Obama wants payroll tax on incomes above $250,000
 

what a dick!!

no doubt! what is it with democrats and their never ending creation of taxes!!

Well someone is going to have to pay for all the money that Republicans spend.

:thumbsup

You mean for the welfare state the democrats want to create?

SEE! its all a scam. Democrats lie to you and tell you they will fix your problems - just need a few more taxes. While the republicans are telling you they will stop those damn democrats by spending all that money and improving the economy... all the while they ALL skim the top!

WONDERFUL!!!!

That's pretty much what it comes down to and the Republicans always buy into the BS. Since Regan, the Republicans have gone tax cutting sprees and then massive spending campaigns.

Guess what you can't spend more than you bring in or you go broke. Hence the reason the last three Republican Presidents have doubled our national debit during each of their presidency's.

Then the Democrats come in and have to fix everything and raise taxes to actually pay for this shit that the Republicans fucked up.

:2 cents::2 cents:

I saw a graph of how Obama and McCain's taxes would shape up in reality, and Obama would be saving the majority of Americans almost $1000 in taxes every year, for people who make I think $20-40k or thereabouts annually.

For people who make over $2.9m annually, they would be pretty much assfucked, but I think it's the right solution to get America back on track financially.

Message to rich people: you voted republican. Now you have many trillions in debt. Who did you think was going to pay it?

Yea because it makes much more sense to take the tax dollars the American citizens pay and give welfare to big business while screwing the people in the tax bracket that pays the bulk of the taxes in this country.

Democrats = welfare for the tax payer.

Republicans = welfare for big business.

YEAH!!! Thats brilliant!!! I know, for me personally, I have always gotten my best jobs from people who make $20-40k a year!!!

I KNOW its not those people making millions who keep investing in new businesses, buying luxury homes and new boats. We wouldn't want to inpact those industries. Im sure if you double that guys taxes he'll still buy that next vacation home, that took 1,000's $20-$40k a year people to contribute at asome level to build. We DEFINATELY don't want to keep that going.

Do you even know who pays the BULK of the tax in this country?

Who Pays the Most Income Tax?
Higher income earners pay the most, Treasury says

By Robert Longley, About.com


IRS Tax Payments Tax Refunds Income Tax Rates Corporations Tax County Tax
Feeling overtaxed? Under the U.S. income tax system, most of the taxes collected are supposed to be paid by the people who make the most money. Thanks to President Bush's tax cuts, that is exactly the way the system works, says the U.S. Treasury Department.

According to the Office of Tax Analysis, the U.S. individual income tax is "highly progressive," with a small group of higher-income taxpayers paying most of the individual income taxes each year.

# In 2002 the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income.

# The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes in 2002. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group?s tax share has grown faster than their income share.

# Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 94 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000, 2001, and 2002, this group paid over 96 percent of the total.

Treasury Department analysts credit President Bush's tax cuts with shifting a larger share of the individual income taxes paid to higher income taxpayers. In 2005, says the Treasury, when most of the tax cut provisions are fully in effect (e.g., lower tax rates, the $1,000 child credit, marriage penalty relief), the projected tax share for lower-income taxpayers will fall, while the tax share for higher-income taxpayers will rise.

# The share of taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers will fall from 4.1 percent to 3.6 percent.

# The share of taxes paid by the top 1 percent of taxpayers will rise from 32.3 percent to 33.7 percent.

# The average tax rate for the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers falls by 27 percent as compared to a 13 percent decline for taxpayers in the top 1 percent.

The White House has announced it will lobby Congress to pass legislation making most of President Bush's tax cutting measures permanent.

Source: U.S. Treasury, Office of Tax Analysis

If i read that correctly - doesn't is say that Bush's tax cuts - ACTUALLY shifted more of the bourden to the WEALTHY???

A better breakdown:

Projected Share of Individual Income Taxes and Income in 2005
Share of Individual Income Taxes1


TAX BRACKET WITH CUT WITHOUT CUT
Top 1% 33.7 23.3
Top 5% 54.1 51.7
Top 10% 65.8 62.6
Top 25% 83.6 82.4
Top 50% 96.4 95.9
Bottom 50% 3.6 4.1

Source: http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/...s.update.p df

Why not just increase it for those that make multi-millions? Taxing people making $250k/year isn't taxing the "wealthy". If you increase taxes only for the super rich, they'll still be super rich. The historic trend has been that increased taxation during bad economic times makes it worse. People making $250k are a productive group. They're producers and entrepreneurs that don't make enough to sit on their laurels nor can afford to play golf all day like the super rich. If you're going to tax people in that bracket, limit it to those with government jobs. They're the only people with that type of income that have job security and don't do much of anything.

Said it before, I'll say it again:

http://www.fairtax.org

Then how do you explain this doug? Buffett pays 17.7% tax on $46 million, WITHOUT trying to pay less. That's just automatic. You know he's in the 1% of rich people who don't go out of their way to pay as little as possible too, so his 17.7% is HIGH.

June 26th, 2007

Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner.

Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”

Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.

....

Mr Buffett said that a Republican proposal to eliminate elements of inheritance tax, which raises about $30 billion a year from the assets of about 12,000 rich families, would broaden the disparity between rich and poor. He added that the Republicans would seek to recover lost revenue by increasing taxes for the less prosperous.

He said: “You could take that $30 billion and give $1,000 to 30 million poor families. Or should you favour the 12,000 estates and make 30 million families pay an extra $1,000?”

true ....

so maybe it wouldn't be so bad if a McBush is elected ... let him manage with the mess .. and create more ...

:2 cents:

This is Gfy man you cannot post facts that gfy people do not like. :winkwink:

Very well said! Agree 100%!!! :thumbsup

How is it fair to tax only the super rich? Does being successful mean they somehow owe it to the rest of society and get suckered into supporting their lazy asses?

Well using percentages is a good way to fool people into thinking that your argument is correct. Bottom line is that if these are right then the top 5% are making a shit load more money than they will ever need.

Regardless, the bottom line is that war is expensive and someone needs to pay. Or you can keep going deeper and deeper into debt and see how that goes. Either this generation can start to make a change for the better or you can pass it off to your kids or grand kids. I bet they would like being born into a world of slavery because their parents raped it for all it was worth.

I applaud Buffet. This makes no sense.

Get successful, and then be penalized for it.

Not a good way to run government, imho.

Remember, those successful (super rich as you call them) create jobs, spend more back into the economy, than over 95% of everyone else. Sticking it to them heavier simply because of their success is no solution, certainly not a long term one, which is what any country needs. (But especially the US) Remember, when you stick it to the rich and gouge them for more and more taxes, they tend to start doing things like.... oh, laying off thousands of employees, downsizing, spending less, etc, just like anybody would when faced with taxes that are unevenly balanced.

I'm not saying who to vote for, I am only saying that I wish one of the candidates would start thinking a little differently about their tax plans.

I didn't say to ONLY tax the super rich. I said, if there is going to be an increase in taxes, only increase it for the super rich. People making less than $250k are still paying taxes under McCain and Obama's plans, they're just not being increased.

90% of people earn less than $250k. You're saying that 90% of Americans are lazy? lol. Those are the employees of the super rich, the small business owners, the consumers that make the economy go round and round.

Read Buffet's statement to see why it's fair (or rather why the system right now is unfair).

It's not "fair", it's the only way! The other alternatives are what they do in... Myanmar, for example. Or Russia, or Cuba, or any other dictatorship. The greedy wealthy keep everything for themselves, throw a few peanuts at the peons, and could care less that everyone is suffering just outside their palace.

If you want that, move. There's like 100 countries where you can be king of your castle.

Anything that comes from that tools mouth should be considered garbage! The guy is a hack! He is nothing more than another Elitest scumbag! Personally - i dont have a problem with his tax bracket example...

he paid: $78MILLION in taxes...
she paid: $18,000 in taxes

Where's the problem? And.. i doubt she actually EMPLOYED anyone who paid into the tax system either... Plus.. I can GUANANTEE YOU she didn't pay that much in taxes, that 30% rate is before her own deductions.

Bring our troops home from Europe and Asia (never mind the middle east)and this would not even be a conversation.

The logic only works when you're talking about 'successful' people who make $250k. If you penalize these people, you can put them in dire straits. You create a huge underclass by penalizing the middle class and upper middle class. If you increases taxes on the super rich, they're still super rich. How is that penalizing them? You think the super rich are going to jump ship because they make $2 billion instead of $3 billion?

Let me ask this. There are many sides to the issue and many opinions about what is fair as far as taxes go. If the top 1% of the country control 90% of the wealth is it not then fair that they pay 90% of the taxes?

Is it her fault for accepting a job that doesn't entail hiring employees?

How would your business work, without EMPLOYEES like you?

They shouldn't be taxing people more, but spending less. Unfortunately both parties spend a shitload of money. At least Democrats don't lie about being the fiscally responsible party.

I'd rather our govt spent BILLIONS in the United States on American citizens then in Iraq/elsewhere. I don't see what is so scary about helping our own people. Sure the system will be abused but it's still better then anything else.

June 11th

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- John McCain and Barack Obama have starkly different philosophies about tax policy - how to raise the revenue needed to support government programs, spur growth and ensure economic fairness.

But voters really want to know one thing: How would the presidential candidates' views trickle down to their tax bills? A report released Wednesday by a nonpartisan policy group in Washington, D.C., takes a big first step toward answering that question.

Under both plans, all American taxpayers could pay a price for their tax cuts: a bigger deficit. The Tax Policy Center estimates that over 10 years, McCain's tax proposals could increase the national debt by as much as $4.5 trillion with interest, while Obama's could add as much as $3.3 trillion.

The reason: neither plan would raise the amount of revenue expected under current tax policy - which assumes all the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire by 2011. And neither plan would raise enough to cover expected government costs during those 10 years.

http://birdboard.com/taxbreakdown.jpg

Now before you come to a conclusion or judgment read the following below!




How Taxes Work

Since it is tax season....It's good to understand how taxes are paid.
Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten
comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something
like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with
the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since
you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the
cost of your daily beer by $20."Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so
the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But
what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they
divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted
that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man
would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each
man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work
out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued
to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to
compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed
to the tenth man," but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too.
It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back
when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get
anything
at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat
down
and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they
discovered something important. They didn't have enough money
between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how
our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the
most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them
for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact,
they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat
friendlier. Remember they are the ones who pay your wages, create jobs, and innovate.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia


:clap:And We ask ourselves why all the jobs are leaving? We are forcing them to look elsewhere!

Right, but you need people with disposable income to buy the goods and services. People with low incomes still drive, buy clothes, food, etc. The more you tax the less they can spend and they are the majority like it or not. fuck them too hard and you have a revolution on your hands.

That hack is one of the greatest stock market investors we've ever seen. And the elitist has given billions of dollars to charitiable organizations and plans to leave almost everything he has to them as well.

What a scumbag!

from the same article, another guy whose 10000x richer than you, who is voting democrat.

Lloyd Blankfein, the chief executive of Goldman Sachs, acknowledged in an interview yesterday that there were justified concerns about the huge profits generated by private equity firms and that he worried that income inequality was “poisoning democracy”. He also said that he would be voting for the Democrat candidate at the next election. Mr Blankfein is the highest-paid executive on Wall Street, earning $54 million last year.

No, your wrong entirely. The US produces the ONLY system in the world where you can move UP the social ladder from any starting point. NO WHERE else on earth do people live like they live here. Even our poor people would be considered very wealthy in most of the rest of the world.

There is a REASON everyone is trying to get here - its because everywhere else basically sucks! Part of that reason is because of our economic system. "The land of opportunity" is not just some made up bullshit - its actually the truth.

Taxes are inhibitive of growth! Especially when they are levied on the rich. Every dollar you take in additional income tax is another dollar not spent in the economy. That means, less taxes overall - since NONE of that money goes back into the economy creating industry, jobs, sales and MORE TAXES at every level of that economic production.

You can all sit here and try to restate all the spin you've heard on the telle all you want, but in truth, if you spent the time to go back and actually review the facts, you would see that EVERY TIME taxes have been cut (Kennedy, Reagan & Bush) the economy responded with record growth and total tax revenue INCREASED dramatically!

To say that the tax cuts have negatively impacted revenues - is an outright lie.

Yeah, I get the breaks to those who create the jobs and products and such.... but seriously, they're taxing the middle class to death to nickle and dime their way through a failing economy when, if they just taxed big business EQUALLY, then the income boost to the government would be massive.

You tax a $50k income earner more and more... why? When you can tax a $250k income earner the same % and bring in WAY MORE than you would by raising the $50k's taxes by 5%.

I don't think the solution is to jump out of the gate with a death blow big tax hike to big business but they are where the bigger money is. It only makes sense to dip your fingers into the bigger pile when you want a bigger hand full.

And in the end, isn't that desire of all politicians?

So? McCain wants to kill Porn, tax the Internet and then regulate it.

You are clearly are very pro-republican and probably wouldn't ever vote democrat.

Bush increased the wealthy and poor tax, both bushes did. Both hammered business in some ways. Both increased inflation.. Both improved social care for the poor some way or another.

McCain and Obama almost want the same thing, with a few minor view point differences, and half the crap they want they have no power to get or change.

It has also statistically been proven, economically and socially, that improving the welfare for the poor, the living, life around them, ect.. lowers crime rate, improves graduation levels, lowers drug crimes, increases jobs, house building, ect. Even removing graffiti has this effect.

Improving your poor improves your country, lots of facts can be found to back this up.

Your right - he's given billions!! Good for him! Good for those he's helped. And now it's the VERY system that allowed him to build the wealth that he has that he wants to criticize and reshape.

It may be that agenda driven comments from socialists are not the best, most unbiased people to quote.

Wow. You just took this to the extreme. There is a world outside of your boarder.

Unfortunately your argument is useless because in no time in history has your country simultaneously spent so much on war while at the same time reducing income and borrowing from foreign economies. Does it not scare you that China could very realistically have you by the balls someday soon? Not to mention Saudi Arabia which owns what 10% of the country already?

Even though I think Buffet has a good point, the reality is that increasing taxes on the super rich does cause them to invest (or hide their money) overseas rather than domestically. The super rich want to see profit increase every year despite the fact that they have enough money for their kid's grandchildren and their grandchildren for 100s of years.

So I guess cutting taxes for all may just be the best idea, especially since we're still in a recession due to the housing implosion and war - both of which are disastrous for economies.

You're 100% right!! and the BEST way to help the poor - is to kill the welfare system entirely! The system is NOT designed to help the poor - its designed to KEEP THEM POOR!

So then I suppose it is fair to say that the super rich are not really patriotic then and would rather make money than see their country prosper?

This has to be one of the stupidest statements that I have even seen on GFY.

You can disagree with what he is saying, but to say that Warren Buffet is an elitist is just fucking stupid.

I guess that elitist has replaced liberal in the Republican talking points.

Actually that's a complete and outright lie. Those periods were the periods of slowest growth in terms of tax revenues.

Lowering the oppressive tax rates of those times was a good thing, but making up bullshit facts to try and support your case is wrong. :thumbsup

Yes the USA is the only country in the world where one can get ahead in life. WOW

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

WHAT RECESSION??????????????? We are not in a recession!!!!!!!! geeeez!


You can say it all you want - but ECONOMISTS and ECONOMIC MEASURES have rules to follow - and the definition of a recession is TWO CONSECUTIVE QUARTERS OF NEGATIVE ECONOMIC GROWTH!!!!

Here's a hint for ya... we haven't even had one much less two - so No recession! Just because CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, FOX, MSNBC and the like say it every night - still don't make it true!!!!