Party one bit, but that's what they seem to want to do.

Good luck with that!

I miss Ronald Reagan :(

yea? you are not trying to claim still that the rich pay lower percentage, are you? If you are, go back a couple of posts and read my comments on The New York Times study...

Nice thoughtful reply.

If you paid more than $200,000 for the full year you would have been overpaying your taxes.

If you actually owned a company and paid corporate taxes and had employees, you would understand why your story doesn't look to be true.

And if all you hired were contractors...then you didn't really hire any "new employees".

And you still have your returns from the 1990's???? Dude, your shit just gets deeper and deeper. You should be shredding those old returns (if they exist)

But carry on with your story. It really doesn't make one lick of sense in any way.

You can raise Jack's INCOME TAX to 100% and it won't change what he pays in Capital Gains taxes one tiny bit.

But yes...if you are going to raise INCOME TAX rates then it should be for everyone. Jack already pays a higher percentage of INCOME TAX.

People keep twisting this to include Capital Gains.

And as I pointed out earlier, if you raise capital gains taxes..you raise taxes on the elderly and their retirement plans and also on every American who is invested in the stock market.

How about we cut spending instead? Chop the military in half. We don't need it.

$200k on $900k income sounds about right, not everyone uses every borderline legal deduction or loophole they can... :2 cents:

You can keep the Capital Gains rate at 15% for the first Million and scale it up from there. Maybe if you're a hedge fund manager making $100 Million you will need to pay 25% or 30% - so what?

This math would not effect 99.9999% of American grannies and retirees.

And I agree totally on military budget reductions. We can find the money to kill people, but we can't fund medicare and social security?! Give me a break!

Since 2000

Cost of wars: 4 trillion
Cost of tax cuts: 2.8 trillion
Cost of bank bail out: 14 trillion

Just looking at those basic numbers I would say three things are needed to fix your economy:

1. Cut military spending by 600 billion a year, this will keep you about 10 billion above china and still the highest spending nation

2. Everyone should lose thier tax cuts, not just the rich. That way every single citizen will realize that there are consequences for starting illegal wars and rewarding failed banks

3. Stop bankster welfare, I laugh at the food stamp comments. The real welfare in your country are businesses who failed miserabley but received more money than any social program

Did you read what that NY Time study said? This is what the text says from the graph you linked.

"While the top marginal tax rate on ordinary income is 35 percent, the average rates the wealthy pay are much lower. Much of their earnings come from capital gains, interest and dividends, which are taxed at 15 percent. And because only income up to $106,800 is subject to the payroll tax, they pay lower effective rates than those who earn less."

They even confirmed that the the wealthy pay a lower tax rate. They are showing the tax rate on the income but what you are missing is that's just on the first $100k.

That page I linked goes into great detail because it explains the entire equation of what is paid across the board and doesn't cherry pick one small segment to try and make it appear that one group or the other pays more or less. The conclusion of that being the middle class pays the most tax burden.

Exactly. But it doesn't work that way. And with more and more jobs going overseas and more human jobs being replaced by machines, the actual creation of solid American based jobs at best is going to be temporary. It doesn't matter if taxes are raised or lowered, all of that is cannon fodder and this argument about who can create jobs (government doesn't create jobs) is nothing more than a distraction and false hope, because everyone needs hope.

Maybe the Fed will create another bubble, some experts say they are on the way to create a new housing bubble, and that would create temporary jobs. But like every bubble before it, it too will pop and here we are.

Like the porn industry changed, as did the world, the US job market, and the US government. It is a different game than it was 4, 8, or 10 years ago. What past Presidents did with taxes doesn't necessarily apply anymore. There isn't a "recovery." There is just now and before. One cycle or bubble followed by the next.

But I hope I'm proven wrong and it all magically goes back to glory days like when Clinton was the boss. However, we all know that's not going to happen.

Look closer at the chart, top income brackets pay 21%, fourth quintile and lower pay 16% or less... how can you keep a straight face and say that top income brackets pay lower %, when that's clearly not the case?

the whole thing was published in a liberal newspaper, if they can't backup your claim, no one can...

I'm assuming he had a company with expenses. And at least one or two "real" employees (not contractors).

He only grossed 900K for the whole year.

You do the math and there is no way he paid that much in federal income tax with his corporation.
As I said earlier, he then had to pay State income tax, local tax, property tax, and of course sales tax for everything in life.

If you figure a gross of $900,000 a year (which is what he said). Just ONE employee at $40,000 a year. An office space costing $12,000 a year,. Electric bill of $6,000 a year. Expenditures and supplies of maybe $50,000 a year (I don't know what his business was, I spend a lot more than that a year).
Then he said he hired more people (contractors so he didn't have to pay matching funds)

So let's say he only hired 2 more "contractors" at $40,000 a year. (I'm being conservative)

That leaves him with a theoretical $720,000 overall. That would mean that if he just straight up paid "only" $200,000 he would have been paying corporate federal income tax of 36%. Any accountant in the world could get that down in a hurry.

BUT...he said that he paid over a hundred grand for two of the quarters of that year (whatever year it was...he didn't specify). So that means he also paid 2 other quarters with a little less.

So now he's maybe at 300 grand or more he claims to have paid in Federal Corporate tax.
Now he has to pay State income tax. And local tax. And property tax.

Doesn't sound right to me at all. Anybody else on here that makes real money think that story rings true?

Wishful thinking. Obama was just in Asia discussing opening MORE US military bases in SE Asia. He wants to re-open a few bases that they used to have during Vietnam to show China that the USA has a strong presence in SE Asia. It's all complete madness. If that is not provoking the Chinese, I don't know what is.

That is kind of what Mitt Romney said in the debate with Obama. lol
He said his plan was to reduce capital gains taxes on Americans making less than a million. And keep them where they are now for over a million.

Obama's plan is to raise them across the board.

Good post! :thumbsup

You can't see the forest for the trees.. I realize it's nicer to look at charts but how can you not "READ" the text that goes along with the chart that you try to use as "proof". Specially after I copied and pasted it to this very topic so you couldn't miss it.

Seriously read the text and quit looking at the pretty little graphs.. :disgust

I'm not fully convinced by the story myself, but the numbers are in the right ballpark...

It's not clear what kind of business he ran, but likely it was some affiliate gig, so by "employees" and "contractors" he probably really meant hiring a designer for a grand or 2 here and there, not actual full time $50k/year employees.... and by "equipment" he really meant that he bought a new computer and monitor that year...

but if he had a real business with full time employees, office, etc, then yea you are right, the numbers don't add up very well...

This is what he said...which he specifically states he was tired of paying high taxes (so he apparently was looking for loopholes), and the way he says "equipment" and "advertising" leads me to believe he wasn't an affiliate. Affiliates (like me) ARE advertisers for products. We get paid to do the advertising. Not pay to advertise.

Anyway it sounded like more of a brick and mortar business. I'm just not sure it's real. Easy to type stuff on a keyboard anonymously:

And that will be unfortunate for all those poor bastards making $249,000.
They might even have to dump off their estates in the south of France.

While I agree with stopping the banker welfare as well as big business welfare and of course the defense budget is ridiculous tax cuts on the other hand for both lower & upper earners actually stimulate the economy and cause people to work.

It's just getting it in the right balance which is the trick.

The other thing is while I do agree that our defense spending is out of control it also does create jobs which are usually higher paying jobs. Meaning just out right cutting of a bunch of spending would likely cause more problem with a ripple effect than it might solve.

Again the trick is getting the right balance and perhaps trickling that spending into other areas that might more benefit the larger amount of the tax payers. Think instead of just cutting that 600 billion outright perhaps it would be better served using it to invest in this country's infrastructure on things like our roads, energy independence, education & health. (yes I look at education & health as a nation's infrastructure because the people are the very core of what makes up a country not the land they live on)

Yea know the things that might actually protect this country's future..

All i learn from these threads is that poor people who are barely employable seem to always know more about business, taxes and economics than rich people running multiple companies.

We do all know this is a proposal correct?

At first Obama suggested around 800 billion in new revenue from taxes. The republicans seemed willing to talk at that level. So when they met Obama kicked it up to 1.6 trillion and the republicans, as expected, balked. Now it is up to the republicans to make a counter offer. In theory both sites will counter and eventually we will find a happy medium. At this point, as far as I know, there has been no republican offer so we wait.

Republicans formula -----> spend more, less taxes

Democrats formula -----> spend more, more taxes


now which seems more reasonable?

the Republicans can talk about cutting spending but they sure didn't under Bush

so their plan is to just keep on racking up the debt and let another generation pay the price - at least Obama is being honest and saying what he's going to spend and he's going to pay for it by increasing taxes

dunno why people get their panties in a bunch, standard of living has never been as high - and the rich have gotten richer at the same time.

flat tax or national sales tax - no more of this bickering between rich and not so rich

those "millionaires" are a Democrat front group. Peter Schiff exposed them.

Raising taxes on the middle class slows the economy. It's been proven time and again. Therefore, not such a good idea.

Raising taxes on those who spend a proportionality smaller percentage of their income has a proportionality smaller impact on the economy. Therefore, less harm done.

Any number chosen will at least seem arbitrary. The numbers mentioned may or may not correspond precisely with the points I just made. The premise remains the same however.

People of all income brackets would do well to support the quickest way out of this fiscal mess.

And that means:

a) Grow the economy (the only real long term solution).
b) Raise additional funds short term in a manner that least hurts the economy.

It's really that simple.

Growing the economy will, of course, be the toughest part . . . but if we can't do that all bets are off in any case.

Dependance on the war machine has gotten America into this mess.

It will be painful at first but the benefits of moving away from a war based economy will quickly take hold of the economy.

There isn't a painless way to correct the problems facing america

Now is not the time to add thousands more to the unemployment lines.


Painless? No.

Non lethal? Hopefully.

I have paid exactly ZERO attention to any of this stuff.
Here's my question.

Supposedly 98% of Americans are not going to be affected at all no matter what.
The catch is the 2% left over.

98% of Americans is THE driving force of the economy.
What is EITHER party saying they are going to do FOR the 98%?

Seriously.
What is any of this taxing of anyone a "little bit more" going to do for our economy?
Remember 98% of americans will see NO Change at all. And they are the driving force of the economy.

Shouldn't we be spending this time trying to figure out how to get the 98% involved?

well said and when Bush was spending like a drunken sailor. The righties here didnt say a fucking word.
Also if the bush tax cuts were so great,why werent they made law? They controlled it all at the time and John McCain before lost his soul.He said to cut taxes during war time is stupid.

Take a cruise down Interstate 66 in Northern Virginia and realize most of those seemingly endless office buildings and towers are full of defense contractors and you will see a big part of our problem.

raising taxes on anyone slows down the economy... whether it's better to raise taxes on producers or consumers has been debated by economists for decades... there is really no conclusive evidence to support either side... so, raising taxes on higher income brackets is not exactly a "good idea" either, and no one can say with any level of confidence that that plan is any "better" than raising taxes on everyone...

The only reason this idea has traction because it doesn't effect 98% of the people...

(it actually does effect most people, but most people are too short sighted and too blinded by "us vs them" propaganda to see it....)

I hate how people forget that the Bush tax cuts were supposed to be temporary and now that decade of tax cuts that couldn't be supported needs to be made up for.

They should have never been. Things have to be put back in place.

If a can of soup has always sold at $1 and it goes on sale for 50 cents for a week nobody says "the price has gone up" afterwards because they realize it was a sale that ended.

The Bush tax cuts were a sale and it's ending.

That's not the original way it happened.

What happened was our country was running a SURPLUS.
I remember Bush on t.v. when he announced the tax cuts. He said (correctly), that the money belonged to the American people and he wanted to give it back.

That is the right thing to do. Bush was right 100%.

BUT...he turned around and started spending like a drunken sailor.

And not only on wars. But also on the prescription medication bill and tons of other social spending and foreign aid spending.

He never saw a chance to spend money that he didn't take.

And you're right that once he started spending like crazy we no longer had a surplus and it was time to re-think the whole thing.

But if he had kept govt. spending at the rate it was at...then yes, the tax cuts should have been done and the lower rates preserved.

And also don't forget that every year...until now...Obama said the tax cuts had to be kept because it was a "bad idea to raise taxes during a recession"

He only changed that when he ran for re-election this year and had to appeal to the tax and spend far left wing of his party. For his first 3 years he kept the "Obama tax cuts" firmly in place and lobbied to keep them.

Here's the real weirdness that at some point took hold in the US and Canada - people somehow got the idea that IF they went and got a college degree AND/OR worked hard that they should expect to be RICH, not just middle class, RICH. As in a McMansion, two nice cars, vacation/travel, retirement. It's delusional.

And I guess I do know where it comes from, endless exposure to entertainment and advertising where everybody IS rich.

Pipecrew posted a great website in another thread http://www.glassdoor.com - you can see the salaries people are making in different industries/sectors/companies. I'm Canadian so looked at what people are making who work in the public sector, cops, teachers, nurses - jesus christ, teachers making 100K and up, cops the same, firemen the same, university professors 200K, everybody in the 'free' healthcare sector making big incomes - then I looked at good jobs in the private sector for people who have put in the equal amount of college/university and work just as hard and without the great pensions and job security the public sector jobs have. Highly skilled computer programmers making 75K, a manager of a big box store which is no small job 80K, and on and on. It's all those people making 50-75K paying for the big salaries and pensions of the public sector.

Canada is pretty close to full out socialism and that's with a conservative Prime Minister. The US is becoming the same. Maybe it has to be that way whether you agree with it or not.

If people save for a rainy day so should the government because it is what fixes shit when it goes wrong (not debating if it should, just that it does).

Bush was just giving lip service.

The Iraq war was sold on a lie and was happening no matter what and he knew that. He wanted to be popular and spend like a drunken sailor.

Plus we had a surplus but we still had debt when Bush advocated for his tax cuts. Why not use the surplus to pay down the debt?

Obama was still dealing with extremely high unemployment until just recently. Now it's high or maybe really high.

We can't keep waiting though. The world is losing faith unless we can show we have a plan.

Congress "save"???? I think you know better than that. That money was gonna go in somebodies pockets back in their home states.
That's how Senators and Representatives get rich.

You're thinking like an honest person. But those people in Congress and The Senate are a bunch of scam artists and con artists.

The other side of the entitlement coin that nobody talks about. They feel so entitled that they don't want to pay their fair share of taxes because they want to spend all of their money on themselves. They want a new $45k SUV but forgets who builds the roads it rides on. They want a McMansion in that new neighborhood but don't realize infrastructure needs to be built to support it but don't want to pay for it.

I just looked up the average salary of ELEMENTARY school teachers. Holy fuck! They make over 50 grand a year! And that's an average of the bottom rung of teaching.
http://www1.salary.com/Teacher-Eleme...ol-Salary.html

Same for cops:
http://www1.salary.com/police-officer-Salary.html

That doesn't count the teachers with tenure and PHD's or the cops who are detectives and lieutenants, etc.

No wonder every city and county and state in the U.S. is going broke.

I am thinking like an honest person. Fatal flaw. Weird how the dishonest people always bubble to the top.