Obama's Plan: Tax the Wealthy

Change the channel, Pubbots- you're kept absolutely clueless....


Federal Budget

President Obama’s Plan for Dealing with the Deficit
A Balanced Plan that Most Americans Embrace

SOURCE: AP/Evan Vucci

By Michael Ettlinger and Michael Linden | September 19, 2011

PRINT: SHARE: There is little disagreement among Americans over the need for long-term federal deficit reduction. We cannot maintain all of our current spending and tax policies without accumulating a dangerous level of debt. On this, nearly everyone—left, right, and center—agrees. The differences are over the best ways to reduce the deficit, who should bear the burden, and how quickly we should be moving to reduce the deficit given the current jobs crisis. The plan released today by President Barack Obama offers a balanced plan that stands in stark contrast to the extreme vision embodied in the budget resolution passed this spring by Republicans in the House of Representatives.

First, President Obama’s plan. It is the embodiment of the “balanced approach” that he has been calling for from the beginning—and that we know from poll after poll that the American people want. His plan includes about $1 trillion in cuts to domestic programs and the military over the next 10 years plus another $1 trillion in savings from reduced overseas military operations. It identifies $250 billion in cuts from programs such as agriculture subsidies, which experts from both sides have pointed to as being inefficient or outdated. And it includes $320 billion in savings from Medicare and Medicaid but accomplishes those savings without merely shifting the burden of health care costs on senior citizens. Together, the president’s plan relies on more than $3.5 trillion in spending reductions over the next 10 years.

The president’s plan also asks the wealthiest to pitch in to help bring down the federal deficit. His plan includes about $1.5 trillion in additional revenue, compared to what the government would collect under current revenue policies. Over the past 15 years, effective tax rates (the amount of taxes someone pays as a share of their income) for the wealthy have plunged. Since the mid-1990s, the effective rate for millionaires has declined by nearly a quarter. The effective rate for the richest 400 taxpayers in the country has been slashed even more, dropping by nearly 50 percent.

President Obama is simply asking these households, who have seen their real incomes skyrocket at the same time that their tax rates have plunged, to pitch in along with the middle class. This revenue goes primarily to deficit reduction but also to pay for the job creation plan the president proposed earlier in the month.



Of course, the tax aspect of the president’s plan will prompt howls of protest from the right wing. But it is worth noting that the revenue level in the president’s proposal is lower than what the chairmen of the president’s fiscal commission called for, lower than what the Bipartisan Policy Center’s debt reduction task force called for, lower than what the bipartisan Gang of Six called for, and lower than what the Center for American Progress called for. The inevitable, stale charges of “class warfare” notwithstanding, it is obvious that there is actually room for even more revenue as part of long-term deficit reduction.

For all its balance and common sense, the president’s plan will still be painful to implement. Deficit reduction always is. The hundreds of billions in cuts to domestic programs, public services, and vital economic investments will be particularly difficult to stomach. But the overall sacrifices will be broadly shared, which lessens the burden that any one segment of society—seniors, children, students, low-income families, the middle class, the wealthy—will have to bear on its own. This fact, more than any other, sets the president’s plan apart from the alternative.

That alternative is the budget plan, passed by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives this past spring. The centerpiece of that plan is a huge tax cut for the wealthy, paid for, in part, by asking everyone else to pay more. Under the House plan, seniors would pay more for health care and lose the guarantee that Medicare and Medicaid would always be there for them when they need it. Education, transportation, scientific research, and other basic public investments would be slashed to levels not seen in generations. And the Republican plan contains absolutely no measures to help spur job creation.

In fact, it dives immediately into massive deficit reduction, which economists of all stripes say is precisely the wrong thing to do at this moment. Fundamentally, the House plan is to ask more of the middle class, of seniors, and of the poor, all the while giving additional tax benefits to the wealthy—while doing nothing to immediately address the jobs situation.

If we want to achieve significant deficit reduction over the next 10 years, these are the choices we are going to have to make. If we choose to keep all of our current tax policies in place—extending all the Bush tax cuts as well as every existing tax break for millionaires and corporations—or if we go even further and continue to cut taxes for the wealthy, we simply will not be able to maintain popular and successful programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security in their current forms, let alone fund medical research, rebuild our crumbling roads and bridges, improve our educational system, invest in renewable energy, or provide a strong social safety net.

The other option is to make reasonable changes to the tax code that raise more money from those most able to afford the additional costs, so that the cuts that the middle class, the poor, and seniors have to bear are less damaging. That’s the definition of a balanced approach, and that is what President Obama offered today.

This is a choice the American people will have to make now and over the long term. It won’t happen in one budget or in one election. But over time the public’s preference will win. And for all the antigovernment platitudes and noise, the American people may want spending cut as part of deficit reduction but they value the programs that account for the vast bulk of public spending. And with taxes at record lows, further tax cutting at the price of slashing those programs is not what the American voters want. They want the type of balanced approach the president is offering.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/23/us/politics/obama-romney-race-could-help-fuse-deficit-deal.html
 
If any politician really believed higher taxes will lower the debt, they would be proposing letting ALL the Bush tax cuts expire.

Since none of them has, I take everything they say as nothing more than pandering assholery. Gimme gimme gimme, and make that guy over there pay for it.

.
 
Last edited:
There is natural income inequality and there is unnatural income inequality, just as there is natural physical inequality and unnatural physical inequality.

Natural physical inequality arises when one person works out every day, several hours a day, and then goes on to win a gold medal at the Olympics. Meanwhile, his classmate plays video games during every free moment.

Unnatural physical inequality arises when one athlete takes "performance enhancing" drugs and another athlete does not.



Natural income inequality arises when one person works harder than another. If two people go to the same schools, use the same roads and bridges, and have access to the same bank loans, and only one takes the risk of starting a business and then wildly succeeds, he or she rightfully has a shit ton more money than the one who did not take the risk.

Punishing the rich person with higher taxes for his rightful success out of class envy is the sure path to the destruction of our economy and our nation. Whining that he did not build the roads and bridges is literally counter-productive.


Unnatural income inequality is not caused by allowing the rich to keep their money. It is caused by one person being given legislative advantages that another person is not given. And taxing both of them more only exacerbates the unnatural differences between them.

An example of such unnatural legislative advantages are tax breaks for a mining company or an alternative energy company or any other industry.

Other examples are the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 and the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000. These two acts are transferring massive amounts of wealth from the common man's pocket into the pockets of a select few by way of your 401k, your insurance companies, your city treasuries, your public employee pension plans, and many other avenues.

Raising taxes does not repair unnatural income inequalities.

If a thief was allowed by the authorities to come into your house and take your stuff, how is raising taxes on a guy who lives in a bigger house than you going to stop that?

It won't. In fact, if the thief is taxed more, he is going to steal more to make up the difference.

We need to stop the thieves, not punish the productive.

Therefore, raising taxes is not going to reduce the unnatural income inequalities we see in America today.


.

How does my 401K transfer money into anyone's pocket other than my own? Who is this "thief" you are referring to?
 
What's up with that shitheaded reasoning? "Does nothing to reduce the deficit."
1) Yes, it will do something to reduce the deficit. More taxes=less deficit, all other things being equal.
2) The rich control the government. If they're paying for more of it, they might want less of it, which equals less deficit and less tyranny.

Throughout our history, more taxes has meant more spending.

.

And less taxes meant more spending
 
How does my 401K transfer money into anyone's pocket other than my own? Who is this "thief" you are referring to?

Did you notice any losses in 2008? Are you happy with the pennies they are throwing your way now?

You are easy to keep happy with just a few cents.

And when your nest egg takes another hit in the Too Big To Save crash, will you again wonder what thieves I am talking about?

Your 401k manager thinks proximity to your money makes him intelligent. He isn't. He is easily bought with hookers and blow and box seats into buying toxic derivatives. That was the cause of the last meltdown and the cause of the next one. The clients actually demanded this toxic shit by the trillions. That's how profoundly stupid they are. Wall Street is extremely good at marketing if nothing else.

The brokers who sell him that shit call it "ripping his face off" and they laugh themselves silly every time they do it.



.
 
Last edited:
What's up with that shitheaded reasoning? "Does nothing to reduce the deficit."
1) Yes, it will do something to reduce the deficit. More taxes=less deficit, all other things being equal.
2) The rich control the government. If they're paying for more of it, they might want less of it, which equals less deficit and less tyranny.

Throughout our history, more taxes has meant more spending.

.

And less taxes meant more spending

Which means?

Come on. You are almost there...

That's right! The problem is SPENDING , not low taxes! Very, very good!
 
How many of you swallow this "plan" which does nothing to reduce the deficit or create real (i.e., private sector) jobs? Please explain how raising taxes on people who earn more than you do will benefit you, other than allowing an outlet for your envy. Thank you for your thoughtful response.

It does reduce the deficit. Idiot.
 
16 trillion in debt ... so someone's taxes have to go up, businesses, the rich, the middle class ....

For those who believe in higher taxes, yes. They must go up for everyone.

This "tax the rich" crap is pandering assholery, not logical fiscal policy.

.
 
16 trillion in debt ... so someone's taxes have to go up, businesses, the rich, the middle class ....

For those who believe in higher taxes, yes. They must go up for everyone.

This "tax the rich" crap is pandering assholery, not logical fiscal policy.

.

A 39.?% top bracket didnt hurt anyone when Clinton was President.

But hey - history doesn't matter, only Republican ideology.
 
16 trillion in debt ... so someone's taxes have to go up, businesses, the rich, the middle class ....

For those who believe in higher taxes, yes. They must go up for everyone.

This "tax the rich" crap is pandering assholery, not logical fiscal policy.

.

A 39.?% top bracket didnt hurt anyone when Clinton was President.

But hey - history doesn't matter, only Republican ideology.

Hey, dumbshit. The Bush tax cuts didn't just cut taxes for the top bracket.

If you are saying Clinton's higher taxes on the rich didn't hurt anyone, well then! Clinton's higher taxes on the middle class didn't either.

Thanks for proving my statement about the assholery and illogic of the "tax the rich" scheme.

.
 
16 trillion in debt ... so someone's taxes have to go up, businesses, the rich, the middle class ....

For those who believe in higher taxes, yes. They must go up for everyone.

This "tax the rich" crap is pandering assholery, not logical fiscal policy.

.

Well of course its pandering. I think everyone knows taxes have to go up.Higher taxes aren't the solution, and should be coupled with serious spending cuts, but taxes will have to be raised.

Now the question becomes, would you rather raise taxes on a very small percent of people who wouldn't be voting for you anyway, or on the majority of americans?
 
A 39.?% top bracket didnt hurt anyone when Clinton was President.

But hey - history doesn't matter, only Republican ideology.


Here's some history:

Marginal tax rates (married filing jointly) under Clinton:

15.0% 0 - $57,420

28.0% $57,420 - $138,765

31.0% $138,765 - $211,423

36.0% $211,423 - $377,467

39.6% $377,467+


Marginal tax rates (married filing jointly) post Bush tax cuts:

10.0% 0 - $17,000

15.0% $17,000 - $69,000

25.0% $69,000 - $139,350

28.0% $139,350 - $212,300

33.0% $212,300 - $379,150

35.0% $379,150+



Almost EVERYONE paid higher taxes under Clinton.

Which means what, under your ideology?

That's right! Letting ALL the Bush tax cuts expire would not hurt anyone.

Very, very good!

.
 
Last edited:
16 trillion in debt ... so someone's taxes have to go up, businesses, the rich, the middle class ....

For those who believe in higher taxes, yes. They must go up for everyone.

This "tax the rich" crap is pandering assholery, not logical fiscal policy.

.

Well of course its pandering. I think everyone knows taxes have to go up.Higher taxes aren't the solution, and should be coupled with serious spending cuts, but taxes will have to be raised.

Now the question becomes, would you rather raise taxes on a very small percent of people who wouldn't be voting for you anyway, or on the majority of americans?


I would rather legislatively level the playing field so that we are a free market capitalist system again. That would return us to a natural economic balance and solve our revenue problems.

The problem is not low taxes, although they could certainly do with the kind of reform championed by Paul Ryan.

.
 
How many of you swallow this "plan" which does nothing to reduce the deficit or create real (i.e., private sector) jobs? Please explain how raising taxes on people who earn more than you do will benefit you, other than allowing an outlet for your envy. Thank you for your thoughtful response.

Taxing the top 1% will fix practically everything. With new revenues, we can repair our decaying infrastructure, which will add a great deal of new private-sector construction jobs to the economy. Our center of wealth is in our bridges and roads. We can also build new alternative transportation like sidewalks and bike lanes, which will lessen our dependency on foreign oil.

That has to be one of the dumbest claims posted in this forum in many months.

It is also the top 1% who are destroying the economy with their tax benefits.

ROFL!

You're killing me!

They are the ones who are shipping all our jobs overseas, and the companies paying the least amount in taxes are the ones who are hiring the least. In the 1990s, the wealthiest Americans payed a much higher tax rate than lower-income people did, and we had a balanced budget and the best economy in U.S. history.

Corporate taxes are one thing. Personal taxes are another. You don't give corporations an incentive to keep jobs in the country by raising taxes on them. Our economy did well during the 90s because the Republicans kept government spending low. The peace dividend accounted for a lot of this. Welfare reform, which Clinton fought tooth and nail, was another big part of it. Higher tax rates had nothing to do with it.

1) Without public transportation, customers would not be able to shop at private-sector businesses, and distributors would not be able to ship their products to retailers.

2) Bill Clinton and the Republican-led Congress enacted welfare reform in the 1990s. He signed the bill, they voted for it. Bill Clinton balanced the budget all by himself with the line-item veto. He would have exploded the deficit if he had signed every spending bill that the GOP-led congress sent him.

3) The top 1% are, in point of fact, destroying the economy. The billionaire bankers and investment firms illegally foreclosed peoples' homes, which led to a ripple-effect of destruction throughout the economy, and the corporate whores in congress and the Bush Administration bailed them out in 2008. The bankers, in turn, spent their bailout money on employee bonuses.

Any responses to that, other than childish name-calling and ad hominem attacks?
 
3) The top 1% are, in point of fact, destroying the economy. The billionaire bankers and investment firms illegally foreclosed peoples' homes, which led to a ripple-effect of destruction throughout the economy, and the corporate whores in congress and the Bush Administration bailed them out in 2008. The bankers, in turn, spent their bailout money on employee bonuses.

Bankers and investment firms are a tiny minority of the top one percent. The top one percent are small business owners and the like. You are surrounded by them.

You are the kind of person I was talking about when I asked if a thief is stealing from you how would taxing the guy in a bigger house than you fix that. The answer is that it wouldn't. You are punishing the wrong people.

The problem is not that rich people are taxed too little. The problem is in the unleveling of the playing field in our legislation, and in too much government spending.
.
 
Last edited:
For those who believe in higher taxes, yes. They must go up for everyone.

This "tax the rich" crap is pandering assholery, not logical fiscal policy.

.

A 39.?% top bracket didnt hurt anyone when Clinton was President.

But hey - history doesn't matter, only Republican ideology.

Hey, dumbshit. The Bush tax cuts didn't just cut taxes for the top bracket.

If you are saying Clinton's higher taxes on the rich didn't hurt anyone, well then! Clinton's higher taxes on the middle class didn't either.

Thanks for proving my statement about the assholery and illogic of the "tax the rich" scheme.

.

And the Bush tax cuts on the middle class shold be axed when the economy has recovered.
 
A 39.?% top bracket didnt hurt anyone when Clinton was President.

But hey - history doesn't matter, only Republican ideology.


Here's some history:

Marginal tax rates (married filing jointly) under Clinton:

15.0% 0 - $57,420

28.0% $57,420 - $138,765

31.0% $138,765 - $211,423

36.0% $211,423 - $377,467

39.6% $377,467+


Marginal tax rates (married filing jointly) post Bush tax cuts:

10.0% 0 - $17,000

15.0% $17,000 - $69,000

25.0% $69,000 - $139,350

28.0% $139,350 - $212,300

33.0% $212,300 - $379,150

35.0% $379,150+



Almost EVERYONE paid higher taxes under Clinton.

Which means what, under your ideology?

That's right! Letting ALL the Bush tax cuts expire would not hurt anyone.

Very, very good!

.

Actually, no. Increasing taxes on the middle class is precisely the wrong thing to do until the economy is fully recovered.
 
Obama's Plan: Tax the Wealthy
Romney's plan:


"Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has a prescription for controlling soaring costs within the $2.8 trillion U.S. healthcare system, partly by making consumers pay more of their own medical bills.

Romney's vow to repeal and replace President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul has played prominently in the campaign, even as Romney has offered few details about his alternative.

But as he prepares to face Obama in their first presidential debate on Wednesday, Romney is giving a few hints. The former Massachusetts governor's advisers say he would accelerate the use of high-deductible insurance plans that offer lower premiums but require beneficiaries to pay thousands of dollars more in out-of-pocket expenses than they would face under conventional coverage."
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top