Obama's Opening Gambit: $1.6 Trillion More in Revenue Over Next Decade

[CrusaderFrank]

1.6T revenue over a decade vs. annual Obama trillion deficits, who wins?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

 

[TakeAStepBack]

And the numbers are projections. The richest folks will just use loopholes etc..to avoid payment. Does anyone really think 200k a year is a "rich" persons salary? Ever been to NYC? Ever been to San Fran? Ever been to LA? Ever been to Chicago?

The middle income families are going to eat this the hardest.

 

[Rshermr]

And the numbers are projections. The richest folks will just use loopholes etc..to avoid payment. Does anyone really think 200k a year is a "rich" persons salary? Ever been to NYC? Ever been to San Fran? Ever been to LA? Ever been to Chicago?

The middle income families are going to eat this the hardest.

Really. Care to explain that?
Really, step, the income level that would trigger a higher tax rate is not settled yet, but will probably be 250K or more. So, what does that mean? It means your gross income was over $300K. So, lets take an example. Your gross income is $400K. The new tax code says you pay more at over $250K. So you do your taxes, take off your deductions, and your taxable income is $330K. Only $70K in deductions. So, the new tax rate is increased by 4% on taxable income over $250K. Or, in this case, on $80K. So, the additional tax paid would be about $3.2K. On a gross income of $400K. If you make a wage of $400K, can you stand that additional tax? Less than 1% on gross income.
We are talking about taking the rates back to where they were during the Clinton admin. You know, when the economy was great, unemployment was low, and we had the first deficit in the past half century, and more. An additional 4% of tax over the top income, be it $250K or whatever. And repubs have been screaming like it was the end of the world.
So, you need to get a little truth into your argument. People making $200 or $250K, or even $300k, will pay NOTHING more than they did before. And yes, step, I have been in SF, NY, LA, and Chicago. Had employees in all of those cities. And no, it is not a big deal in any of these cities. You can live really well making $250K in any of these cities. However, the unemployed can not, in any of these cities.
So, want to explain why you believe the middle class, who will not face tax increases in this plan, would be the worst hit???

 

[Rshermr]

$1 trillion more in revenue...over TEN years.
But $1 trillion in additional spending EVERY YEAR...hmm...some folks just can't add.

Yes, well, only you can see the future.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

And the numbers are projections. The richest folks will just use loopholes etc..to avoid payment. Does anyone really think 200k a year is a "rich" persons salary? Ever been to NYC? Ever been to San Fran? Ever been to LA? Ever been to Chicago?

The middle income families are going to eat this the hardest.

Really. Care to explain that?
Really, step, the income level that would trigger a higher tax rate is not settled yet, but will probably be 250K or more. So, what does that mean? It means your gross income was over $300K. So, lets take an example. Your gross income is $400K. The new tax code says you pay more at over $250K. So you do your taxes, take off your deductions, and your taxable income is $330K. Only $70K in deductions. So, the new tax rate is increased by 4% on taxable income over $250K. Or, in this case, on $80K. So, the additional tax paid would be about $3.2K. On a gross income of $400K. If you make a wage of $400K, can you stand that additional tax? Less than 1% on gross income.
We are talking about taking the rates back to where they were during the Clinton admin. You know, when the economy was great, unemployment was low, and we had the first deficit in the past half century, and more. An additional 4% of tax over the top income, be it $250K or whatever. And repubs have been screaming like it was the end of the world.
So, you need to get a little truth into your argument. People making $200 or $250K, or even $300k, will pay NOTHING more than they did before. And yes, step, I have been in SF, NY, LA, and Chicago. Had employees in all of those cities. And no, it is not a big deal in any of these cities. You can live really well making $250K in any of these cities. However, the unemployed can not, in any of these cities.
So, want to explain why you believe the middle class, who will not face tax increases in this plan, would be the worst hit???

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Dante, Obama is spending 1.2-1.5 trillion per year. So 1.6 trillion over a decade is just going to be like spitting on the fire without cuts.

He has to cut welfare. That's dead weight around this nations neck.


I might accept this on those making a million or more per year only if...
-Welfare is cut back to 2006 levels
-Welfare reform
-Corporate bail-outs are either ended or they're forced to pay it back

What was welfare spending in 2006 and what is it now?

Government Spending Chart: United States 1985-2015 - Federal State Local Data

In 2006 it was 0.25 T. Under current policy in 2013, 2014, and 2015 it will be 0.42 T, 0.40 T, and 0.40 T respectively. The savings over that 3 year period then is 0.47 T - or about 160 billion per year.

Yet you're saying that 1.6 T over 10 years - or 160 billion a year - is like spitting in the fire.

You can't have it both ways, can you?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Wow 1.6 trillion in added revenue, nice, verse what about 4 or 5 trillion in added spending...heh...you guys are so funny.

stop using old talking points and stop being an idiot

Revenue increases are meaningless unless spending cuts share equal priority.

that is a partisan argument substituting as an agreed upon fact

 

[KissMy]

Don't fall for the tax rate nonsense. Effective tax rates are what you must go by. The loopholes & low dividend tax rate are the whole problem. When you look at total tax revenue & not just income tax, the rich are actually paying lower effective tax rate than the poor/middle class. Government is letting the people at the top pay a lower percent tax than the rest.

Investment flows to where it receives a greater return. That means if the rich are taxed less thereby producing more efficiently than the rest of us who are taxed more, we all become surf's & they become our super wealthy masters. That is what is wrong with this country. All forms of income including dividends must be taxed at the same rate. Loopholes for the rich must be eliminated. According to free market capitalist Adam Smith the father of modern economics there should also be a slight progressiveness to taxes that allows the people at the bottom pay a lower rate than the people at the top. Currently it is inverted & regressive.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

We need to invest in jobs and the military is a big part in that...Giving out welfare money to abled bodied adults isn't as wise.

classic. no one is arguing the above.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Obama's Opening Gambit: $1.6 Trillion More in Revenue Over Next Decade
Obama Sets Steep Tax Target
President to Seek $1.6 Trillion More in Revenue, Double Level From 2011 Talks
White House Sets Steep Tax Target - WSJ.com

President Barack Obama will begin budget negotiations with congressional leaders Friday by calling for $1.6 trillion in additional tax revenue over the next decade, far more than Republicans are likely to accept and double the $800 billion discussed in talks with GOP leaders during the summer of 2011.

Mr. Obama, in a meeting Tuesday with union leaders and other liberal activists, also pledged to hang tough in seeking tax increases on wealthy Americans. In one sign of conciliation, he made no specific commitment to leave unscathed domestic programs such as Medicare, leaving the door open to spending cuts many fellow Democrats oppose.

It's on.

Well, that negates the $1,000,000,000,000+ trillion annual deficits.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

This thread is a joke right?

no, but your posts usually are

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Obama's Opening Gambit: $1.6 Trillion More in Revenue Over Next Decade
Obama Sets Steep Tax Target
President to Seek $1.6 Trillion More in Revenue, Double Level From 2011 Talks
White House Sets Steep Tax Target - WSJ.com

President Barack Obama will begin budget negotiations with congressional leaders Friday by calling for $1.6 trillion in additional tax revenue over the next decade, far more than Republicans are likely to accept and double the $800 billion discussed in talks with GOP leaders during the summer of 2011.

Mr. Obama, in a meeting Tuesday with union leaders and other liberal activists, also pledged to hang tough in seeking tax increases on wealthy Americans. In one sign of conciliation, he made no specific commitment to leave unscathed domestic programs such as Medicare, leaving the door open to spending cuts many fellow Democrats oppose.

It's on.

game on

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Also - the OP speaks like a true liberal underachiever.
As one of those "rich" folks who doesn't pay their "fair share" I am sure if he had any success in his life and actually paid $40-$60k in income taxes a year he would be able to understand the frustration of shelling out that kind of money..and having half the population say you need to pay more! (many of which pay ZERO income tax)
By Obama's measure my wife and I are rich. Whatever. I sure don't feel rich.
Let him put a 2nd mortgage on his home bankrolling a business venture...or work on a business idea at night while working a full time job during the day.
Obama has never done anything of the sort - and neither do most people who want to punish those who do better than them.
How many companies has obama worked 60 hours a week trying to grow the business??
Myself - I currently have 19 families depending on the business I operate.
I can tell you for an absolute fact - raise my taxes, the businesses taxes and let the Obama care hammer fall in 2014 - I doubt very seriously 19 will be left.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Also - the OP speaks like a true liberal underachiever.
As one of those "rich" folks who doesn't pay their "fair share" I am sure if he had any success in his life and actually paid $40-$60k in income taxes a year he would be able to understand the frustration of shelling out that kind of money..and having half the population say you need to pay more! (many of which pay ZERO income tax)
By Obama's measure my wife and I are rich. Whatever. I sure don't feel rich.
Let him put a 2nd mortgage on his home bankrolling a business venture...or work on a business idea at night while working a full time job during the day.
Obama has never done anything of the sort - and neither do most people who want to punish those who do better than them.
How many companies has obama worked 60 hours a week trying to grow the business??
Myself - I currently have 19 families depending on the business I operate.
I can tell you for an absolute fact - raise my taxes, the businesses taxes and let the Obama care hammer fall in 2014 - I doubt very seriously 19 will be left.

give it a break willya wilma?

 

[daveman]

stop using old talking points and stop being an idiot

Revenue increases are meaningless unless spending cuts share equal priority.

that is a partisan argument substituting as an agreed upon fact

You're entitled to your own opinion. You're not entitled to your own math.

And Obama's simply doesn't add up.

 

[oldfart]

Myself - I currently have 19 families depending on the business I operate.
I can tell you for an absolute fact - raise my taxes, the businesses taxes and let the Obama care hammer fall in 2014 - I doubt very seriously 19 will be left.

I think you need to change accounting firms. Businesses with less than 50 full-time equivalent employees are exempt from the employer mandate. I get paid for noticing things like that.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Put the worthless back to work by passing a bill that
-Rebuilds our infrastructure
-Takes our energy grid into the 21st century
-Reforms welfare to require some sort of education to be on it

Grow the economy and cut the waste.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Revenue increases are meaningless unless spending cuts share equal priority.

that is a partisan argument substituting as an agreed upon fact

You're entitled to your own opinion. You're not entitled to your own math.

And Obama's simply doesn't add up.

add up to what?

 

[daveman]

that is a partisan argument substituting as an agreed upon fact

You're entitled to your own opinion. You're not entitled to your own math.

And Obama's simply doesn't add up.

add up to what?

An effective strategy for lowering the debt.