Susan Estrich Obama has no mandate to raise my taxes

It seems not all liberals want their taxes raised..


susanestrich.jpg


I did not vote for Obama because I think I am paying too little in taxes.
Like many people I know, I am "rich" by Obama's standards. I pay more taxes, percentage wise, than Mitt Romney and Warren Buffett, because I earn virtually every penny of my income.

I work. And yes, all those deductions that allow the truly rich to not work, or at least to not work all the jobs I do, make me angry.

I am all for closing loopholes. I am all for ending deductions for things I don't even understand. But I am not for putting a low cap on deductions that would make it all but impossible for the charities I support to raise funds. I am not for putting a limit on the mortgage deduction that would mean, as a practical matter, that "middle class" (not rich) people in California would be priced out of the housing market, and the charities I support would not be able to raise what they need to survive.

And frankly, I don't think I'm alone. As a matter of fact, on this one, I don't think 51 percent of all Americans are to my "left" — if that's how you define the higher tax constituency.

Obama needs to be very careful. Yes, he was re-elected. But so were all those folks who blocked the extension of the Bush tax cuts if they excluded individuals and small businesses who make enough money to qualify as rich — but not enough to send their kids to college, or help their aging parents, or buy a home in a decent neighborhood.

We need to avoid going over the fiscal cliff. But Obama must also avoid the political cliff.
One of the amazing things about this country is that the middle class doesn't hate the rich. We are not a society divided by economic castes. Yes, there are real issues as the gap between the top and the middle, between CEOs and those in good but not great jobs, grows. But beginning a new term with what will look to many like a class war is not the way to fulfill the real mandate of this election, which is to bring us together, not turn us against each other.

(Susan Estrich is a professor of Law and Political Science at the University of Southern California Law Center. A best-selling author, lawyer and politician, as well as a teacher, she first gained national prominence as national campaign manager for Dukakis for President in 1988.)

Susan Estrich - I'm 'rich' & Obama has no mandate to raise my taxes

Suzy needs to get a better financial planner and stop whining. Obama is not up for any election now and he is free to do what he thinks is best for the country without regard to being "politically careful".
 
4% of 300,000 is 2,000?

You might want to double check your math

Why do conservatives have such a problem with the tax code?

You pay the same tax rate on the first $250,000 you make. The 4% only kicks in on money made above $250,000

Really? the deals done? If you pay 35% you pay 35% on the $250,000, if it is raised to 39% you pay 39% on the whole $250,000 minus deductions of course. There are not two tax rates for the same person idiot. Where did you get that idea?

Another example of why we shouldn't allow Conservatives to discuss tax brackets
 
It’s not up the federal government to decide how much people are allowed to make before they are punish for it. A flat tax would really be the only fair way to go, all these stupid crony deals for this group or that group are just that, special deals to buy votes

Do you want me to repeat the question?

Stupid question

Not when you insisted the other poster was wrong in his definition of the rich. How can you on the one hand declare him wrong,

and on the other declare it a 'stupid question' to ask you what you think the right answer is?
 
So,

if Obama did not get a mandate to let the top rates' cuts expire,

that means that the Republicans somehow got a mandate to extend them.

How the fuck does that work?? :lol:
 
Do you want me to repeat the question?

Stupid question

Not when you insisted the other poster was wrong in his definition of the rich. How can you on the one hand declare him wrong,

and on the other declare it a 'stupid question' to ask you what you think the right answer is?

Note to clueless, the Marxists in the democrat party don't know the defintion either, turds like you allow them to dictate it......
 
Too bad for Estrich, Obama thinks has the mandate to raise taxes and that is what he is going to do, so she should just sit back and enjoy it
 
4% of 300,000 is 2,000?

You might want to double check your math

The bracket starts at 250,000. 300,000 - 250,000 = 50,000.

The tax on 50,000 at 35% is $17500. The tax on 50,000 at 39% is $19500.

The difference is $2000.

This is the problem with this tax debate. Half the people arguing about it have no idea what the numbers are.


:rolleyes:
right so, why is it the dems and the media told us for 8 years that the bush tax cuts were for the rich, yet now if they all expire its Armageddon?

and, why didn't they trash him for signing on to an extension in 2010?

You mean why didn't anyone on the left say anything like this back then?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3057648-post42.html

:lol:
 
It seems not all liberals want their taxes raised..


susanestrich.jpg


I did not vote for Obama because I think I am paying too little in taxes.
Like many people I know, I am "rich" by Obama's standards. I pay more taxes, percentage wise, than Mitt Romney and Warren Buffett, because I earn virtually every penny of my income.

I work. And yes, all those deductions that allow the truly rich to not work, or at least to not work all the jobs I do, make me angry.

I am all for closing loopholes. I am all for ending deductions for things I don't even understand. But I am not for putting a low cap on deductions that would make it all but impossible for the charities I support to raise funds. I am not for putting a limit on the mortgage deduction that would mean, as a practical matter, that "middle class" (not rich) people in California would be priced out of the housing market, and the charities I support would not be able to raise what they need to survive.

And frankly, I don't think I'm alone. As a matter of fact, on this one, I don't think 51 percent of all Americans are to my "left" — if that's how you define the higher tax constituency.

Obama needs to be very careful. Yes, he was re-elected. But so were all those folks who blocked the extension of the Bush tax cuts if they excluded individuals and small businesses who make enough money to qualify as rich — but not enough to send their kids to college, or help their aging parents, or buy a home in a decent neighborhood.

We need to avoid going over the fiscal cliff. But Obama must also avoid the political cliff.
One of the amazing things about this country is that the middle class doesn't hate the rich. We are not a society divided by economic castes. Yes, there are real issues as the gap between the top and the middle, between CEOs and those in good but not great jobs, grows. But beginning a new term with what will look to many like a class war is not the way to fulfill the real mandate of this election, which is to bring us together, not turn us against each other.

(Susan Estrich is a professor of Law and Political Science at the University of Southern California Law Center. A best-selling author, lawyer and politician, as well as a teacher, she first gained national prominence as national campaign manager for Dukakis for President in 1988.)

Susan Estrich - I'm 'rich' & Obama has no mandate to raise my taxes

Suzy needs to get a better financial planner and stop whining. Obama is not up for any election now and he is free to do what he thinks is best for the country without regard to being "politically careful".

lol, I thought the same thing. For as long as she's been raking it in she has no investment income, no tax exempt or tax deferred income?
 

Suzy needs to get a better financial planner and stop whining. Obama is not up for any election now and he is free to do what he thinks is best for the country without regard to being "politically careful".

lol, I thought the same thing. For as long as she's been raking it in she has no investment income, no tax exempt or tax deferred income?

"...she first gained national prominence as national campaign manager for Dukakis for President in 1988.)"


:eusa_eh:
 
So,

if Obama did not get a mandate to let the top rates' cuts expire,

that means that the Republicans somehow got a mandate to extend them.

How the fuck does that work?? :lol:

hes already extended them once, I know thats inconvenient for the left, despite your remarks, its not all about you..and in an economy that was a 1.5% higher in GDP....


here ya go...Obama 2009...

"Well first of all he's right. Normally, you don't raise taxes in a recession, which is why we haven't and why we have, instead, cut taxes" Obama told NBC's Chuck Todd when Todd presented a question from a viewer named Scott who asked, "Explain how raising taxes on anyone during a deep recession is going to help with the economy any?"

Obama then added, "What I have to say to Scott is his economics are right. You don't raise taxes in a recession. We haven't raised taxes in a recession....we have not proposed a tax hike for the wealthy that would take effect in the middle of a recession. Even the proposal that have come out of Congress, which by the way were different than the proposals I put forward, still wouldn't kick in until after the recession was over. So he's absolutely right. The last thing you want to do is to raise taxes in the middle of a recession."


Read more: PICKET: Obama '09 - (VIDEO) You don't raise taxes on anyone during a recession - Washington Times PICKET: Obama '09 - (VIDEO) You don't raise taxes on anyone during a recession - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
 
The bracket starts at 250,000. 300,000 - 250,000 = 50,000.

The tax on 50,000 at 35% is $17500. The tax on 50,000 at 39% is $19500.

The difference is $2000.

This is the problem with this tax debate. Half the people arguing about it have no idea what the numbers are.


:rolleyes:
right so, why is it the dems and the media told us for 8 years that the bush tax cuts were for the rich, yet now if they all expire its Armageddon?

and, why didn't they trash him for signing on to an extension in 2010?

You mean why didn't anyone on the left say anything like this back then?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3057648-post42.html

:lol:

you have reading comprehension issues, but, I knew that.....:lol:
 
So,

if Obama did not get a mandate to let the top rates' cuts expire,

that means that the Republicans somehow got a mandate to extend them.

How the fuck does that work?? :lol:

hes already extended them once, I know thats inconvenient for you, but deal with it, care to square this circle? and in an economy that was a 1.5% higher in GDP....


here ya go...Obama 2009...

"Well first of all he's right. Normally, you don't raise taxes in a recession, which is why we haven't and why we have, instead, cut taxes" Obama told NBC's Chuck Todd when Todd presented a question from a viewer named Scott who asked, "Explain how raising taxes on anyone during a deep recession is going to help with the economy any?"

Obama then added, "What I have to say to Scott is his economics are right. You don't raise taxes in a recession. We haven't raised taxes in a recession....we have not proposed a tax hike for the wealthy that would take effect in the middle of a recession. Even the proposal that have come out of Congress, which by the way were different than the proposals I put forward, still wouldn't kick in until after the recession was over. So he's absolutely right. The last thing you want to do is to raise taxes in the middle of a recession."


Read more: PICKET: Obama '09 - (VIDEO) You don't raise taxes on anyone during a recession - Washington Times PICKET: Obama '09 - (VIDEO) You don't raise taxes on anyone during a recession - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

What's your point? You believe we should perpetuate 1 trillion plus deficits for the sake of GDP?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top