Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
RavenHawk

Taxing the Rich

226 posts in this topic

Now that Obama is re-elected, he’s going to be arm twisting the GOP to raise taxes on those that make $250,000 or more. That is about 2 million incomes. Obama wants to raise their bracket from 35% to 40%. The first thing to say here is that they already pay more than their fair share at about 40% of the entire tax burden. So how much is expected to be raised by a 5% increase? Using the 2009 numbers, that would be about $15 billion per 1%, so for 5%, that would be $75 billion more a year. WTF! What is that going to do? Run the government for about 2 1/5 months ($1.3 billion per day). When Obama says that the rich should pay their fair share, how much do you people think it was going to be? What is Obama really doing here?

The rich are going to have to pay a lot more before raising taxes really makes a difference at tackling the debt. A 20% increase will give you $300 billion but the rich will be at a 55% tax bracket. These are not times like they were in the 50s when America was prosperous with manufacturing and cash flowed quite easily. Times are hard now. Business will be a lot tighter with the money they make. The environment is not conducive to expansion. Unemployment will go up. This is simple physics. Is this what people want?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that Obama is re-elected, he's going to be arm twisting the GOP to raise taxes on those that make $250,000 or more. That is about 2 million incomes. Obama wants to raise their bracket from 35% to 40%. The first thing to say here is that they already pay more than their fair share at about 40% of the entire tax burden. So how much is expected to be raised by a 5% increase? Using the 2009 numbers, that would be about $15 billion per 1%, so for 5%, that would be $75 billion more a year. WTF! What is that going to do? Run the government for about 2 1/5 months ($1.3 billion per day). When Obama says that the rich should pay their fair share, how much do you people think it was going to be? What is Obama really doing here?

The rich are going to have to pay a lot more before raising taxes really makes a difference at tackling the debt. A 20% increase will give you $300 billion but the rich will be at a 55% tax bracket. These are not times like they were in the 50s when America was prosperous with manufacturing and cash flowed quite easily. Times are hard now. Business will be a lot tighter with the money they make. The environment is not conducive to expansion. Unemployment will go up. This is simple physics. Is this what people want?

Like most politicians, Obama is (IMO) playing to the masses... "See look here! I Raised taxes on the evil rich! Vote for my party!"

The actual amount of the increase is (also IMO) incidental to the raise itself... This is an old trick and practiaclly every political party of every nation has used a variant of it - probably all the way back to the Lydians - who invented currency....

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with both previous posters. It is about being Robin Hood, not about actually fixing the Budget, or the Deficit. It is a political gimmick to fool the masses into thinking something is being done.

BTW. It would sound like less time if you say 7 weeks. Saying 2 months makes people think that is actually a long time... months.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with both previous posters. It is about being Robin Hood, not about actually fixing the Budget, or the Deficit. It is a political gimmick to fool the masses into thinking something is being done.

BTW. It would sound like less time if you say 7 weeks. Saying 2 months makes people think that is actually a long time... months.

That's why sales people price things at $19.95... Sounds so much better than $20...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:tsu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12-16-09bud-f11.jpg

See the part that says Bush tax cuts. That's what it would reduce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tax rate will go up, they will use their deductions and they will end up paying less than the average person does.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See the part that says Bush tax cuts. That's what it would reduce.

That’s $75 billion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12-16-09bud-f11.jpg

See the part that says Bush tax cuts. That's what it would reduce.

The Bush Tax cuts look like 300 billion per year at 2012, yet this tax change is supposed to bring in.... 75 billion more. So, then is the new Obama approved tax system going to be called Bush Tax Cuts Lite? Maybe we should start calling the other 225 Billion (75%) the Obama Tax Cuts?? Because he is signing off on them as being OK.

I am interested in this chart how the "War in Iraq and Afghanistan" runs into 2019, yet we're supposed to pull out of Afghanistan in 2014, and supposedly pulled out of Iraq in 2010. Why then does the percentage that it accounts for never change?

The part marked, "Economic Downturn" also appears to not shrink, but actually gets a little bigger into 2019. Are we to assume that the Downturn will last another 7 years?

Edited by DieChecker
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tax rate will go up, they will use their deductions and they will end up paying less than the average person does.

I agree. Without tax code reform, only a little more of that 75 billion will get to Federal Coffers then gets there now.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't wait to pay $20 for a loaf of bread. Oh boy!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am interested in this chart how the "War in Iraq and Afghanistan" runs into 2019, yet we're supposed to pull out of Afghanistan in 2014, and supposedly pulled out of Iraq in 2010. Why then does the percentage that it accounts for never change?

As we've been droning on about for at least 10 years now, there was no tax increase those wars. In fact, there was a tax cut. Wars don't pay for themselves. In fact, the republicans kept the wars off the books. So yes, we will be paying for them for some time. Bush sold you down the river.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As we've been droning on about for at least 10 years now, there was no tax increase those wars. In fact, there was a tax cut. Wars don't pay for themselves. In fact, the republicans kept the wars off the books. So yes, we will be paying for them for some time. Bush sold you down the river.

So, what is this.... Like with the gas company when they spread your yearly bill over all months so you don't have a 15 dollar month in the summer and a 200 dollar month in the winter??

I don't think it works like that. You can't pay for the 2002 cost of the war started in Afghanistan in 2019...

I don't think the soldiers and the Evil Corporations that build the military equipment accept IOUs from the government to be cashed in 10 years later. All that stuff gets paid immediately and turns into Debt immediately. There is no continuing deficit being created... Unless we are still IN the WAR.

How does ending the war in Iraq not drop the Deficit amount in your graph? How does ending the war in Afghanistan in 2014 still result in Spending on both Wars in 2019??

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't wait to pay $20 for a loaf of bread. Oh boy!!

Haven't you been paying attention to this thread?

The bread will only cost you $19.95!!!!!!!!!!

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12-16-09bud-f11.jpg

See the part that says Bush tax cuts. That's what it would reduce.

You seem to forget that those are Obama's tax cuts... he did sign off on it again, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wars don't pay for themselves. In fact, the republicans kept the wars off the books. So yes, we will be paying for them for some time. Bush sold you down the river.

In the mind of the delerious, maybe:

Bush expressed relief that the measure provided $162 billion to fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan without setting troop-withdrawal timelines, which he has opposed.

"This bill shows the American people that even in an election year, Republicans and Democrats can come together to stand behind our troops and their families," he said.

Congress approved the measure after Democrats dropped efforts to impose timelines for troop withdrawals from Iraq in the face of a White House veto threat. They did, however, win concessions on their priorities to modernize the World War II-era GI Bill, which provides educational opportunities for millions of veterans, and to extend unemployment benefits.

Source - L.A. Times

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the mind of the delerious, maybe:

Source - L.A. Times

Harte

That link kind of proves Ninja's argument. 5 years into the war they authorize a bill to pay a tiny fraction of the worthless wars' continued cost. And where did the money come from..??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the mind of the delerious, maybe:

in 2008 sure. an election year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The smartest and most fair tax would be a tax on financial transactions on Wall Street, as some European jurisdictions apparently do. Just 1% on those many many transactions could generate several billion a year, and maybe cut down on some of the gambling that goes on there.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The smartest and most fair tax would be a tax on financial transactions on Wall Street, as some European jurisdictions apparently do. Just 1% on those many many transactions could generate several billion a year, and maybe cut down on some of the gambling that goes on there.

I'd elect you president for that idea!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The smartest and most fair tax would be a tax on financial transactions on Wall Street, as some European jurisdictions apparently do. Just 1% on those many many transactions could generate several billion a year, and maybe cut down on some of the gambling that goes on there.

All you really would need to do is tax 1 cent on every high frequency transaction, that would kill a dozen birds with one stone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All you really would need to do is tax 1 cent on every high frequency transaction, that would kill a dozen birds with one stone.

Wow...your math really sucks...no seriously...it does...

...According to IRS statistics, roughly 2 percent of U.S. households have an income of $250,000 and above. By the way, $250,000 per year hardly qualifies one as being rich. It's not even yacht and Learjet money. All told, households earning $250,000 and above account for 25 percent, or $1.97 trillion, of the nearly $8 trillion of total household income. If Congress imposed a 100 percent tax, taking all earnings above $250,000 per year, it would yield the princely sum of $1.4 trillion. That would keep the government running for 141 days, but there's a problem because there are 224 more days left in the year.

Link

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow...your math really sucks...no seriously...it does...

...According to IRS statistics, roughly 2 percent of U.S. households have an income of $250,000 and above. By the way, $250,000 per year hardly qualifies one as being rich. It's not even yacht and Learjet money. All told, households earning $250,000 and above account for 25 percent, or $1.97 trillion, of the nearly $8 trillion of total household income. If Congress imposed a 100 percent tax, taking all earnings above $250,000 per year, it would yield the princely sum of $1.4 trillion. That would keep the government running for 141 days, but there's a problem because there are 224 more days left in the year.

Link

Nice, and that has to do what with high frequency transactions...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice, and that has to do what with high frequency transactions...?

No it has to do with Taxing the Rich...

and...huh?

Wow, I totally misread your post...nevermind...wait...

are you talking about what is also known as a Value Added Tax? I would be in favor of that...but only if...at the same time they eliminated the Income Tax.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taxes for everybody are set to rise Jan. 1 due to the expiration of the Bush tax rates and other measures. That, combined with the triggering of automatic defense and domestic spending cuts, amount to what is known in Washington as the "fiscal cliff" -- an austerity blow so severe that a Congressional Budget Office report warned this week that it would cause a recession and drive unemployment up to 9.1 percent.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.c.../#ixzz2Bs1vFh3g

I guess no body really wants to worked anymore:)

Edited by docyabut2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.