Obama Millionaire's Tax: President To Seek New Tax Rate For Wealthy

[The T]

EVerybody demands a "simple" tax code but I think that it isn't really possible.

Taxation is complex because the various businesses in society make it necessarily complex.

Deciding, for example, what a reasonable expense really is can't be done across all different kinds of businesses.

As to " simplifying " the tax codes as in having a FLAT RATE on all income levels?

Well, that's just a ridiculous idea in a society where the range of incomes is so vast.

Here you go - 9% sales tax on all goods and resources purchased by the end user, 9% income tax on all personal income and 9% income tax on all business income with payroll as the only deduction.

Simple. Fair. Predictable.

I think that's Herman Cain's policy.
Personally I oppose a national sales tax because historically they become unbelievably complex and of course the rates go up.
Flat tax on all income, no tax on corporate income.

Your thoughts on a BBA?

 

[Seawytch]

Oh NO!!! The President is proposing to do what the American people what us to? Oh, the horror of it...

23 Polls Say People Support Higher Taxes to Reduce the Deficit

with spending cuts which you intentionally left out.

I don't know of anyone who is against spending cuts. Name one Democrat who is intransigent on spending cuts. Name one Republicant that isn't intransigent on revenue increases.

 

[Full-Auto]

Oh NO!!! The President is proposing to do what the American people what us to? Oh, the horror of it...

23 Polls Say People Support Higher Taxes to Reduce the Deficit

with spending cuts which you intentionally left out.

I don't know of anyone who is against spending cuts. Name one Democrat who is intransigent on spending cuts. Name one Republicant that isn't intransigent on revenue increases.

DNC conference call......................



Splain lucy!!!!

 

[ladyliberal]

Paul Ryan has responded to the proposal (Ryan: Obama's 'Buffett Rule' is class warfare), using arguments predictable enough that many in this thread have anticipated them. He calls it "class warfare" and "bad economics", and says that it will lead to more uncertainty and fewer jobs.

Obama's proposal is clearly good politics. By asking only that millionaires pay at least the same percentage of their income as less wealthy Americans, he places the "fairness" argument firmly on his side. As we saw during the debates over extending the Bush tax cuts, the American people firmly support new taxes on the wealthy. Given the new emphasis on deficit reduction, that support has probably gone up (although perhaps not). As an added bonus, Republican candidates for President will probably have to take some sort of position now, which they largely avoided during the debt ceiling debates.

Economically, the plan also makes perfect sense (except in that it doesn't go far enough):

-- Raising taxes on the wealthy relative to the nonwealthy shifts consumption towards necessities and away from luxuries

-- Taxing investment income as normal income removes the distortionary effect which favors the financial sector. I think we recall the consequences of a too-large financial sector.

-- Demonstrating a willingness to use new revenues to pay for current debts will send a signal that the US is (more) serious about deficit reduction.

The one downside of course is that Ryan is quite right that higher taxes do reduce overall economic activity. Given the weak economy, this may not be the time to raise taxes. However, there is no harm in agreeing now to raise taxes in the future, which seems to be what Obama is trying to do anyway.

 

[AVG-JOE]

EVerybody demands a "simple" tax code but I think that it isn't really possible.

Taxation is complex because the various businesses in society make it necessarily complex.

Deciding, for example, what a reasonable expense really is can't be done across all different kinds of businesses.

As to " simplifying " the tax codes as in having a FLAT RATE on all income levels?

Well, that's just a ridiculous idea in a society where the range of incomes is so vast.

Here you go - 9% sales tax on all goods and resources purchased by the end user, 9% income tax on all personal income and 9% income tax on all business income with payroll as the only deduction.

Simple. Fair. Predictable.

Looks familiar... Are you an HFH?

Horny ******* Human? Hell yeah! Isn't everyone?

 

[Mr Natural]

Not only do they have all the money, but they have an army of losers and wannabes championing their cause gratis.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Oh NO!!! The President is proposing to do what the American people what us to? Oh, the horror of it...

23 Polls Say People Support Higher Taxes to Reduce the Deficit

Should read:

Americans support higher taxes on everyone but them

 

[AVG-JOE]

EVerybody demands a "simple" tax code but I think that it isn't really possible.

Taxation is complex because the various businesses in society make it necessarily complex.

Deciding, for example, what a reasonable expense really is can't be done across all different kinds of businesses.

As to " simplifying " the tax codes as in having a FLAT RATE on all income levels?

Well, that's just a ridiculous idea in a society where the range of incomes is so vast.

Here you go - 9% sales tax on all goods and resources purchased by the end user, 9% income tax on all personal income and 9% income tax on all business income with payroll as the only deduction.

Simple. Fair. Predictable.

I think that's Herman Cain's policy.
Personally I oppose a national sales tax because historically they become unbelievably complex and of course the rates go up.
Flat tax on all income, no tax on corporate income.

That does belong to Herman Cain - I linked it in an earlier post.

A straight up income tax, progressive or flat, is unfair to high income groups and a consumption tax is unfair to low income groups - to keep taxes fair a blend must be employed.

 

[The T]

Here you go - 9% sales tax on all goods and resources purchased by the end user, 9% income tax on all personal income and 9% income tax on all business income with payroll as the only deduction.

Simple. Fair. Predictable.

Looks familiar... Are you an HFH?

Horny ******* Human? Hell yeah! Isn't everyone?

No my friend...

 

[Ringel05]

I been doing some research on this issue and I've notice a couple of interesting points. First the wealthiest Americans paid the highest percentage per income of tax in 1945 and it slowly dropped down to about 70% in the 1970s then suddenly dropped down to the 30% range. During that period the wealthy still made tons of money and it didn't seem to hurt them or the economy, matter of fact it appeared to help as millionaires invested moneys in new growth to help shelter their income.
Over the last decade tax breaks that the wealthy took advantage of that were intended to create growth and jobs appeared to have the opposite effect as these extra moneys seem to have either been hoarded and wasted.
This may be an over simplification but that's what I get out of what I've read.

 

[editec]

EVerybody demands a "simple" tax code but I think that it isn't really possible.

Taxation is complex because the various businesses in society make it necessarily complex.

Deciding, for example, what a reasonable expense really is can't be done across all different kinds of businesses.

As to " simplifying " the tax codes as in having a FLAT RATE on all income levels?

Well, that's just a ridiculous idea in a society where the range of incomes is so vast.

Here you go - 9% sales tax on all goods and resources purchased by the end user, 9% income tax on all personal income and 9% income tax on all business income with payroll as the only deduction.

Simple. Fair. Predictable.

That wouldn't reduce the tax code very much. All that might do is make our individual tax filings easier,

Most of the enormous tax code is industry specific because it needs to be industry specific.

 

[Photonic]

Cold hard facts. The rich pay federal income tax. 50% of you leeches do not pay federal income tax. quit leeching and pay your fair share.

The poor get poorer.

 

[Seawytch]

with spending cuts which you intentionally left out.

I don't know of anyone who is against spending cuts. Name one Democrat who is intransigent on spending cuts. Name one Republicant that isn't intransigent on revenue increases.

DNC conference call......................



Splain lucy!!!!

When offered 10 spending cuts to 1 revenue increase, every single candidate for GOP President said they would vote against that. Is that what the American people want, yes or no?

Yes or no, have democrats agreed to spending cuts?

Which party is more intransigent?

 

[Full-Auto]

I don't know of anyone who is against spending cuts. Name one Democrat who is intransigent on spending cuts. Name one Republicant that isn't intransigent on revenue increases.

DNC conference call......................



Splain lucy!!!!

When offered 10 spending cuts to 1 revenue increase, every single candidate for GOP President said they would vote against that. Is that what the American people want, yes or no?

Yes or no, have democrats agreed to spending cuts?

Which party is more intransigent?

Revenue increases were on the table.

But you didnt explain why the DNC had a conference call to call any cut extreme before any negotiations started.

NOW SPLAIN!!!

 

[Seawytch]

DNC conference call......................



Splain lucy!!!!

When offered 10 spending cuts to 1 revenue increase, every single candidate for GOP President said they would vote against that. Is that what the American people want, yes or no?

Yes or no, have democrats agreed to spending cuts?

Which party is more intransigent?

Revenue increases were on the table.

But you didnt explain why the DNC had a conference call to call any cut extreme before any negotiations started.

NOW SPLAIN!!!

How are revenue increases on the table when most of the GOP has signed Grover Norquists "no taxes" pledge? What revenue increases have been agreed to?

What Republican has said that they were open to revenue increases? Name a single Democrat who has said they oppose spending cuts.

As far as the DNC goes, I would imagine they said to call all cuts extreme for the same reason that the Boehner said they would oppose any plan the president proposed BEFORE he proposed it. Politics over policy. (but if they were talking about the Budget Munster, Paul Ryan's, plan...probably because the cuts ARE extreme and in the wrong places)

 

[Full-Auto]

When offered 10 spending cuts to 1 revenue increase, every single candidate for GOP President said they would vote against that. Is that what the American people want, yes or no?

Yes or no, have democrats agreed to spending cuts?

Which party is more intransigent?

Revenue increases were on the table.

But you didnt explain why the DNC had a conference call to call any cut extreme before any negotiations started.

NOW SPLAIN!!!

How are revenue increases on the table when most of the GOP has signed Grover Norquists "no taxes" pledge? What revenue increases have been agreed to?

What Republican has said that they were open to revenue increases? Name a single Democrat who has said they oppose spending cuts.

As far as the DNC goes, I would imagine they said to call all cuts extreme for the same reason that the Boehner said they would oppose any plan the president proposed BEFORE he proposed it. Politics over policy. (but if they were talking about the Budget Munster, Paul Ryan's, plan...probably because the cuts ARE extreme and in the wrong places)

You keep sidestepping my question.

But I will answer yours.

There was 800 billion on the table but obama wanted more after an agreement and it went south.

Now quit being a chicken shit and address calling any cut extreme before any negotiations..

 

[Seawytch]

Revenue increases were on the table.

But you didnt explain why the DNC had a conference call to call any cut extreme before any negotiations started.

NOW SPLAIN!!!

How are revenue increases on the table when most of the GOP has signed Grover Norquists "no taxes" pledge? What revenue increases have been agreed to?

What Republican has said that they were open to revenue increases? Name a single Democrat who has said they oppose spending cuts.

As far as the DNC goes, I would imagine they said to call all cuts extreme for the same reason that the Boehner said they would oppose any plan the president proposed BEFORE he proposed it. Politics over policy. (but if they were talking about the Budget Munster, Paul Ryan's, plan...probably because the cuts ARE extreme and in the wrong places)

You keep sidestepping my question.

But I will answer yours.

There was 800 billion on the table but obama wanted more after an agreement and it went south.

Now quit being a chicken shit and address calling any cut extreme before any negotiations..

Actually, I answered it quite directly. Politics over policy. Hard to comment without context. Speaking of which, got links for this 800 billion in REVENUE?

Here's the Reuters timeline:

Timeline: Debt debate

I'm just gonna put in the parts speaking directly to revenue.

December 1, 2010 - A report by a bipartisan deficit reduction panel commissioned by Obama advocates $3 trillion in spending cuts and $1 trillion in revenue increases -- mainly by closing loopholes in the tax code -- over 10 years.

June 23 - Republicans declare an impasse in the Biden talks, saying that Democrats are insisting on roughly $400 billion in new revenue by closing tax breaks for the wealthy and certain business sectors.

July 19 - The "Gang of Six" resurfaces with a deficit reduction plan that proposes $3.75 trillion in savings over 10 years and contains $1.2 trillion in new revenues. Obama seizes on it and calls on leaders in Congress to start "talking turkey." House Republicans pass a more drastic $5.8 trillion deficit-reduction plan with a balanced budget amendment.

July 21 - Obama and Boehner are reported to be discussing a $3 trillion deficit-cutting deal. Obama stresses some revenues will need to be included in any accord. Obama meets with congressional Democratic leaders at the White House, but there are no reports of a breakthrough. (Boehner walks out over 400 billion in revenue)

Where is this 800 billion and please tell me again who is willing to compromise and who isn't?

 

[Full-Auto]

How are revenue increases on the table when most of the GOP has signed Grover Norquists "no taxes" pledge? What revenue increases have been agreed to?

What Republican has said that they were open to revenue increases? Name a single Democrat who has said they oppose spending cuts.

As far as the DNC goes, I would imagine they said to call all cuts extreme for the same reason that the Boehner said they would oppose any plan the president proposed BEFORE he proposed it. Politics over policy. (but if they were talking about the Budget Munster, Paul Ryan's, plan...probably because the cuts ARE extreme and in the wrong places)

You keep sidestepping my question.

But I will answer yours.

There was 800 billion on the table but obama wanted more after an agreement and it went south.

Now quit being a chicken shit and address calling any cut extreme before any negotiations..

Actually, I answered it quite directly. Politics over policy. Hard to comment without context. Speaking of which, got links for this 800 billion in REVENUE?

Here's the Reuters timeline:

Timeline: Debt debate

I'm just gonna put in the parts speaking directly to revenue.

December 1, 2010 - A report by a bipartisan deficit reduction panel commissioned by Obama advocates $3 trillion in spending cuts and $1 trillion in revenue increases -- mainly by closing loopholes in the tax code -- over 10 years.

June 23 - Republicans declare an impasse in the Biden talks, saying that Democrats are insisting on roughly $400 billion in new revenue by closing tax breaks for the wealthy and certain business sectors.

July 19 - The "Gang of Six" resurfaces with a deficit reduction plan that proposes $3.75 trillion in savings over 10 years and contains $1.2 trillion in new revenues. Obama seizes on it and calls on leaders in Congress to start "talking turkey." House Republicans pass a more drastic $5.8 trillion deficit-reduction plan with a balanced budget amendment.

July 21 - Obama and Boehner are reported to be discussing a $3 trillion deficit-cutting deal. Obama stresses some revenues will need to be included in any accord. Obama meets with congressional Democratic leaders at the White House, but there are no reports of a breakthrough. (Boehner walks out over 400 billion in revenue)

Where is this 800 billion and please tell me again who is willing to compromise and who isn't?

You threw up a guess, that had no bearing on reality. As the DNC took the first initiative.

 

[Seawytch]

You keep sidestepping my question.

But I will answer yours.

There was 800 billion on the table but obama wanted more after an agreement and it went south.

Now quit being a chicken shit and address calling any cut extreme before any negotiations..

Actually, I answered it quite directly. Politics over policy. Hard to comment without context. Speaking of which, got links for this 800 billion in REVENUE?

Here's the Reuters timeline:

Timeline: Debt debate

I'm just gonna put in the parts speaking directly to revenue.

December 1, 2010 - A report by a bipartisan deficit reduction panel commissioned by Obama advocates $3 trillion in spending cuts and $1 trillion in revenue increases -- mainly by closing loopholes in the tax code -- over 10 years.

June 23 - Republicans declare an impasse in the Biden talks, saying that Democrats are insisting on roughly $400 billion in new revenue by closing tax breaks for the wealthy and certain business sectors.

July 19 - The "Gang of Six" resurfaces with a deficit reduction plan that proposes $3.75 trillion in savings over 10 years and contains $1.2 trillion in new revenues. Obama seizes on it and calls on leaders in Congress to start "talking turkey." House Republicans pass a more drastic $5.8 trillion deficit-reduction plan with a balanced budget amendment.

July 21 - Obama and Boehner are reported to be discussing a $3 trillion deficit-cutting deal. Obama stresses some revenues will need to be included in any accord. Obama meets with congressional Democratic leaders at the White House, but there are no reports of a breakthrough. (Boehner walks out over 400 billion in revenue)

Where is this 800 billion and please tell me again who is willing to compromise and who isn't?

You threw up a guess, that had no bearing on reality. As the DNC took the first initiative.

And you have yet to provide a SINGLE fact to back up your contentions.

I do believe the GOP has long been on record as having their ONLY goal be the failure of this President. That happened long before the DNC allegedly asked Shumer to label the cuts in Ryans extreme plan as extreme.

So where's the 800 billion?

Would you like to see the chart of filibusters and cloture votes from the GnOP since Barack Obama has been President? How about his judicial nominees?

Tell me AGAIN about this Republican party of compromise. I love fairy tales.

 

[The Rabbi]

I been doing some research on this issue and I've notice a couple of interesting points. First the wealthiest Americans paid the highest percentage per income of tax in 1945 and it slowly dropped down to about 70% in the 1970s then suddenly dropped down to the 30% range. During that period the wealthy still made tons of money and it didn't seem to hurt them or the economy, matter of fact it appeared to help as millionaires invested moneys in new growth to help shelter their income.
Over the last decade tax breaks that the wealthy took advantage of that were intended to create growth and jobs appeared to have the opposite effect as these extra moneys seem to have either been hoarded and wasted.
This may be an over simplification but that's what I get out of what I've read.

It is an oversimplification.
For starters, the tax code c.1970 is not the tax code of today. There were many many deductions and dodges available then that we don't have now, like deducting all interest payments and income averaging.
Second from about 1988 through to 2008 we had an unemployment rate that was historically pretty low as well as an inflation rate that was low. There were many jobs created. In the 90s the US created as many jobs as existed in all of Germany.
So comparisons can be specious. Like this tax proposal.