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

[Rshermr]

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.

So, let me understand this. You are screaming like a stuck pig about the possibility of having to pay an additonal 4% income tax on taxable income over $250K? And that was probably what made things so economically bad during the Clinton administration, correct? Except for a couple of inconvenient facts, such as very, very low unemployment, and very, very good economic growth. And of course there was that damned deficit. You know, like has never happened in a republican administration.
So you say you pay up to $60K in income taxes. So, at a low 20% tax rate, that would indicate you had taxable income of $300K. So, with a $250K base on which you will have to pay no additional income taxes, that would mean that you are paying an additonal 4% on $50K of taxable income. That would be an additional $2,000 per year. Or 0.667% on taxable income. So, at your upper end, that would be going from $60K to $62K. And when you pay $40K in taxes, it would indicate that you will pay exactly the same income taxes.
And then, there is the inconvenient truth that oldfart pointed out. You know, the whole 50 employee thing related to healthcare.
Looks to me like Obama is just going to kill your business.
So, lets all get together and sing Cry Me A River for IAm.......

 

[uscitizen]

...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...

I say give it to him...

So the WSJ says Obama wants more revenue. Hardly. What we know is Congress raising tax rates lowers revenue because we've seen the latest whitehouse.gov spreadsheet showing how revenue was falling before the '03 rate cuts, and stayed high until the '09 tax hikes:

Let's go with actions we can see and not all the talk we're hearing. The President's goal is not revenue, it's 'fairness' --even when it lowers revenue. I liked it better back when I paid lots of taxes on lots of income, but now we're looking at an era of revenge.

Wasn't FY 2009 Bush's last budget?

BTW 1.6 trillion is not a whole lot over a 10 year period.
160 billion per year?

 

[Rshermr]

...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...

I say give it to him...

So the WSJ says Obama wants more revenue. Hardly. What we know is Congress raising tax rates lowers revenue because we've seen the latest whitehouse.gov spreadsheet showing how revenue was falling before the '03 rate cuts, and stayed high until the '09 tax hikes:

Let's go with actions we can see and not all the talk we're hearing. The President's goal is not revenue, it's 'fairness' --even when it lowers revenue. I liked it better back when I paid lots of taxes on lots of income, but now we're looking at an era of revenge.

Wasn't FY 2009 Bush's last budget?

BTW 1.6 trillion is not a whole lot over a 10 year period.
160 billion per year?

Yes, it was Bush's budget. And by the way, not sure what tax increases the fed placed on taxpayers in '09. Income taxes did not increase at all. So, the tax increase reference looks rather phantom to me.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

It was a Democrat majority controlled budget. Bush signed it.

 

[uscitizen]

Bush signed it and fought to get TARP passed.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Fiscal Year 2009 - Budget Resolution - Senate Budget Committee

Final Passage
Conrad Statement Following House's Final Approval of Budget (June 5, 2008)
"With the adoption of our budget today, we have clearly demonstrated Democrats' ability to govern. For the second year in a row with Democrats controlling Congress, we have passed a budget. This stands in stark contrast to previous Congresses. In fact, this is the first time since 2000 that Congress has adopted a budget during an election year. And even more important, this fiscal plan sets the nation back on a path of fiscal responsibility."


Senate Passes FY 2009 Budget Resolution (June 4, 2008)
Washington, DC – The Senate today gave final approval to the fiscal year 2009 budget conference report. The five-year fiscal plan balances the budget; makes needed investments in energy, education, and infrastructure; and cuts taxes on the middle class. Importantly, the plan assumes no tax increase. It was adopted by the Senate on a bipartisan vote of 48-45. With an affirmative House vote expected Thursday, this will mark the first time Congress has adopted a budget during an election year since 2000.
“We have passed a fiscally responsible budget today,” said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND). “This plan provides tax relief for the middle class. It makes critical investments in energy, education, and infrastructure. And it returns the budget to surplus in 2012 and 2013. Passing this budget represents a major accomplishment

 

[TakeAStepBack]

And it was still a democrat budget. But I suppose you would have been thrilled if Bush sent it back. Because he was so well liked by 2008.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

It's totally balanced by 2012-2013.

You guys are such gullible suckers.

 

[uscitizen]

It's totally balanced by 2012-2013.

You guys are such gullible suckers.

Yeah and Bush was against nation building and the US being the police force for the world.
Wasn't he also for a balanced budget?

All overly partisan folks are suckers.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I'm sure he was. He ran a campaign, much like the current president, on a shit load of falsehoods adn lies.

What's your point though?

Because what is happening here is people are saying that the 2009 budget was a Bush budget, and that is inherently dishonest. The budget was built and passed by a democrat congressional majority. Furthermore, as seen above, they bolstered how great their budget was.

NOW? Well, now that's a Bush budget, because democrats are like little fucking kids that never want to fess up to being fuck ups. It's ALWAYS someone elses fault. And you people fall for it every single time.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Unhinged?

 

[uscitizen]

I'm sure he was. He ran a campaign, much like the current president, on a shit load of falsehoods adn lies.

What's your point though?

Because what is happening here is people are saying that the 2009 budget was a Bush budget, and that is inherently dishonest. The budget was built and passed by a democrat congressional majority. Furthermore, as seen above, they bolstered how great their budget was.

NOW? Well, now that's a Bush budget, because democrats are like little fucking kids that never want to fess up to being fuck ups. It's ALWAYS someone elses fault. And you people fall for it every single time.

Many on the right were for that additional spending on TARP, etc.
To deny this is to be like like little fucking kids that never want to fess up to being fuck ups. It's ALWAYS someone elses fault. And you people fall for it every single time.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I never said they were not.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

But i also never pinned the 2009 budget on Bush, because that is dishonest.

 

[Rshermr]

But i also never pinned the 2009 budget on Bush, because that is dishonest.

Ah. So the CBO is wrong about who's budget it was? Of course it was bush's budget. Who's budget did you think it was?
Here. Read and learn something.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/03/us/politics/03budget.html#
Certainly makes no sense to pin the budget on Bush, just because he approved it and sent it and sent it to the house, right?

 

[Rshermr]

It was a Democrat majority controlled budget. Bush signed it.

So, you are apparently saying the house and/or senate had some influence on it. That would be normal. But by signing it, bush agreed to it. It was, indeed, his budget.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

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.

Then you should be fired.
Healthcare premiums for most are going up on average 5% in 2013, and expected to go up another 4-6% in 2014. Which obviously means that the employer contribution amount is going up likewise.
I get paid for noticing things like that.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

It was a Democrat majority controlled budget. Bush signed it.

So, you are apparently saying the house and/or senate had some influence on it. That would be normal. But by signing it, bush agreed to it. It was, indeed, his budget.

You're beyond retarded. Congrats!

 

[Rshermr]

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.

Then you should be fired.
Healthcare premiums for most are going up on average 5% in 2013, and expected to go up another 4-6% in 2014. Which obviously means that the employer contribution amount is going up likewise.
I get paid for noticing things like that.

Health care costs family insurance premiums increased a little in '12, but that is much less than it has been for a number of years. Kaiser study:
"The cost of employer-sponsored family health insurance premiums jumped again this year, but the rate at which they rose slowed to historic lows, according to a new survey Tuesday.
For insured workers, the cost of buying health insurance for a family of four increased 4% to $15,745 in 2012, according to a survey conducted by Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust."
Health insurance premiums climb 4% in 2012 - Sep. 11, 2012

In recent years, prior to 2011, increases were much higher.

And employers are expecting to see another modest increase of 5 percent next year, the survey of 2,800 companies found. That's a far cry from the beginning of the decade, when employers reported increases of 10 percent to nearly 15 percent a year. Last year, benefit costs rose by 6.1 percent.
Read more: Health insurance premium growth slows | Money - WPTZ Home

sorry to see you are so disturbed by these increases. I am extremely happy to see premiums stop doubling every 7 years or so.

 

[Rshermr]

It was a Democrat majority controlled budget. Bush signed it.

So, you are apparently saying the house and/or senate had some influence on it. That would be normal. But by signing it, bush agreed to it. It was, indeed, his budget.

You're beyond retarded. Congrats!

Your opinion, step. And you know how much I respect your opinion. I just try to be honest.