CNN: 90+% of Americans would pay less in taxes under Obama's plan

[Special K]

I'd also point out that the CNN numbers don't show much of a tax increase for people making $200k. According to the link, households making $200k will see a reduction in their taxes of $2,789 under Obama's plan. You have to be making at least $227k to see a tax increase, and even then it's only $12. The big tax increase on the "rich" doesn't start to kick in until you're making at least $603k.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidates_taxproposals_tpc/index.htm?cnn=yes

You know what? I don't care if you're making 200k or 600k, I don't think you should be forced to pay higher taxes. I simply do not think that encourages people to work hard and succeed in our society.

[Hooper]

Another thing I read lately and found pretty surprising is that the stock market does better when a democrat is in office. Definitely wouldn't have guessed that.

[Springfield]

Well, of course anyone's all for saving 1000 a year on taxes, but I think this CNN story has a lot of fictitious "calcuations" and figures. And I wouldn't be so sure about living in a large house and driving nice cars when you're making 6 figures... You gotta be careful when you're lumping them in with multimillionares.

I'm not trying to lump the thousandaires in with the multi-millionaires. When I think top 10%, I think millionaires, sorry if that's incorrect.

Anyhow, I would rather make more money and pay more taxes than maintain the status quo. The last time I got a raise, my boss said, "That's going to put you into the next tax bracket, you'll be making the about the same amount the money after taxes."... I said, "Go eat sand and give me my damn raise." Glad I took that raise, cause yeah, I'm making more money even after taxes.

[Leonard Washington]

excuse me i gotta go take a ****.

[DjTj]

You may not view it as punishment but I do. Any mid level income earner that is subjected to AMT would see it as punishment.

As far as those that are still here instead of the Cayman Islands, how many do you think would stick it out if their tax burden which is already exhorbitantly disproportionate and was increased further. What would that do to the economy and tax revenue?

I don't know, but taxes have been higher in the past, and even in the recent past, and it didn't seem to cause a collapse of the American economy.

Typically when taxes are lowered, tax revenue increases. Increasing taxes does not guarantee more tax revenue, rather it usually results in the opposite.

This just isn't true at all.

Here is the IRS web site with real numbers: http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/compliancestats/article/0,,id=97168,00.html#2

Clinton raised taxes in 1993. Here are the total tax revenues from 1992-1995:

1992: 1,134,195

1993: 1,190,673

1994: 1,290,246

1995: 1,390,048

Bush cut taxes in 2001. Here are the total tax revenues from 2000-2003:

2000: 2,112,755

2001: 2,144,654

2002: 2,033,661

2003: 1,969,648

When you raise taxes, tax revenue usually increases. When you cut taxes, tax revenue usually decreases. It's really pretty simple. The economy is also a big factor in this, but the idea that cutting taxes increases revenue is a complete myth. Reagan promised this would happen, but it never has.

You know what? I don't care if you're making 200k or 600k, I don't think you should be forced to pay higher taxes. I simply do not think that encourages people to work hard and succeed in our society.

That's fine that you don't believe it, but the incredible success of the American economy runs contrary to your belief. Despite progressive taxes in place since the New Deal, Americans have continued to work hard and to succeed at a faster rate than at any other time in our history. :2cents:

[ChiefBigMeat]

Nice try, but wrong again (does it hurt to be wrong so often?). At one point in my life, I was on the 'free lunch' program at schools. My mom hated it and worked 2 jobs to get us off it really quickly. I paid my way through college and earned a degree that was actually worth something (you know, instead of partying my way through HS and college). I work hard at my job and am happy that I make a good living. I just don't want to give the money I'm saving for my kids college funds to all you slackers who like to sit around all day, collect goverment checks, play keno, and visit the local liquor store at 11 AM.

Nope. I worked in a factory, getting paid by the hour, machining turbo chargers 50 hrs/week to put myself through college. 3-11 second shift, homework after that, then class at 8 or 9 am. There were lots of times when my little sister and I ate bbq sauce sandwiches, and days at college when I had nothing to eat but cough drops.

Your mom sounds like a tough lady. You and I both know that there are millions of people who are working harder and harder for less and less.

Welfare is over and the myth of the cadillac-driving welfare queen is just that ... a myth.

Bottom line is that the economy is broken.

here's my analogy: think of an engine. It needs air and gas to mix as fuel. Think of Capital Investors and Average consumers and those two ingredients. If you get the mix too out of balance, the engine stops working and everybody is walking.

Right now, with the tax breaks on investment income, all those guys are pumping it into the market and oil speculation driving up the price. Meanwhile, consumers (working joes) have no money to spend at small businesses, or anywhere else for that matter.

We're in this spiraling state because policy has created an imbalance. What happens to all these companies and investors when no one can afford to buy the goods they make?

So you see, this economic plan isn't all about "Robin Hood" ideology, but a practical plan to get EVERYBODY back on track.

[The Sisko]

Well, of course anyone's all for saving 1000 a year on taxes, but I think this CNN story has a lot of fictitious "calcuations" and figures. And I wouldn't be so sure about living in a large house and driving nice cars when you're making 6 figures... You gotta be careful when you're lumping them in with multimillionares.

Care to take The Wall Street Journal's word for it then?

[Special K]

I'm not trying to lump the thousandaires in with the multi-millionaires. When I think top 10%, I think millionaires, sorry if that's incorrect.

Anyhow, I would rather make more money and pay more taxes than maintain the status quo. The last time I got a raise, my boss said, "That's going to put you into the next tax bracket, you'll be making the about the same amount the money after taxes"... I said, "Go eat sand and give me my damn raise." Glad I took that raise, cause yeah, I'm making more money even after taxes.

I understand. A lot of people don't intentionally do that. I just wanted to bring up the point that we are not talking about insanely rich multi-millionaires here when increasing taxes.

Care to take The Wall Street Journal's word for it then?

I would like to have explained to me how Obama plans on decreasing taxes AND providing his form of universal healthcare AND keeping American citizens safe.

[robotfire]

So you are saying you want a terrorist running our country?

If it means lower taxes...

[Koolblue13]

excuse me i gotta go take a ****.

I agree Lenny,

Hey, you guys remember back about 7 or 8 months ago, when we talked of Fair Tax vs. Flat Tax and we had candidates who did as well, where did they go?

The problem with taxes are the same with health care, IMO, they are flawed fundamentally. Our elected officials screwed it up, over spent and have not been help accountable in the least and every cost gets passed right down to us.

We can't think long term, we can barely even think one year into a new term of the presidency, let alone 10 years down the road. How in earth are we ever going to fix what is wrong.

We need a person who will just lay everything out flat in front of us, cut the slop and reform (in a true American Constitutional Republican way) everything that has gone awry.

We all need to sacrifice what ever it takes and all be on the same page, no matter how bad it hurts.

Fix the problems at the core.

[#98QBKiller]

And Chipwhich is exactly right, you make 200 grand a year and live in SF or NY, you're middle class right there.

That's not true at all. The cost of living in SF and NY are high, but $200K/year is not middle class.

I've taken jobs in different cities and this cost of living calculator has been very helpful and accurate for me in the past:

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/movecalc.asp

$50K in DC is equivalent to $60K in SF and $70K in NY (Manhattan, the most expensive urban area to live in the country). I worked in DC for over a year and $50K in DC was middle class, which would put $60 to $70K at middle class in SF & Manhattan respectively.

Here's another good one too:

http://cgi.money.cnn.com/tools/costofliving/costofliving.html

[Thiebear]

Over $2.9M +$701,885 (24% increase)

question: So someone making 2.9 million already pays what?

1,015,000 35%

701,885 24%

----------------

1,716,885

so they made almost 3 mill and they keep: 1,183,115

The Government is making +533,770 more than the person that earned it?

Doesn't seem a bit extreme?

[Thiebear]

I've taken jobs in different cities and this cost of living calculator has been very helpful and accurate for me in the past:

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/movecalc.asp

http://cgi.money.cnn.com/tools/costofliving/costofliving.html

I could agree with this: IT should be based on where you live.

If i make 50k in Arkansas and I make 80k in Alexandria.

I should be taxed at the 50k in Arkansas rates. Or them 80k rates

Kind of like the tax rebates a girl i know in Nebraska makes as much as me "technically"... but got 900 where i got 122$.

Perception is key to this tax thing apparently.

[Hubbs]

You know what? I don't care if you're making 200k or 600k, I don't think you should be forced to pay higher taxes. I simply do not think that encourages people to work hard and succeed in our society.

So... wait... if I pay, say, 40% at 600k and 30% at 200k, I'm not gonna be "encouraged" to make a lot more money for myself because I'll have to pay more in taxes as well? How does that make any sense at all?

[#98QBKiller]

I could agree with this: IT should be based on where you live.

If i make 50k in Arkansas and I make 80k in Alexandria.

I should be taxed at the 50k in Arkansas rates. Or them 80k rates

Kind of like the tax rebates a girl i know in Nebraska makes as much as me "technically"... but got 900 where i got 122$.

Perception is key to this tax thing apparently.

That's exactly right. I just took a new job and moved back to Wilmington, NC after working in DC for a year and the cost of living is like night and day...a dollar less for a gallon of milk, fifteen cents less for a gallon of gas, mortgage on a 3-bedroom house is the same as the rent for the 1-bedroom apartment I was renting in Arlington.

Cost of living has to be a factor in taxes IMO.

[Hubbs]

It is not a myth, it is exactly what Obama proposes, please read his proposal again.

I said nothing about a 70% tax rate, please again, keep to what I said.

You must not have read the tax codes recently. There are jumps in tax rates at specific income levels. Those who earn slightly more than that level actuall keep LESS than those who earn slightly less.

Good Lord, man, my high school government class tackled this issue. Yes, there are jumps in tax rates at specific levels, but there are also structures built into the code so your scenario will never occur. If the tax rate jumps at $100,000, for example, the IRS makes sure that a person who makes $100,001 still winds up with slightly more money than someone who makes $99,999.

Even without this distinction, the issue is that those who work harder and make more money pay MORE AS A PERCENTAGE than those who don't. Period, end of story. This means that those people make less PER DOLLAR EARNED than folks who work less. This is socialism. Failed EVERY time.

What the eff? That's the way our tax system has worked since the income tax came into existence. Are you saying America's economy is a failure?

[Larry]

What about the 10% that already disportionately pay more? The top 10% already pay 63% of all federal taxes in the US.

(Why is it that people who like to spout that number never mention that those same people also receive 45% of all the money in the country? Could it be because if you say "People who earn more than $100K (after all deductions) make 45% of all the income in the country, and pay 70% of all income taxes", then it doesn't sound like the mean old government is picking on the poor, downtrodden, rich class?)

Source

[Koolblue13]

FWIW I live in one of the 10 richest counties in the country and am by two others and have a major cost of living and get by with squat.

$200k is a lot of money anywhere.

[Larry]

You must not have read the tax codes recently.

Uh, no, one of us hasn't. But it isn't me.

There are jumps in tax rates at specific income levels.

True.

Those who earn slightly more than that level actuall keep LESS than those who earn slightly less.

Utter lie. Has never happened. Has never been proposed.

Even without this distinction,

(Translation: "Despite the fact that I want to retreat from")

the issue is that those who work harder and make more money pay MORE AS A PERCENTAGE than those who don't. Period, end of story. This means that those people make less PER DOLLAR EARNED than folks who work less.

Correct

This is socialism.

No, this is "progressive taxation". (I suggest, before throwing around big words, that you actually learn what the words mean.)

-----

There are rational, logical arguments that can be made against this proposal. But you aren't making them, preferring to go with grandiose, fictitious, claims.

[Major Harris]

Nah, no way it can top the $500 BILLION we've wasted in Iraq so far just to get thousands killed.

maybe you could stay on topic.

[Larry]

Oh the poor rich people! What ever shall we do for them? What ever shall we do with their mansions and their Ferraris?

Uh, the top 10% means anybody who makes more than $104K (AGI, meaning, "after deductions"). While some of the people in that group have mansions and Ferraris, a great many of them are simply people working a job that happens to pay more than most folks. It isn't just the Bill Gates' of the world, it's also a lot of Doctors and such.

[Tastes Like Chicken]

So what percentage of the U.S. would be hurt by the loss of those tax breaks- 1%?

[Destino]

This plan ENCOURAGES people to work less/earn less. It is a simple idea, if you work less, you get more government money. If your work harder, you give more money to the government. Which will most people choose?? HMMM, I wonder.

That's absolute nonsense. People do no take pay cuts because of taxes... though they may give more to charity, put more into pretax retirement, etc etc etc.

By the way, this is known as Socialism. If only we had an real world example of where this type of economic system had been tried. If only there were some example of a whole country, bigger than the US, falied miserably under this system? If only (USSR)???

This is not socialism and it's certainly nothing like the USSR. Again, nonsense.

[Hooper]

People do no take pay cuts because of taxes... though they may give more to charity, put more into pretax retirement, etc etc etc.

Exactly. A good accountant goes a long way to easing your tax burden if you are in the high tax bracket.

[skinfan2k]

You know what? I don't care if you're making 200k or 600k, I don't think you should be forced to pay higher taxes. I simply do not think that encourages people to work hard and succeed in our society.

You wont work harder if you make 400K more. :doh:. Ill pay more taxes if i make more