Will Obama Raise Taxes on Working Class Americans? - Proof Please.

George,

I thought that I had made my position pretty clear. You have asked a leading question and because he has not stated that he will raise taxes on "working class america" there can only be one answer. You win.

Why? Because we cannot call a tax on Big Business a tax on "working class america" even though you and I will pay that tax through increased prices. Additionally Obama will not have to "do" anything to rollback the Bush tax cuts. Do I have this right? You win thru semantics.

Understand that the prize goes to you for skillfully crafting the question, and not to Obama. Well, I suppose Obama gets a prize for deceiving the voters.

You keep wanting to dismiss my opinions because I have no financial experience or degrees, so I will ask you a simple question. You're a smart guy. You shouldn't need a degree for this one.

When a business model is created to return a 7.5% profit and the business encounters additional expenses (in the form of increased taxes), what must the business do in order to maintain that 7.5% rate of return?

 

Thank you.

Sorry. Get your google on and understand the definition of semantics. I am LITERALLY right. You are TRYING to be right via semantics.

Fair enough. And understand that I'm not an Obama campaign advisor. I'm just a man with a point to make. And I did.

No, I was dismissing your opinions because they were opinions. The whole point of this thread was to get facts as we have demonstrated. Your first response was to give me opinion.

I do not at all consider you to be someone who lacks intelligence.

Innovate. It seems to be a lost art among the greedy corporate world because it's much easier to just jack up prices and stick it to those below them. Who knows, maybe if we had more innovation in this country instead of just trying to squeeze every last dollar out of old technology we'd be leading the world in certain areas instead of lagging behind countries like China and soon India if we don't watch out.

.... I could go on from here and get into how capitalism is great but not in every situation and needs regulation to mitigate issues such as price gouging.... But considering that I think we both understand each other's view on this we can start another thread about that.

 

All the pugs need to not worry. Obama does not want to tax your daydreams. lol

 

Yes, good point. And this has always been our thing, in the U.S. We have accountants at the end of business decisions, and not economists - neat daily balance sheets, and not long run perspectives. When the Japanese were innovating process technology, we were crapping out product innovations - 15 million varieties of personal deodorants, not 15 million innovations on how to better make the same value-added steel. When we were worried about daily profit balances, "egregious" labor costs and the like, a significant part of the industrial world was worrying about eating up global market share. And the same thing here - freaking about a marginal tax rate increase for the upper tier, earmarks, and all the rest. The priorities are off, in my opinion.

 

Isn't this true. Ultimately disposable income is where people should be concerned.

If gas goes from $2.50/gallon to $4.00/gallon your disposable income (less gas) is reduced. If you drive 15,000 miles/year with a car that averages 20 miles/gallon....and you are somewhere in the middle of the pack in terms of income...say $50,000/year....you were hit with a cost increase of over $1100/year. That is significant and closely related to any tax changes in either candidate's policies for a family in that income range.

Its disposable income that ultimately matters....though the folks that scream about taxes all the time, don't pay attention to that.

By the way, if gas had stayed or returns to $4/gallon, you are paying a tax of sorts....the tax is going to nations like Venezuela and Iran among others--not a good source of tax payments in my book.

As far as the tax plans of the candidates: McCain wants to keep the existing tax structure often described as the Bush tax program, with some modifications. He would maintain the tax brackets on the two highest levels at 33% and 35%.

Obama would repeal those 2 brackets brining them back to the pre Bush days of respectively 35% and 39.6%.

Both would leave lower tax brackets alone.

Do you realize where the break points are for these two brackets?

The lower one means your taxable income for a single person kicks in at over $164,000/year taxable income single person and over $200,000/year married person. The higher tax bracket kicks in at over $357,000 (about).

Those are not "working class American" tax rates. The lower tax bracket...for a single person...is about 3 times what average American families make. Its a big difference.

As far as corporate tax rates....: what is the effective corporate tax rate in America? While our corporate tax rate is relatively high compared to most nations it is so convoluted with special breaks that the effective tax rate is dramatically lower. Dramatically.

Large companies employ corporate tax specialists to knock the stuffing out of corporate taxes.

Smaller companies can pad expenses like crazy, creating all sorts of bennies toward the owner or owner and preferred employees that the company can eat up a lot of expenses that might otherwise go to employees....and likewise limit their taxes. Its a very tricky question.

McCain would lower the overall corporate tax rate. Obama wouldn't. Obama would apply specific targeted tax breaks to corporations in an effort to "push" /guide/impact business decisions.

Clearly in the recent past one example where a dramatic reduction in corporate taxes helped one nation was Ireland which dropped its corporate tax rates in a radical step and significantly below competing nations in Europe. It had a huge benefit. On the other hand the growth it generated started to wane before this world wide financial crisis.

Corporate taxes are tricky, IMHO. We need lots more facts.

 

While innovation would be the best case scenario, by your own admission, it will most likely not happen as our businesses will follow the path of least resistance to simply inflate the prices on our products and services. I am not trying to twist your words here, so forgive me if I misunderstand, and yes, it does appear that we can at least agree on this point.

It seems that we have agreed on several other topics as well. Now if you just weren't such a damn pain to deal with...

 

Thanks for the red LogicFLux! You're the only idiot on the board that doesn't know how to spell "retard".

 

When I get the retart it comes in a variety of colors. Gray mostly but also a splash of green. i though the word retart meant funny, witty and smart.

This distraction does not take away the fact that Obama will screw the middle class with taxes. Start saving your income now, it's your patriotic duty to pay higher taxes.

 

LOL:

I got one of those anonymous brilliant reps also...

some poor chicken hearted rep giver needs to learn how to spell his/her own name. LOL


Meanwhile, as I pointed out here, from 2000 to 2003 John McCain was saying virtually the exact same things on taxes as Obama is now.

Oh well I guess a slick sales guy who will seemingly abandon every ounce of integrity will say anthing in an effort to get elected.

Of interest, during those statements he warned the US against where we might be if we follow the Bush tax cuts.

Ugh...was he ever correct from 2000-2003. US financial system is a mess, US govt debt is a mess. Man...was McCain correct on financial matters back in that period. So strange he should reverse himself now.

Meanwhile all the crazy comments....manchurian candidates/suspiceons w/every Tom, Dick and Harry....I guess this is why thinking Republicans are veering from McCain. Poor guy...he shoulda stuck with the stuff he was saying from 2000-2003

 

I don't have the ability to give red unless I went to another section. I think I still give grays. I generally also don't give reds(I actually don't remember ever giving one) and if I did I'd sign them. So thanks for jumping to conclusions.
I was worried that my heavy use of "retart" would be used against me by an imposter, but oh well, not a big deal.
Anyway I just went to another section and gave you red rep and signed it.

 

Which is what he and his party need to keep them dependent on them and voting for them.

Under Obama's plan, as I read it from his web site, my taxes go up 40%. People are going to lose jobs as a result.

 

How are your taxes going to go up 40%. That sounds nearly impossible under any plan. Do you mind explaining how you are arriving at that figure?

Thanks.

 

Sorry, not a 40% increase, but a 40% overall tax rate. It's a hike, an increase... I'd be better off if I quit working. Obama raises the marginal tax rate for middle-income tax payers, placing those in that category at around 45% effectively, or a 11% increase overall. Even those in the lower income $31k-$45k will see as much as a 13% increase or a rise to 34%-39% overall.

Now Obama has told you groupies for over a year now how he intends to spank the shit out of people in the $350k or higher range with a 40% tax overall, in reality those making $110k-$120k actually stand to see a marginal tax rate hike to 45%.

You really need to read his tax plan. Its not an overhaul. It uses existing tax law and throws in credits for college tuition while phasing out the credit at the same time, effectively negating any tax cut and actually raising your marginal tax rate.

This is just one example where he says he will refore the Hope Scholarship Tax Credit, which he renames "American Opportunity Tax Credit".

Read his tax plan.

What he is doing is raising your taxes, then giving you credits that make it appear that you will actually save money, only he phases out those credits, and you pay more.

Read it.

 

This is outrageously false. That is what is known as a lie.

If you are single and your taxable income is over $160,000 or so your marginal federal tax rate, under Obama's plan will increase from the current 33% rate to 35%. If married your taxable income would have to be over $200,000.

Married or single, if your taxable income is over $360-370,000 or so, your marginal federal tax rate would increase from 35% to 39.6%.

The increases on marginal tax rates take the current tax plan and move it back to where it was before the Bush tax cuts.

Taxable income comes after all your deductions, write offs etc.

If you are married and are making $220,000 with $30,000 in write offs and deductions your taxable income falls to $190,000. You don't hit the 35% rate under the Obama plan...or the current 33% plan under the Bush tax cuts and those which McCain would continue for as long as possible. Those are the tax rates, look them up here.

People pay a Social security tax on top of that.

EXCEPT....the social security tax stops at around $102,000.

Hm...that is an ugly tax. Its about 7.5% up to $102,000 for employees. Hefty. But imagine if you are earning $200,000/year as an employee. What a deal versus someone earning $50,000. The lower income is effectively paying about 7.5%...the nominal rate. The higher income earner is effectively paying about 1/2 that rate. The higher income earner pays SS taxes up to $102,000. That is it.

That is a big difference for very high wage earners versus the vast majority of folks in the nation.

Oooohhhh. What about the self employed tax rate. That is huge. OVER 15%. Hey....it stops at $102,000. Also....you can take 1/2 of it and deduct it from your taxes. Its not quite as bad as it seems.

Of course....the more you make....the lower impact it has on you. It is the rich guy's tax benefit.

Make 2-300,000 and you have a good deal versus the folks that are earning 40, 50, 60, 70,000.

Own your own business?

Ah the world's BEST tax write off scheme.

You can charge all kinds of stuff that employees have to pay for, to the business. Mia, you keep telling us you own your own business. So do I.

I get to charge stuff to the business. Employees of businesses have to pay for the stuff outright.

My business pays for it, and then it is an expense. Ah...we are paying about 50% of the cost.

Non owners....you pay 100%....and that is after taxes.

World's (or America's best tax write off). Business ownership.



I don't love taxes. During the 90's I hit max tax rates. My marginal tax rates hit 39.6% and on top of that I paid about 10% on state taxes.

It never stopped me from making more money when the opportunity was there. I was in an industry with about 1,000 colleagues and competitors. I didn't know one that didn't try and make max dollars every year. Frankly, 50% taxes/45% taxes...what is the difference if you can generate an extra 1,2,3,400,000/year above what you are making.

Make the money first. Then worry about the taxes. Get into the higher brackets. That is the big hurdle. Then worry about the taxes.


High taxes suck. But what is going on with federal budgets....and more specifically federal spending.

It went haywire during the last 8 years. Its exploded.

Who the hell is cutting expenditures.

Get this. At a reported $500-600 billion/year the US spends almost as much money as the rest of the world combined.

The 500-600 billion doesn't include the cost of the wars, veteran costs and a variety of military expenditures categorized under diffferent departments.

With all that frggin money....we don't have enough to put enough soldiers on the ground consistently to effectively fight the two wars we are in.

As taxpayers we are getting bull shitted by the govt. Where is that money going. Why can't we use it to effectively fight those damn wars and end them?

What do we have about 170-190,000 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Vietnam at its peak we had about 550-580,000 troops in Vietnam.

We are spending money on whacky stuff that isn't working.

We are spending a ton on medicare, medicaid and social security. We are spending ever more on the health care on which we are putting fed money.

Why don't people look seriously at the cost side?

You want to lower taxes....put it up there for serious discussion how to cut 20-30% out of the fed budget. Since almost 10% is currently being used to pay off debt....cutting real fed costs by say 20% would allow us to seriously lower taxes on individuals, pay off the debt and not f*ck over kids and all you tax payers in your later years.

But getting back to it. Mia....you are simply being misleading on your taxes.

If not....then fully explain how you get to a so called 40%. Otherwise you must be being charged something nobody else is being charged.....maybe alien taxes. probably deservedly so.

 

Who was the first to give the retart rep?

Obama is not concerned with creating jobs, he is for keeping the working man down.

 

I don't know. I first heard the term here: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?p=9440256&highlight=retart#post9440256 .

I thought it was funny and have used it liberally since. But I wouldn't use it if I wanted to give anonymous red rep(which I can't even give red in this section, I don't think) because that would make me a retart.
I don't know, maybe someone went around giving red rep using the word thinking that people would think it was me. Maybe I pissed someone off when I defended NPT last night, who knows.

 

I have to correct something I said. I deffo made a mistake.

If someone is in the current 35% marginal tax bracket, the Obama plan will take them to 39.6%. As Mia said, referring to himself; that is an 11% increase over the current fed tax rate.

I went through most of the 90's at the 39.6% marginal rate. I was married with family most, but not of that decade.

First of all, if you hit....more power to you. It represents earning a lot of money. I didn't find it easy. I got into a business that requires a lot of work, but allows you to make a lot if you are good and then lucky.

I worked my cohones off to get somewhat good. After that I started getting lucky.

It is dramatically better to be earning $250-350,000 than 20,30, 50, or 80,000. Been there. Done that. Life's necessities are a helluva lot easier to deal with.

When you hit those bracket cusp numbers....it doesn't make you rich. You can afford sooooo much more than others....but a couple of things go wrong and you have problems. Also you tend to spend more. More steak, less hamburger. No doubt. One tends to consider luxories as necessities.

The difference in tax brackets is significant and measurable in that range.

I found when you get comfortably higher than those cusp of the tax bracket numbers where you are at 33, 35, 39.6% tax brackets its not a terrible hit.

 

Nah, its how I interpreted Obama's plan, which is publicly available on line. He intends to increase taxes on just about everyone, dramatically and does it by eliminating the incentives he claims will offset his tax hikes.

He's just another tax and spend liberal. If he was not, he would not be running on the left.

How right you are. That is the mantra of the democratic party. They do that to keep you dependent on them so you will keep supporting and voting for them.

Give a man a fish? Or teach him to fish?

What's more annoying, the rep you get, or the fact that some people sit around here and troll, stalk and otherwise waste their time trying to figure out who repped them? Are we in the third grade or something? Come on, this is ridiculous. Who cares, its rep, not a demerit.

The reality is that Obama wants the Clinton level tax hikes of the 90's that broke the backs of the majority of people that spent their lives working to get to that point.

In short, taxes go UP, and not just for those making over $250k/yr.

 

It didn't break my back. It was a decade of excellent overall prosperity. Saying anthing else is whacky. Incomes rose overall....Incomes at the upper upper reaches did not escalate like crazy relative to lower incomes as they have this decade.

To tell the truth, I forget, who increased taxes above Reagon levels, Bush I or Clinton, or both.

What I experienced is busting my butt to go from very low income to high income. I was impervious to taxes during the effort. If I could earn more, I earned more.

Meanwhile getting back to topic; if someone is making 40,50,60,70,80 and up to about 200-250,000----the Obama plan is superior to the McCain plan.

 

Actually its worse. I've already described how the marginal tax rate in Obama's plan actually increase the people in that bracket to a 45% marginal rate, which is 5% more than the $250k crowd.