I’m unclear on some things. I understand that he has proposed overhauling the tax code to lower taxes for the poor and middle class and increase them for the rich, but does he mean businesses too? In other words, does he plan on raising taxes for US corporations? Wouldn’t this be terrible for the economy?
Raise the taxes on those big bad oil companies and their “Windfall Profits”…seems silly to punish a company with profit margin of like 9%
he said that whoever makes more than 250K will be taxed at the higher rate.
250 K is his current number for families. He previously supported a measure which would have impacted individuals in the 25% tax bracket by increasing it to 28%. This is the $42,000 figure thrown out lately. I believe he is for tax increases on the whole and I am against any plan for increases for anyone.
250K for families? That seems a little low to start there, since normally the goal is tax the rich…I mean, is this gross income or AGI? Seems like at $250K per family you are very possible taxing the middle class (depending on family size and location). I dont love either tax plan though…
Well , somebody has to pay more taxes.We either have to cut spending (primarily military, which is 42% of the budget, since everything else is cut to the bone), or tax more. We can’t just run GWB deficits and devalue the dollar. Who should we tax more? I think taxing individual income over 250k would have the least impact on economy, since taxing poor would increase poverty/crime etc.
hueion Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 250 K is his current number for families. > > He previously supported a measure which would have > impacted individuals in the 25% tax bracket by > increasing it to 28%. This is the $42,000 figure > thrown out lately. > > I believe he is for tax increases on the whole and > I am against any plan for increases for anyone. You’re against tax increases. Okay so how are you going to pay for the bailout??
Yeah - $250K seems a bit low. If in urban households with 2+ children and private schools (plus future college costs), they are just scraping by . . .
IronMan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You’re against tax increases. Okay so how are you > going to pay for the bailout?? Liquidity is nice, but this is why most Repubs are against it - At least fundamentally.
CFAchief Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >. > > Who should we tax more? I think taxing individual > income over 250k would have the least impact on > economy, interesting insight.how do you conclude that?. these well off guys will clearly have lesser money to to hire help/spend/invest etc. bastiat’s broken window fallacy
My point isnt someone shouldnt be taxed, but what you stated is incorrect…I think it isnt individuals over 250K, it is familes and I think that could hurt the economy more than the tax offsets. I dont think it is all that fair to tax the rich, but I am not opposed to it. I just dont think a family, living in certain parts of the US, with maybe 2-3 kids, making $251K is really that rich they can afford it. They will be forced to cut spending, etc… I also think we (Govt) needs to cut spending like mad, but neither candidate will do it.
Just to clarify, Obama’s $250 K figure is for families: “Families making more than $250,000 will pay either the same or lower tax rates than they paid in the 1990s. Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the taxes they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility.” http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Factsheet_Tax_Plan_FINAL.pdf
Re: Obama tax plan Posted by: juventurd (IP Logged) [hide posts from this user] Date: October 1, 2008 02:05PM http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/competing-tax-plans-two-perspectives/ - - - - - - - I can’t believe I’m saying this, but Obama’s tax plan from that chart doesn’t look too bad. However, I don’t know how good it would be for our country to tax people who make $2.87M+ at an 11.5% tax increase, and $603K+ at an 8.7% increase. It sounds good - if cut and dry without any affects, but from solely looking at that diagram, think long term tax revenues would be lower under Obama, as well as long term GDP.
CFAchief Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well , somebody has to pay more taxes.We either > have to cut spending (primarily military, which is > 42% of the budget, since everything else is cut to > the bone), or tax more. We can’t just run GWB > deficits and devalue the dollar. I disagree that everything else is cut to the bone. There’s so much wasteful spending and programs that serve no purpose that could easily be cut. Unfortunately, it’s true that McCain might as well not even have a tax plan, because the democratic Congress would never pass his plan.
I wish it broke out the current % of Gross tax rates for each category as well on there. . .
kevinf12 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > My point isnt someone shouldnt be taxed, but what > you stated is incorrect…I think it isnt > individuals over 250K, it is familes and I think > that could hurt the economy more than the tax > offsets. > > I dont think it is all that fair to tax the rich, > but I am not opposed to it. I just dont think a > family, living in certain parts of the US, with > maybe 2-3 kids, making $251K is really that rich > they can afford it. They will be forced to cut > spending, etc… > > I also think we (Govt) needs to cut spending like > mad, but neither candidate will do it. Why would $1,000 at an increased tax rate cause a family to cut spending? 250k will be taxed at regular rates and 1,000 at a higher rate.
Eff this. If Obama gets elected, I’m asking for a pay cut. That will show him where to stick his high rates.
The point was all points over 250K…It isnt the sole tax increase, but the lack of relief with increase in other cost. Sure, you could look at it in isolation if you want. Not sure why, but do as you please. Again, I dont disagree with the premise, I just think it should start at a higher level. I think some people in that area are already hurting and need relief so they certainly will have to cut spending. I know of such families in NY right now.
If you start taxing at higher cutoff (500k, 1m) there are significanlty less people to spread the pain, and tax rate would be much higher. Not a good policy to tax the richest at 70%. I am not sure what specific and large enough domectic programs could be cut without complete social system/infrastructure collapse. Medicare/Medicaid is reimbursing well below cost; infrastructure is underfunded. There is plenty of fat in the military-industrial complex, but unfortunately nobody is going top cut that.