quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Much of the "socialism" bent (and I admit that I think the term is being overly used and being used a bit too loosely these days) is that a substantial percentage of those quoted in the "95% of workers" don't even pay taxes, yet they are receiving a "tax credit" which is just a pretty name for income redistribution and reeks of class warfare.

And on the flip-side, you have corporate welfare from McCain giving gigantic tax breaks to the oil companies and the like. Are you going to tell me they deserve this more than the middle-class?

Besides, a bit of history on similar tax cuts and tax increases is in order:

quote:

* Real investment growth after the tax increases of 1993 was much higher than after the tax cuts of 1981 and 2001. The yearly growth rate after 1993 was 10.2 percent versus 2.8 percent for the first supply-side era beginning in 1981, and 2.7 percent in the period of the second supply-side era beginning in 2001. Without better investment growth being associated with supply-side policies, a critical link in the theory of supply-side economics is broken—and it is difficult to draw any plausible connection between supply-side tax cuts and any observed positive economic performance. * Economic growth as measured by real U.S. gross domestic product was stronger following the tax increases of 1993 than in the two supply-side eras. Over the seven-year periods after each legislative action, average annual growth was 3.9 percent following 1993, 3.5 percent following 1981, and 2.5 percent following 2001. * Average annual real median household income growth was greatest after the 1993 tax increases, at 2.0 percent annually compared to 1.4 percent after 1981 and 0.3 percent after 2001. * Wage levels also did better after 1993. Average real hourly earnings following 1981 fell at an annual rate of 0.1 percent and following 2001 rose at a rate of only 0.3 percent. Following the 1993 tax increases average hourly earnings grew by 0.9 percent per year. * Employment growth was weaker during the supply-side eras than during the post-1993 era. Average annual employment growth was 2.1 percent after 1981, 2.5 percent after 1993, and 0.6 percent after 2001. * Federal budget deficits and national debt increased during supply-side periods and decreased following the 1993 tax increases. In the seven years from 1993 to 1999, the country went from a federal deficit of 3.9 percent of GDP to a surplus of 1.4 percent. After 1981 the deficit ballooned to 6 percent of GDP by 1983. In the year the 2001 tax legislation was adopted, there was a surplus of 1.3 percent of GDP. This turned into a deficit of 3.6 percent by 2004, which fell back to 1.2 percent in 2007 but will undoubtedly be higher in 2008. The national debt has followed a similar pattern, rising by an astounding 14.8 percentage points relative to GDP over the 7 years following adoption of the 1981 supply-side tax cuts, shrinking by almost 10 percentage points relative to GDP following 1993, and moving back up by 3.8 percentage points relative to GDP after the 2001 tax cuts. http://www.americanprogress.org/iss...upply_side.html

quote:

That aside, this frightens me.

I accept your fear, and I admit personally I'm not usually one for having one party run both the Executive and Legislature. In fact I've advocated that checks and balances of a split between these two branches between both parties in the past. If the American people agree with you, however, then you'll likely see a shift back the other direction in 4-8 years. We'll see. American politics is like a giant pendulum, and it often swings back and forth in both directions. And when it swings to an extreme side like it has over the past 6-8 years, it will often swing towards the opposite extreme for a brief period as well.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Obama has been more than capable to handle himself in this situation. The fact that Joe had to admit that he would likely get a tax cut, actually a BETTER tax cut under Obama's plan in realistic terms of the situation (and not the hypothetical that Shakka continues dreaming about) has done quite well to prove Obama's point and stance on the matter.

Why you gotta hold the man down? Such a hater. If Joe is a decent plumber there is no reason to believe he couldn't expand his business pretty rapidly in the next couple of years, let alone 4-8. People generally don't go into business for themselves with no ambition for growth. That kind of defeats the purpose. It ain't no dream man, it's the Amurkan Dream!

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo in this country the top 1% pay 40% of Federal Personal Income Tax. down the scale the top 10% pay 70%. further down, the top 50% pay 97% of all Federal Personal Income Tax. it's mathematically disingenuous to believe Obama "seeks to reduce the tax burden for 95% of workers" when a large majority of those 95% end up not paying any taxes. what he's going to do is give those people in his target range the money that those other people above his target range have paid in their taxes (what we Americans call wealth redistribution)...minus whatever increases in spending he's put on the table. makes perfect sense

Your argument also assumes that the top 1% and/or top 10% actually pay their fare share of taxes accordingly, without jumping through creative loopholes that they are fairly well known to do.

Other things to consider - payroll taxes being capped at $102,000. So for those who make above and far beyond this amount, they only pay at the same level as those making $102,000.

Also, if you make $100,000,000 buying and selling stocks, you pay a maximum of 15% tax. However, if you make $35,000 waiting tables, then you pay 25% tax.

Another thing to consider is capital gains taxes - The wealthiest among us make the lion's share of their money through passive investments (buying & selling of stocks, real estate, etc.). This type of income is only subject to capital gains taxes of 15% if the asset held for more than a year.

More to consider here:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi...-11-taxes_N.htm

here:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...INGV560VO41.DTL

and who really benefits most from tax cuts here:

http://www.cbpp.org/2-4-08tax.htm

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Why you gotta hold the man down? Such a hater. If Joe is a decent plumber there is no reason to believe he couldn't expand his business pretty rapidly in the next couple of years, let alone 4-8. People generally don't go into business for themselves with no ambition for growth. That kind of defeats the purpose. It ain't no dream man, it's the Amurkan Dream!

Hey man, all the power to Joe! Chances are with his new fame and spotlight, he'll be able to open a chain of businesses!

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Another thing to consider is capital gains taxes - The wealthiest among us make the lion's share of their money through passive investments (buying & selling of stocks, real estate, etc.). This type of income is only subject to capital gains taxes of 15% if the asset held for more than a year.

To be fair, that capital gains tax is levied on gains related to/derived from corporate earnings that have already been taxed, likely in the 35% range. As well as a tax levied on an investment that was most likely originally funded with income that had also already been taxed at the ordinary income rate. I think the government gets plenty here if you put it in perspective. Anyway, I'd expect there to be a lot of capital losses reported for Tax Year 2008. It's been an ugly one for most stock investors--just ask Krypton.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Your argument also assumes that the top 1% and/or top 10% actually pay their fare share of taxes accordingly, without jumping through creative loopholes that they are fairly well known to do.

what i'm talking about and what Obama is talking about is the "pie", the gross revenue collected by the IRS.

quote:

Other things to consider - payroll taxes being capped at $102,000. So for those who make above and far beyond this amount, they only pay at the same level as those making $102,000.

what exactly is the threshold for "those who make above and far beyond 102,000"? IOW how large is the gap between 102k and above and beyond that?

quote:

Also, if you make $100,000,000 buying and selling stocks, you pay a maximum of 15% tax. However, if you make $35,000 waiting tables, then you pay 25% tax. Another thing to consider is capital gains taxes - The wealthiest among us make the lion's share of their money through passive investments (buying & selling of stocks, real estate, etc.). This type of income is only subject to capital gains taxes of 15% if the asset held for more than a year.

and what does Obama want to increase the capital gains tax to?

some more to consider that a large % of whatever taxes are increased on the upper scale of income earners always ends up being paid for by the people who depend on them for the goods and services they provide.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo and what does Obama want to increase the capital gains tax to?

In his discussion with the plumber, obama said that he wanted to lower some capital gains taxes did he not?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN In his discussion with the plumber, obama said that he wanted to lower some capital gains taxes did he not?

he said for small business owners he would eliminate it. your guess is as good as mine on what that means specifically.

captial gains taxes here in America are levied on the sale of stocks, bonds and property and is a flat rate at 15%. he said this year he seeks to raise capital gains by the wealthy from 15% to 20-25% no higher than 28%. >LINK<

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo he said for small business owners he would eliminate it. your guess is as good as mine on what that means specifically. captial gains taxes here in America are levied on the sale of stocks, bonds and property and is a flat rate at 15%. he said this year he seeks to raise capital gains by the wealthy from 15% to 20-25% no higher than 28%. >LINK<

that's not entirely correct. capital gains are taxed at 5% for people who probably don't have the financial capacity to have capital gains (i.e., people in the lowest tax brackets), and the capital gain tax for corporations is 35%. Even if someone has a capital gain, it may be subject to a higher rate depending upon whether depreciation was taken with respect to the property. I wouldn't be too worried about capital gains tax for rich people. They can hire lawyers and accoutants significantly reduce their burden.

Last edited by jerZ07002 on Oct-20-2008 at 01:52

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 that's not entirely correct. capital gains are taxed at 5% for people who probably don't have the financial capacity to have capital gains (i.e., people in the lowest tax brackets), and the capital gain tax for corporations is 35%. Even if someone has a capital gain, it may be subject to a higher rate depending upon whether depreciation was taken with respect to the property. I wouldn't be too worried about capital gains tax for rich people. They can hire lawyers and accoutants significantly reduce their burden.

ok. i thought the difference between the higher rate of 15% and the lower rate of 5% depended on the time invested.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo ok. i thought the difference between the higher rate of 15% and the lower rate of 5% depended on the time invested.

in almost all instances the 15% rate applies (so you would be correct about 80-90 percent of the time). If a capital asset is owned for less than 1 year the ordinary rate applies (i.e., there is no capital gain tax benefit unless you own the property for more than 1 year).


there are actually numerous scenarios in which a person would rather not have capital treatment. Corporations almost never want capital treatment.

Last edited by jerZ07002 on Oct-20-2008 at 02:24