Sucks to Be Rich?

#1
volinbham

volinbham

VN GURU
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
69,784
Likes
62,462
#1
So what's the count now on tax hikes on the "rich"?

1. Capping deduction rates? Check
2. Raising Capital Gains rates? Check
3. Rise in marginal rates as cuts expire? Check
4. Surcharge for healthcare? In the works.

When you add it all up, what do you think the effective rise will be? I'd say pretty substantial but it won't be enough.

It's pure fantasy to think all the new programs and initiatives in the works can be payed for by this group.
 
#4
#4
volinbham said:
So what's the count now on tax hikes on the "rich"?

1. Capping deduction rates? Check
2. Raising Capital Gains rates? Check

Is that true -- link?


3. Rise in marginal rates as cuts expire? Check

Everyone knew that was coming.

4. Surcharge for healthcare? In the works.

A long way from happening.

When you add it all up, what do you think the effective rise will be? I'd say pretty substantial but it won't be enough.

It's pure fantasy to think all the new programs and initiatives in the works can be payed for by this group.
Click to expand...


Let me ask you, if the effective overall tax rate on a person making $1 million was 25 percent (discounting for all deductions, deferrals, etc), would you prefer to make $60,000?
 
#5
#5
Capital Gains rate proposal from Obama -- from 15% to 20% http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy2010_new_era/A_New_Era_of_Responsibility2.pdf

Deduction limit proposal from Obama -- capped at 28% down from 35%. In particular this include charitable deductions which could reduce the flow of monies to charitable orgs.

Obama's Proposal to Reduce Charitable Deductions Would Hurt Civil Society, Expand Government

I say these are "check" since these are in his budget proposal. The healthcare one is not in a budget proposal yet but looks to have a good chance to make it into the bill he signs.

As to your hypothetical? I would prefer to make what I earn and be taxed fairly. I reject the idea that someone making a million is fair game as a piggy bank for any number of social programs that a party chooses to reward constituents, maintain power and destroy principles of self responsibility and sound economics.
 
#6
#6
volinbham said:
As to your hypothetical? I would prefer to make what I earn and be taxed fairly. I reject the idea that someone making a million is fair game as a piggy bank for any number of social programs that a party chooses to reward constituents, maintain power and destroy principles of self responsibility and sound economics.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

What a stupid question. It is as if the rich are supposed to be grateful they are allowed to keep anything they made.
 
#7
#7
volinbham said:
Capital Gains rate proposal from Obama -- from 15% to 20% http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy2010_new_era/A_New_Era_of_Responsibility2.pdf

Deduction limit proposal from Obama -- capped at 28% down from 35%. In particular this include charitable deductions which could reduce the flow of monies to charitable orgs.

Obama's Proposal to Reduce Charitable Deductions Would Hurt Civil Society, Expand Government

I say these are "check" since these are in his budget proposal. The healthcare one is not in a budget proposal yet but looks to have a good chance to make it into the bill he signs.

As to your hypothetical? I would prefer to make what I earn and be taxed fairly. I reject the idea that someone making a million is fair game as a piggy bank for any number of social programs that a party chooses to reward constituents, maintain power and destroy principles of self responsibility and sound economics.
Click to expand...

allvol123 said:
Exactly.

What a stupid question. It is as if the rich are supposed to be grateful they are allowed to keep anything they made.
Click to expand...



No because once it is taken as a granted that we will have a progressive taxation system, with rates increasing as income does, then by definition you are saying that the top wage eanrers will pay a higher dollar amount than will lower income earners.

The debate then becomes simply "how much" more? When Bush was elected, he cut the rate on the top earners. Obama is going to let that cut expire. The effect under one was to decrease the gross dollar contribution from the top, and from the other it is to increase it, at least on a year-over-year basis.

Just as one cannot argue that the wealthy ought to pay an 80 percent rate on grounds that they can "afford it," if we are going to have a progressive system then once again by definition you are syaing they can pay 30 percent and for exactly that reason -- they can afford it.

Its a tug-of-war that goes on all the time. Where to shift the increased expense of government? Ideally, you'd cut the expense. Ideally, tax revenues would go up because the economy is doing well.

But absent those events, in the short term, you have to go somewhere to get it and that's what the election was really all about.

Just let's not pretend that Obama is a "socialist" because he favors higher marginal rates on the top than did Bush. To the extent that there was any tiered system, both of them are socialist. Just that one is goring the ox of the other a bit harder. The difference is not philosophical in the least.
 
#8
#8
obama has suggested he doesnt' see a problem with pre reagan tax rates for the rich where the maximum tax rate was 70%. not too far off from your 80% example of a ridiculous tax.
 
#9
#9
droski said:
obama has suggested he doesnt' see a problem with pre reagan tax rates for the rich where the maximum tax rate was 70%. not too far off from your 80% example of a ridiculous tax.
Click to expand...


"Obama has suggested...." he "doesn't see a problem" with a 70 % top rate?

What does that mean?
 
#10
#10
lawgator1 said:
No because once it is taken as a granted that we will have a progressive taxation system, with rates increasing as income does, then by definition you are saying that the top wage eanrers will pay a higher dollar amount than will lower income earners.

I don't have a problem with a progressive tax system.

The debate then becomes simply "how much" more? When Bush was elected, he cut the rate on the top earners. Obama is going to let that cut expire. The effect under one was to decrease the gross dollar contribution from the top, and from the other it is to increase it, at least on a year-over-year basis.

If it were just letting the tax cuts expire it would be a different story.

Just as one cannot argue that the wealthy ought to pay an 80 percent rate on grounds that they can "afford it," if we are going to have a progressive system then once again by definition you are syaing they can pay 30 percent and for exactly that reason -- they can afford it.

It's not about being able to afford it. It's the lack of restraint in choosing to go after this group under the notion that they can afford it. It's terrible rationale.

Its a tug-of-war that goes on all the time. Where to shift the increased expense of government? Ideally, you'd cut the expense. Ideally, tax revenues would go up because the economy is doing well.

But absent those events, in the short term, you have to go somewhere to get it and that's what the election was really all about.

The bigger issue is that Obama is lying to the public suggesting we can have all these wonderful things because the rich can afford to provide them. It's not responsible government on his part or Congress's part to not take a serious look at what we as a nation can afford and should provide. Simply dumping the bill on the rich is the height of irresponsible government.

Just let's not pretend that Obama is a "socialist" because he favors higher marginal rates on the top than did Bush. To the extent that there was any tiered system, both of them are socialist. Just that one is goring the ox of the other a bit harder. The difference is not philosophical in the least.
Click to expand...

It is certainly philosophically different. One small example would be the cap on charitable deductions - that fundamentally shifts the functions that charities provide to functions the government provides. Bush cut taxes as part of a supply side philosophy. Obama raising taxes is the opposite of a supply side philosophy. You can argue which philosophy is better but they are not the same views of how to maximize revenue and how to provide "services" to the public.
 
#13
#13
What is Obama talking about raising the capital gains tax to? And what is he talking about raising the maximum tax rate to?
 
#16
#16
lawgator1 said:
"Obama has suggested...." he "doesn't see a problem" with a 70 % top rate?

What does that mean?
Click to expand...

it means that he and his cronies consistantly mention that even with his new tax plan, it's below pre reagan levels (which is a questionable assertion btw since reagan eliminated a lot of tax loopholes).
 
#17
#17
rjd970 said:
What is Obama talking about raising the capital gains tax to? And what is he talking about raising the maximum tax rate to?
Click to expand...

he wants to raise the maximum rate to 35%. i think it's something like capital gains over $2 mil (not sure how he came up with that number).
 
#22
#22
my father used to say you can marry more money in a minute than you can make in a lifetime. unfortunetly i seem to always date poor girls.
 
#25
#25
droski said:
my father used to say you can marry more money in a minute than you can make in a lifetime. unfortunetly i seem to always date poor girls.
Click to expand...

stop trying to get into the pants of the Berkeley tree-sitters
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top