Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    28 Nov '12 21:19
    From the Washington Post:

    A road map to higher taxes on the rich
    By Robert J. Samuelson,  Published: WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 12:41 PM ET
        Aa  
    As a practical matter, the debate over higher taxes is finished. If there’s an agreement to avoid the “fiscal cliff,” it will almost certainly contain large tax increases mostly or entirely on the wealthy. President Obama defines them as couples with more than $250,000 of income and singles with $200,000 or more. The open questions are which taxes would go up, by how much and with what effect.

    Let’s try to make sense of the numbers.

    The president wants $1.6 trillion in higher taxes over the next decade. To provide perspective: In the unsuccessful 2011 budget negotiations, House Speaker John Boehner reportedly supported a deal with $800 billion of tax increases. So the president — flush with victory for a second term — has doubled his demand over Boehner’s previous best offer. This could be a huge obstacle to agreement.

    But Obama can claim that this has been his position all along. The White House included the $1.6 trillion figure in its 2013 budget submission, though the figure didn’t receive much attention. According to Donald Marron, head of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center (TPC), the administration would raise the $1.6 trillion as follows:

    ● The top individual tax rates would rise from their present 33 percent and 35 percent to 36 percent and 39.6 percent for those over Obama’s income thresholds. The 10-year revenue gain: $442 billion.

    ● Tax deductions would be trimmed. They would be phased out for the very rich and would provide no more than a 28 percent write-off for others in high tax brackets. Revenue gain: $707 billion.

    ● Tax rates on dividends from stocks would rise from today’s 15 percent to the rates on wages (up to 39.6 percent). Revenue gain: $206 billion. (Ownership of stocks is heavily concentrated among richer Americans.)

    ● Rates on capital gains — profits from sales of assets such as stocks — would rise from 15 percent to 20 percent. Revenue gain: $36 billion.

    ● The personal exemption for the wealthiest taxpayers would be phased out. Revenue gain: $42 billion.

    ●The estate tax would be restored to its 2009 level. At present, there’s an exemption from taxes for estates up to $5.1 million, and the tax rate on the remainder is 35 percent. In 2009, the exemption was only $3.5 million, and the tax rate was 45 percent. Revenue gain: $119 billion.

    As intended, the rich bear the burden of these increases.
    The top 1 percent, with incomes beginning at $597,000, would pay an average $72,000 in higher taxes, representing a 5.1 percent decline in their after-tax income, the TPC has estimated. The wealthiest 0.1 percent (included in the top 1 percent), with a minimum income of $2.9 million, would pay an extra $403,000, a 6.6 percent drop in their after-tax income, says the TPC. The richest 95th to 99th percent of taxpayers (income threshold: $252,000) would pay an average of $5,765 more.

    Though significant, these increases would roughly restore the tax burden on the rich to where it was before the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, other TPC estimates suggest. The top rate was then 39.6 percent, the rate on capital gains was 20 percent and the estate tax was higher than now. Possibly altering this conclusion are tax increases on the wealthy — the same income definitions — passed as part of Obamacare. The tax on wage and salary earnings was raised 0.9 percentage points; on capital gains and dividends, it was increased 3.8 percentage points.

    “With state income taxes, top marginal rates will now be approaching 50,” says Marron. “This creates an incentive for the wealthy to spend more time with their lawyers and accountants to change how they structure their activities [to minimize taxes].”

    To reduce this, many economists favor limiting tax breaks to keep rates low. Republicans have been more open to this approach, because (they argue) lower rates might mitigate the adverse effects of higher tax burdens on the economy. Individuals would still have incentives to work hard; they’d keep a higher percentage of any increase in earnings. Similarly, small businesses — which often pay taxes at personal income rates — would have incentives to hire.

    The TPC estimated that limiting taxpayers’ itemized deductions — including mortgage interest payments, charitable contributions, and state and local taxes — to $17,000 could raise $1.7 trillion over a decade. Marron points out, however, that some resulting tax increases would fall on those below Obama’s $200,000/$250,000 threshold.

    There’s plenty left for negotiation.

    MORE FROM OPINIONS
  2. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    28 Nov '12 21:38
    Here's the practical effect. The things my wife and I won't do with the $5,700+ that Barack the Marxist, he with two Muslim names, wants to confiscate.

    We won't buy a new car next year. We might not buy it for a while. We will eat out much less. We will not go on a vacation.

    How many businesses will have less money because of the economic activity we will not perform?

    A car dealer, and the car salesman who will not make a commission. The car manufacturer, and all of its Democrat, union workers, will have one less car to make. Local restaurants, whose servers will not make our tips. US Airways will serve two fewer passengers. A hotel will have one less room to fill. The maids will have one fewer room to clean, the bartenders will have fewer drinks to pour and will make fewer tips.

    And maybe I'll sit down with an Excel spreadsheet, and figure out what I need to do to not fall into Obama's tax cyclone. Maybe I'll work less hard. Maybe I won't do as much. Maybe I'll figure out how to make one dollar less than Obama's magic number.

    You people can go screw yourselves.
  3. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    28 Nov '12 21:42
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    Here's the practical effect. The things my wife and I won't do with the $5,700+ that Barack the Marxist, he with two Muslim names, wants to confiscate.

    We won't buy a new car next year. We might not buy it for a while. We will eat out much less. We will not go on a vacation.

    How many businesses will have less money because of the economic ...[text shortened]... ake one dollar less than Obama's magic number.

    You people can go screw yourselves.
    You might start by figuring out that we have marginal tax rates and making less doesn't get you more money at any level.
  4. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    28 Nov '12 21:48
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    You might start by figuring out that we have marginal tax rates and making less doesn't get you more money at any level.
    I took an extreme position to illustrate a point. You do agree that there's a taxation rate - some number, and it's different for all people - that discourages additional work?
  5. Subscriber my2sons
    Retired
    28 Nov '12 21:53
    Where is Obama's plan for reducing entitlements? Oh that's right, he has none.
    What a putz he is. It's time to go over the so called fiscal cliff in order to reduce this country's deficit now. Hang tough Republicans, don't give in to this communist dictator.
  6. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    28 Nov '12 22:02
    Originally posted by sasquatch672

    And maybe I'll sit down with an Excel spreadsheet, and figure out what I need to do to not fall into Obama's tax cyclone. Maybe I'll work less hard. Maybe I won't do as much. Maybe I'll figure out how to make one dollar less than Obama's magic number.

    You people can go screw yourselves.
    That's one of those dumbbell misconceptions going around in Wingnut Land: that making $250,000 will cause you to be taxed at a higher rate on the entire $250,000 versus making $249,999, so that in effect someone making $250,000 will make, after taxes, thousands less than someone making $249,999.

    Not so.

    The fact is, if someone makes over $250,000 in the tax scheme being advanced by Democrats, the higher rate only applies to the money made in excess of $250,000, while the balance is taxed at a lower rate. Thus, all things being equal, someone making $250,001 will still pull in more money after taxes than someone making any lesser amount.

    Economics 101, dude.
  7. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    28 Nov '12 22:03
    Originally posted by my2sons
    Where is Obama's plan for reducing entitlements? Oh that's right, he has none.
    What a putz he is. It's time to go over the so called fiscal cliff in order to reduce this country's deficit now. Hang tough Republicans, don't give in to this communist dictator.
  8. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    28 Nov '12 22:06
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    I took an extreme position to illustrate a point. You do agree that there's a taxation rate - some number, and it's different for all people - that discourages additional work?
    Not really. If "More Work = More Money After Taxes" is the encouragement you require, marginal tax rates deliver.
  9. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    28 Nov '12 22:17
    Originally posted by Soothfast
    Not really. If "More Work = More Money After Taxes" is the encouragement you require, marginal tax rates deliver.
    Higher taxes reduce economic freedom, do they not?
  10. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    28 Nov '12 22:42
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    Higher taxes reduce economic freedom, do they not?
    In what way?

    I suppose one could argue that the existence of private property reduces "economic freedom"; after all without that concept you can go work where you please and do whatever you want.
  11. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    28 Nov '12 23:03
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    Higher taxes reduce economic freedom, do they not?
    The US and other countries prospered under far higher taxation, notably on the rich, and the neo liberal attack on public services and refusal to provide government with the necessary tax income is now destroying the infrastructure that made that affluence possible. Freedom for the Koch brothers and their like is a freedom to destroy wealth, not to create anything of any value.
  12. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    28 Nov '12 23:19 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by finnegan
    The US and other countries prospered under far higher taxation, notably on the rich, and the neo liberal attack on public services and refusal to provide government with the necessary tax income is now destroying the infrastructure that made that affluence possible. Freedom for the Koch brothers and their like is a freedom to destroy wealth, not to create anything of any value.
    That's from page 14 of The Communist Manfesto. Your next original thought will be your first.

    EDIT: You're a Hitchens fan too? You're beyond help or hope. Explains an awful lot though.
  13. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    28 Nov '12 23:29
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    In what way?

    I suppose one could argue that the existence of private property reduces "economic freedom"; after all without that concept you can go work where you please and do whatever you want.
    If the government takes my money, it's taking my ability to use that money as I see fit. Right? That's taking choices away. That's reducing economic freedom.

    I'm not advocating no taxes, but between the state and the federal government, I'm working half the year for them? You're ok with doing that? If you are I think you're nuits.
  14. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    28 Nov '12 23:51
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    If the government takes my money, it's taking my ability to use that money as I see fit. Right? That's taking choices away. That's reducing economic freedom.

    I'm not advocating no taxes, but between the state and the federal government, I'm working half the year for them? You're ok with doing that? If you are I think you're nuits.
    The majority of voters don't seem to agree, so your attitude is moot.
  15. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    29 Nov '12 00:06 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    If the government takes my money, it's taking my ability to use that money as I see fit. Right? That's taking choices away. That's reducing economic freedom.

    I'm not advocating no taxes, but between the state and the federal government, I'm working half the year for them? You're ok with doing that? If you are I think you're nuits.
    If there was no government, there'd be no private property and you couldn't amass any significant wealth at all. Stop your crying. Your narcissism is beyond belief.