100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Obama wants to tax the rich...again | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I don't live and have never been interested in Venezuela so I haven't kept up with or studied their economy,,, ,.,,,just to be honest Maybe you should...its where we are headed 
I doubt it,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't live and have never been interested in Venezuela so I haven't kept up with or studied their economy,,, ,.,,,just to be honest Maybe you should...its where we are headed
Baby steps. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
everyone arguing about this,lol... it won't happen, it just something the democrats throw out there for ratings, nothing else... trying to make obarry look good again... if they really wanted to raise the taxes, they would have snuck it on page 18 of another bill with a high public profile without telling the public like they always do... yeah, its a shame those democrats can't learn a damn thing from the republicans isn't it ?? 
lol... Not a democrat or republican problem...both are guilty of tax and spending and both have been right about cutting taxes to spur the economy(JFK and Ronald Reagan). Hopefully they'll wake up again and do the right thing. weren't the rates Reagan cut to about equal to the rates Obama is proposing now? In 1981 Ronald Reagan cut the top regular tax rate on unearned income and reduced the maximum capital gains rate to only 20%—its lowest level since the Hoover admin. Later, congress(they ultimately have final say on tax law) raised this to the same level as earned income which was only 28%. Obama on the other hand although this proposal may raise the rate to the same as Reagan's for capital gains, under this administration these top earners are already paying a 39% income tax compared to the 28% under Reagan. something was left out here,,the tax reform act that GOVERNMENT (president and congress) put through did raise the cap gains to 28 from 20, but the income level was 50 percent, reduced to 28 percent with that same act so they equalized both by raising the cap gains and lowering the income level,, but all that is to say, we had similar rates during Reagan Well actually it was 70% and he reduced that to 50% then to 28%...but how is Obama's level of 39% the same as Reagan's 28%? Having said all that..because congress makes tax law I give Obamas's proposal as much chance of passing as I have of winning the Miss America Pageant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The centerpiece of the plan, described by administration officials on the condition of anonymity ahead of the president’s speech, would eliminate what Mr. Obama’s advisers call the “trust-fund loophole,” a provision governing inherited assets that shields hundreds of billions of dollars from taxation each year. The plan would also increase the top capital-gains tax rate, to 28 percent from 23.8 percent, for couples with incomes above $500,000 annually. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/18/us/president-obama-will-seek-to-reduce-taxes-for-middle-class.html?_r=0 investments(equities, assets) and inheritances have little to do with the price of hot dogs,,, this is not an income tax issue , this is inheritance tax and capital gains tax issue all Taxes influence Prices,even if the NYT and Krugman say different! And now for a detailed explanation of why and how raising inheritance and capital gains taxes influences price... ALL taxes lower the value of transactions to both buyer and seller because the buyer pays more and the seller receives less...The reason inheritance and capital gains tax influences price is because less disposable income means less demand and less demand means higher prices...Any tax increase will result in a negative effect on the economy as a whole...Simple... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
everyone arguing about this,lol... it won't happen, it just something the democrats throw out there for ratings, nothing else... trying to make obarry look good again... if they really wanted to raise the taxes, they would have snuck it on page 18 of another bill with a high public profile without telling the public like they always do... yeah, its a shame those democrats can't learn a damn thing from the republicans isn't it ??
lol... Not a democrat or republican problem...both are guilty of tax and spending and both have been right about cutting taxes to spur the economy(JFK and Ronald Reagan). Hopefully they'll wake up again and do the right thing. weren't the rates Reagan cut to about equal to the rates Obama is proposing now? In 1981 Ronald Reagan cut the top regular tax rate on unearned income and reduced the maximum capital gains rate to only 20%—its lowest level since the Hoover admin. Later, congress(they ultimately have final say on tax law) raised this to the same level as earned income which was only 28%. Obama on the other hand although this proposal may raise the rate to the same as Reagan's for capital gains, under this administration these top earners are already paying a 39% income tax compared to the 28% under Reagan. something was left out here,,the tax reform act that GOVERNMENT (president and congress) put through did raise the cap gains to 28 from 20, but the income level was 50 percent, reduced to 28 percent with that same act so they equalized both by raising the cap gains and lowering the income level,, but all that is to say, we had similar rates during Reagan Well actually it was 70% and he reduced that to 50% then to 28%...but how is Obama's level of 39% the same as Reagan's 28%? Having said all that..because congress makes tax law I give Obamas's proposal as much chance of passing as I have of winning the Miss America Pageant
I agree on the final part,, I'm doubting congress will pass such measures the cap gains of 28 is the same as in the 86 tax act,the level of 39 has remained the same for years, and isn't Obamas level but just has not been reduced (that Im aware of) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The centerpiece of the plan, described by administration officials on the condition of anonymity ahead of the president’s speech, would eliminate what Mr. Obama’s advisers call the “trust-fund loophole,” a provision governing inherited assets that shields hundreds of billions of dollars from taxation each year. The plan would also increase the top capital-gains tax rate, to 28 percent from 23.8 percent, for couples with incomes above $500,000 annually. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/18/us/president-obama-will-seek-to-reduce-taxes-for-middle-class.html?_r=0 investments(equities, assets) and inheritances have little to do with the price of hot dogs,,, this is not an income tax issue , this is inheritance tax and capital gains tax issue all Taxes influence Prices,even if the NYT and Krugman say different! And now for a detailed explanation of why and how raising inheritance and capital gains taxes influences price... ALL taxes lower the value of transactions to both buyer and seller because the buyer pays more and the seller receives less...The reason inheritance and capital gains tax influences price is because less disposable income means less demand and less demand means higher prices...Any tax increase will result in a negative effect on the economy as a whole...Simple... not so simple,, but I don't choose to argue it, I listen to finance related issues all day at work,,,, in an inheritance no one has bought or sold anything, no ones has affected supply or demand because the person who EARNED the money has died its like saying me receiving less gifts this Christmas means my purchasing habits will change ,,,but as I said,, its complex and something I already deal with five days a week,,,, burn out keeps me from continuing to discuss it here,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If President Obama were also proposing a decrease in domestic spending by the U.S. government, then he would have more support for his tax idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sun 01/18/15 03:00 PM
|
|
If President Obama were also proposing a decrease in domestic spending by the U.S. government, then he would have more support for his tax idea. I doubt that too which three of the top expenses would he cut and get 'support' social security and medicare (almost half of spending) or national defense (about 20 percent of spending) or Income security (which includes the income of any government employees and unemployment insurance and welfare,, which combined make up about 18 percent of spending) ? which of these constituent groups wont have their lobbyists and politicians obstructing cuts? numbers from office of management and budget on this webpage http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/12/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2014 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Former-Senator Tom Coburn routinely exposed financial waste in the U.S. government while he was a member of Congress, and that waste didn't involve Social Security or Medicare or national defense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Leigh2154
on
Sun 01/18/15 03:22 PM
|
|
The centerpiece of the plan, described by administration officials on the condition of anonymity ahead of the president’s speech, would eliminate what Mr. Obama’s advisers call the “trust-fund loophole,” a provision governing inherited assets that shields hundreds of billions of dollars from taxation each year. The plan would also increase the top capital-gains tax rate, to 28 percent from 23.8 percent, for couples with incomes above $500,000 annually. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/18/us/president-obama-will-seek-to-reduce-taxes-for-middle-class.html?_r=0 investments(equities, assets) and inheritances have little to do with the price of hot dogs,,, this is not an income tax issue , this is inheritance tax and capital gains tax issue all Taxes influence Prices,even if the NYT and Krugman say different! And now for a detailed explanation of why and how raising inheritance and capital gains taxes influences price... ALL taxes lower the value of transactions to both buyer and seller because the buyer pays more and the seller receives less...The reason inheritance and capital gains tax influences price is because less disposable income means less demand and less demand means higher prices...Any tax increase will result in a negative effect on the economy as a whole...Simple... in an inheritance no one has bought or sold anything, no ones has affected supply or demand because the person who EARNED the money has died its like saying me receiving less gifts this Christmas means my purchasing habits will change ,,,but as I said,, its complex and something I already deal with five days a week,,,, burn out keeps me from continuing to discuss it here,,, If someone inherits 10 bucks and they have to give 2 bucks to Uncle Sam Obama THAT means they have 2 bucks less to spend for socks and underwear at Walmart...I know it's complex, but  !!!... ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To be fair, President Obama isn't proposing a tax increase on anyone's salary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sun 01/18/15 04:17 PM
|
|
The centerpiece of the plan, described by administration officials on the condition of anonymity ahead of the president’s speech, would eliminate what Mr. Obama’s advisers call the “trust-fund loophole,” a provision governing inherited assets that shields hundreds of billions of dollars from taxation each year. The plan would also increase the top capital-gains tax rate, to 28 percent from 23.8 percent, for couples with incomes above $500,000 annually. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/18/us/president-obama-will-seek-to-reduce-taxes-for-middle-class.html?_r=0 investments(equities, assets) and inheritances have little to do with the price of hot dogs,,, this is not an income tax issue , this is inheritance tax and capital gains tax issue all Taxes influence Prices,even if the NYT and Krugman say different! And now for a detailed explanation of why and how raising inheritance and capital gains taxes influences price... ALL taxes lower the value of transactions to both buyer and seller because the buyer pays more and the seller receives less...The reason inheritance and capital gains tax influences price is because less disposable income means less demand and less demand means higher prices...Any tax increase will result in a negative effect on the economy as a whole...Simple... in an inheritance no one has bought or sold anything, no ones has affected supply or demand because the person who EARNED the money has died its like saying me receiving less gifts this Christmas means my purchasing habits will change ,,,but as I said,, its complex and something I already deal with five days a week,,,, burn out keeps me from continuing to discuss it here,,, If someone inherits 10 bucks and they have to give 2 bucks to Uncle Sam Obama THAT means they have 2 bucks less to spend for socks and underwear at Walmart...I know it's complex, but !!!... ...
no, because they just never HAD the two bucks to begin with you cant have less of what you haven't got in the first place they just received less than what they COULD HAve received, but they didn't LOSE anything,, they still come out eight bucks ahead from where they were its not its not complex at all, so instead of having an ADDITIONAL ten to spend from what you have actually earned,, someone else has earned another ten bucks of which you will be granted EIGHT through no effort of your own to spend however you wish,, eight that you didn't have otherwise to spend and that other two you MAY have received will go to government to reinvest in those companies that produce the socks, or some other part of the ECONOMY |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The centerpiece of the plan, described by administration officials on the condition of anonymity ahead of the president’s speech, would eliminate what Mr. Obama’s advisers call the “trust-fund loophole,” a provision governing inherited assets that shields hundreds of billions of dollars from taxation each year. The plan would also increase the top capital-gains tax rate, to 28 percent from 23.8 percent, for couples with incomes above $500,000 annually. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/18/us/president-obama-will-seek-to-reduce-taxes-for-middle-class.html?_r=0 investments(equities, assets) and inheritances have little to do with the price of hot dogs,,, this is not an income tax issue , this is inheritance tax and capital gains tax issue all Taxes influence Prices,even if the NYT and Krugman say different! And now for a detailed explanation of why and how raising inheritance and capital gains taxes influences price... ALL taxes lower the value of transactions to both buyer and seller because the buyer pays more and the seller receives less...The reason inheritance and capital gains tax influences price is because less disposable income means less demand and less demand means higher prices...Any tax increase will result in a negative effect on the economy as a whole...Simple... in an inheritance no one has bought or sold anything, no ones has affected supply or demand because the person who EARNED the money has died its like saying me receiving less gifts this Christmas means my purchasing habits will change ,,,but as I said,, its complex and something I already deal with five days a week,,,, burn out keeps me from continuing to discuss it here,,, If someone inherits 10 bucks and they have to give 2 bucks to Uncle Sam Obama THAT means they have 2 bucks less to spend for socks and underwear at Walmart...I know it's complex, but !!!... ...
no, because they just never HAD the two bucks to begin with you cant have less of what you haven't got in the first place they just received less than what they COULD HAve received, but they didn't LOSE anything,, they still come out eight bucks ahead from where they were its not its not complex at all, so instead of having an ADDITIONAL ten to spend from what you have actually earned,, someone else has earned another ten bucks of which you will be granted EIGHT through no effort of your own to spend however you wish,, eight that you didn't have otherwise to spend and that other two you MAY have received will go to government to reinvest in those companies that produce the socks, or some other part of the ECONOMY Doesn't matter WHO had/has it or who spends it...It's still 2 bucks that EXITS the economy...PLUS, before the ten spot changed hands by way of inheritance, that 2 bucks was either being spent by the original owner or invested which means it was feeding the economy BEFORE Uncle Sam Obama snatched it to squander on entitlement programs ....Double taxation is a biotch too  ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amazing how many middle class americans get hit every time someone comes up with a "tax the rich" plan. Reminds me of the plan to "tax the rich" by going after dividends.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
this may be slightly off topic....but could someone explain how the cap (118,000 for 2015) on taxable earnings for social security (fica) is fair to all...? round numbers here for ease of math... i earn 100,000 and pay in 6% ...i pay 6,000 dollars on my total earnings ceo draws a salary of 1 million dollars....he pays in, you guessed it... 6,000 dollars only on his first 100,000 of income...the other 900,000 of income he enjoys without contributing anything to ssa...this is six tenths of his total income....how is this fair ? and how large a chunk of change would this be, if the cap was eliminated entirely..?.. Except now that same CEO pays an EXTRA 10-15% federal, and possibly, state income tax on the remaining $900,000. You are forgetting that American taxes hit people from many directions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The main point of all this is...We are all "conditioned" by these politicians that we need more taxes(whatever name you put on them). If Obama wants to help the middle class as he so fervently claims. The simple thing to do would be LET THEM KEEP THEIR MONEY! By cutting their taxes would stimulate the economy and put the purchasing power into the peoples hands, not the governments. We now have a 4 trillion dollar a year budget(compared to under 600billion just 6 years ago)an 18 trillion dollar deficit(3 times what it was 6 years ago) and over 100 trillion in unfunded liabilities. It's time to stop feeding the already obese and over fed government and start cutting the fat and pork.
Robbing a dollar from Paul to pay Peter 10 cents just doesn't work. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
this may be slightly off topic....but could someone explain how the cap (118,000 for 2015) on taxable earnings for social security (fica) is fair to all...? round numbers here for ease of math... i earn 100,000 and pay in 6% ...i pay 6,000 dollars on my total earnings ceo draws a salary of 1 million dollars....he pays in, you guessed it... 6,000 dollars only on his first 100,000 of income...the other 900,000 of income he enjoys without contributing anything to ssa...this is six tenths of his total income....how is this fair ? and how large a chunk of change would this be, if the cap was eliminated entirely..?.. Except now that same CEO pays an EXTRA 10-15% federal, and possibly, state income tax on the remaining $900,000. You are forgetting that American taxes hit people from many directions. and that same CEO raises the price of his products to equate his loss... and who pays for that? WE DO.... a real win win... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To be fair, President Obama isn't proposing a tax increase on anyone's salary. Yet. Remember Dodo, socialist take baby steps.. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The main point of all this is...We are all "conditioned" by these politicians that we need more taxes(whatever name you put on them). If Obama wants to help the middle class as he so fervently claims. The simple thing to do would be LET THEM KEEP THEIR MONEY! By cutting their taxes would stimulate the economy and put the purchasing power into the peoples hands, not the governments. We now have a 4 trillion dollar a year budget(compared to under 600billion just 6 years ago)an 18 trillion dollar deficit(3 times what it was 6 years ago) and over 100 trillion in unfunded liabilities. It's time to stop feeding the already obese and over fed government and start cutting the fat and pork. Robbing a dollar from Paul to pay Peter 10 cents just doesn't work. taxes are revenue, it takes revenue to pay for things,,, when we arent bringing in what we need to put out, we either need to put out less or bring in more or some combination we have tried CUTS in spending, raise in revenue is the other part of the equation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
this may be slightly off topic....but could someone explain how the cap (118,000 for 2015) on taxable earnings for social security (fica) is fair to all...? round numbers here for ease of math... i earn 100,000 and pay in 6% ...i pay 6,000 dollars on my total earnings ceo draws a salary of 1 million dollars....he pays in, you guessed it... 6,000 dollars only on his first 100,000 of income...the other 900,000 of income he enjoys without contributing anything to ssa...this is six tenths of his total income....how is this fair ? and how large a chunk of change would this be, if the cap was eliminated entirely..?.. Except now that same CEO pays an EXTRA 10-15% federal, and possibly, state income tax on the remaining $900,000. You are forgetting that American taxes hit people from many directions. and that same CEO raises the price of his products to equate his loss... and who pays for that? WE DO.... a real win win... the taxes arent on the CEOs income or income related to his products,, the taxes are on his PERSONAL Inheritances or Cap GAins (investments) |
|
|
|
|
