Obama's Budget

#26
#26
Headed For Home said:
If you want to know his intentions, look at what he has declared them to be. Namely taxing those who are successful and giving it to those who are not - because it just isn't fair that some have so much more than others.
Click to expand...


He doesn't want the successful to continue to use their money, enormous power, and overwhelming political influence to sculpt the tax code so as to treat their type of income differently than others' type of income.

The proffered justification for treating investment income differently is a farce. Everyone knows it. He is finally saying it.
 
#27
#27
More kicking the can down the road for Obama.

I have extreme doubts about either party to deliver much-needed tax reform.

The criticisms I've seen so far from GOP politicians are superficial and worthless, but the proposed budget isn't serious enough.
 
#28
#28
lawgator1 said:
He supports making the Bush cuts permanent except for the top two rates. He also supports eliminating the estate tax and proposes at least in this budget that there be an increase in the $1 million exemption and a dramatic lowering of the rate.

If it weren't for an election year, these would be GOP ideas.
Click to expand...

increasing taxes on the quartermillionaires and increased refunds to the bottom would be a GOP idea? Interesting
 
#29
#29
lawgator1 said:
He doesn't want the successful to continue to use their money, enormous power, and overwhelming political influence to sculpt the tax code so as to treat their type of income differently than others' type of income.

The proffered justification for treating investment income differently is a farce. Everyone knows it. He is finally saying it.
Click to expand...

Beautiful, brave Obama.
 
#30
#30
Headed For Home said:
If you want to know his intentions, look at what he has declared them to be. Namely taxing those who are successful and giving it to those who are not - because it just isn't fair that some have so much more than others.
Click to expand...

Do you think he is doing it intentionally to punish those that are successful?

I think a simplified tax system would solve alot of these issues. He seems to be addressing loopholes in the current system that the "successful" enjoy....by making more rules to compensate....instead of just making the whole thing more simple and keep the playing field equal on both sides (wealthy, non-wealthy).

Personally, I don't think it has anything to do with making it "fair" to those that aren't "successful". It has to do with making the system fair, which I think he is going about all wrong.
 
#31
#31
rjd970 said:
Do you think he is doing it intentionally to punish those that are successful?

I think a simplified tax system would solve alot of these issues. He seems to be addressing loopholes in the current system that the "successful" enjoy....by making more rules to compensate....instead of just making the whole thing more simple and keep the playing field equal on both sides (wealthy, non-wealthy).

Personally, I don't think it has anything to do with making it "fair" to those that aren't "successful". It has to do with making the system fair, which I think he is going about all wrong.
Click to expand...

Yes I do believe that he is intentionally trying to weaken the "successful". He said as much during his campaign. Do you remember his exchange with Joe the Plumber?

You are right though that the playing field should be even. Rich and poor should be paying the same rate whatever that is.
 
#32
#32
Headed For Home said:
Yes I do believe that he is intentionally trying to weaken the "successful". He said as much during his campaign. Do you remember his exchange with Joe the Plumber?

You are right though that the playing field should be even. Rich and poor should be paying the same rate whatever that is.
Click to expand...


Idiotic post.




Treating investment or passive income as if it were ordinary income is not punishing success. Taxing such income at a lower rate than ordinary working income is simply favoring the wealthiest at the expense of the middle class. The wealthiest bought and paid for the politicians, GOP and Dem alike, to put that into the tax code.

It is indefensible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#33
#33
lawgator1 said:
I'm just saying that its not like the taxation approach is entirely one sided.
Click to expand...

I agree with this, there really is only one set of ideas out there that keeps getting hit to the other side of the net depending on who is in charge.

We need new thinking on this soon.
 
#34
#34
lawgator1 said:
Idiotic post.




Treating investment or passive income as if it were ordinary income is not punishing success. Taxing such income at a lower rate than ordinary working income is simply favoring the wealthiest at the expense of the middle class. The wealthiest bought and paid for the politicians, GOP and Dem alike, to put that into the tax code.

It is indefensible.
Click to expand...

So tell us oh swampy what is "fair"

I noticed you ignored the exchange between Obama and Joe the Plumber. And by the way, the guy that Obama looked in the eye and told that he needed to pay more to be distributed among those who were not as fortunate, was not a tycoon.
 
#35
#35
lawgator1 said:
Idiotic post.




Treating investment or passive income as if it were ordinary income is not punishing success. Taxing such income at a lower rate than ordinary working income is simply favoring the wealthiest at the expense of the middle class. The wealthiest bought and paid for the politicians, GOP and Dem alike, to put that into the tax code.

It is indefensible.
Click to expand...

Did you leave out the part where it has been taxed as income before it was invested on purpose, or did that slip your mind while ranting about how it screws the middle class.
 
#36
#36
YorkVol said:
I agree with this, there really is only one set of ideas out there that keeps getting hit to the other side of the net depending on who is in charge.

We need new thinking on this soon.
Click to expand...


Here's the problem, generally speaking:

Those who support the notion of a flat tax believe it will be "more fair" because it will tax the lower classes more than they are being taxed now and that gives the base a thrill that they are imposing some measure of accountability on what they believe is an entitlement-based class, not an earnest lower class.

Those who support the notion of getting rid of capital gains and investment income tax treatment as different than ordinary income think it is "more fair" because it places a greater tax burden on the wealthiest, who in their view unfairly got the break to begin with and cling to it because it means huge amounts of money to their personal fortunes.

Neither will pass. The middle and lower class voters won't stand for a flat tax once they really understand what it means to them, personally. The fine print dooms that. And the politicians, in the end, don't have the stomach to piss off their political benefactors, so changing the code to treat investment income the same as ordinary income won't happen, either.

As a result, each side will bargain to chip away a little at what it wants, it will continue to be a hodge podge of tax cuts designed to curry political favor with someone, and there you go.
 
#37
#37
BeecherVol said:
Did you leave out the part where it has been taxed as income before it was invested on purpose, or did that slip your mind while ranting about how it screws the middle class.
Click to expand...

irrelevant. only rich people benefit from cap gains b/c no one in the middle class invests in, or owns, 401ks, iras, mutual funds, or real property.
 
#38
#38
BeecherVol said:
Did you leave out the part where it has been taxed as income before it was invested on purpose, or did that slip your mind while ranting about how it screws the middle class.
Click to expand...

Is it though, when it was never paid as income only in stock?

I admit, I am not informed here. But it seems like people are being paid in stock and claiming investment rates on taxes; hence, why Romney pays effectively 15%. Or do you consider that not income and investment, if so is he employee of Bain Capital, or just an investor?

Why should my income not be investment then?
 
#39
#39
lawgator1 said:
Here's the problem, generally speaking:

Those who support the notion of a flat tax believe it will be "more fair" because it will tax the lower classes more than they are being taxed now and that gives the base a thrill that they are imposing some measure of accountability on what they believe is an entitlement-based class, not an earnest lower class.

Those who support the notion of getting rid of capital gains and investment income tax treatment as different than ordinary income think it is "more fair" because it places a greater tax burden on the wealthiest, who in their view unfairly got the break to begin with and cling to it because it means huge amounts of money to their personal fortunes.

Neither will pass. The middle and lower class voters won't stand for a flat tax once they really understand what it means to them, personally. The fine print dooms that. And the politicians, in the end, don't have the stomach to piss off their political benefactors, so changing the code to treat investment income the same as ordinary income won't happen, either.

As a result, each side will bargain to chip away a little at what it wants, it will continue to be a hodge podge of tax cuts designed to curry political favor with someone, and there you go.
Click to expand...



This addresses what you think cannot be done but not what is in your mind fair
 
#40
#40
BeecherVol said:
Did you leave out the part where it has been taxed as income before it was invested on purpose, or did that slip your mind while ranting about how it screws the middle class.
Click to expand...


They don't care rich people love making money, and will just keep on keeping on. It just might not be investments here.
 
#42
#42
dreVol said:
irrelevant. only rich people benefit from cap gains b/c no one in the middle class invests in, or owns, 401ks, iras, mutual funds, or real property.
Click to expand...


Not true. Many in the middle class have invested in these areas. Though obviously not to the extent the wealthy has.
 
#43
#43
Headed For Home said:
Not true. Many in the middle class have invested in these areas. Though obviously not to the extent the wealthy has.
Click to expand...

I was being sarcastic. the proponents of eliminating or reducing cap gains in the name of fairness don't recognize that doing so will impact the middle class more than "rich people"
 
#45
#45
Weezy said:
Is it though, when it was never paid as income only in stock?

I admit, I am not informed here. But it seems like people are being paid in stock and claiming investment rates on taxes; hence, why Romney pays effectively 15%. Or do you consider that not income and investment, if so is he employee of Bain Capital, or just an investor?

Why should my income not be investment then?
Click to expand...

Im not either passed the white washing of who pays the majority of the taxes already, and who is being asked to pay more in the attempt to buy votes, retain power, and spend more.
 
#46
#46
Headed For Home said:
So tell us oh swampy what is "fair"

I noticed you ignored the exchange between Obama and Joe the Plumber. And by the way, the guy that Obama looked in the eye and told that he needed to pay more to be distributed among those who were not as fortunate, was not a tycoon.
Click to expand...


He was running for office. Just like he is now.

I'm sure he'd like to see the tax code changed to tax investment income just as ordinary income, but he knows it will never pass.

His proposal now doesn't even do that. It just chips away at it a little bit, just as GOP budget proposals shift the burden for cuts a bit disproportionately on the poorer, who aren't their constituency.
 
#47
#47
BeecherVol said:
Did you leave out the part where it has been taxed as income before it was invested on purpose, or did that slip your mind while ranting about how it screws the middle class.
Click to expand...


Well, first, I've said here many times I would end corporate income tax and require all corporate net revenues to be passed to taxpayers for purposes of tax accounting.

Second, as is documented here many times, including by conservatives, everyone knows that the corporations aren't paying nearly as much tax as you'd be led ot believe if you just looked at the rate. See e.g. GE paying nada in a recent year.

Third, you could always make that argument because even those paid by an employer as salary are ultimately getting their dollars from the revenues of the company.

Thus, your argument is totally invalid.
 
#48
#48
In1986 President Reagan set tax rates on capital gains at the same level as the rates on ordinary income like salaries and wages, with both topping out at 28 percent.

This is the answer . Lower the income tax rate and count all income as taxable and do away with all the loopholes.
 
#49
#49
Headed For Home said:
This addresses what you think cannot be done but not what is in your mind fair
Click to expand...


I think both are more fair than what we have. I think the bottom class should pay something -- I agree with conservatives on that. I'd get rid of the tax breaks and replace that with an ultra low tax for dollar one.

But I also don't think the very top pay enough when it is investment or capital gains and when it is a shell game, like it has been, to count it as something else.
 
#50
#50
Gramps said:
In1986 President Reagan set tax rates on capital gains at the same level as the rates on ordinary income like salaries and wages, with both topping out at 28 percent.

This is the answer . Lower the income tax rate and count all income as taxable and do away with all the loopholes.
Click to expand...


I'm with you.

But guess who doesn't want that?

Romney, Cantor, Boehner, etc.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top