world

Obama to raise taxes on millionaires

46 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2011 AFP

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

46 Comments
Login to comment

"The tax raise is unlikely to pass Congress as Republicans have already rejected Obama’s plans to raise taxes and limit deductions for the highest earners, and would see the rule as a political gambit."

And the Republicans pretend to have the nation's interest at heart instead of simply trying to protect a few rich people while screwing everyone else.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Well smith, if anything is going to screw the repubs further than their own radical candidates, it's opposition to a proposal to taxing the uber-rich whilst many Americans are in worseing poverty. Methinks there will be a lot of shrieking over this on the boards in the days to come.....

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Madverts: We are in complete agreement.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

An administration official said on condition of anonymity that Obama would call his millionaires plan the “Buffett Rule,” a reference to an objection by billionaire investor Warren E. Buffett that the richest Americans generally pay a smaller share of their income in federal taxes than middle-income workers.

Instead of raising the tax, just get rid of the loophole that lets peopl like Buffet only claim their Capial Gains as their only source of income. That is why he pays less because he doesn't have a "regular salary" and if he does, it is far smaller than what he makes from Capital Gains.

Also, capital gains do not get SS deducted from it, unlike regular income. So that is how Buffet and his type get by. They should just implent a Flat Tax. I think people get too hung up on how much someone else is paying. If I make $50K and have to play a flat 10% tax, then I can part with the $5K. Sure it is a nice chiunk of my income, but I am not worried that some guy making $500,000 is only going to be paying $50,000. We are both paying at the same percentage, he just has more left over than I do. More incentive for me to want to get to that level

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Buffett is a true American. Capitalism is an awesome system, but it needs to be directed in a way that will avoid not only harm to others but to itself as well. Roosevelt saw this when he introduced the first of the programs that became known as the Great Society - and the rope that Khrushchev hoped the capitalists would sell to be hanged with never materialized.

Two problems with the Minimum Tax is that are that it ignores capital gains and leaves very large loopholes high enough that only the uber-rich can leap through them. Social Security is a different question best answered with that single program's long-term health as sole consideration; creating a system which provides fairness over the former two points should be the focus.

This will not happen with this Congress, of course, but by proposing it now, Obama leaves voters with a much clearer choice come next November.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Republicans say adding to the tax burden will hit small business owners and therefore harm job creation.

Speaking as the owner of a small but growing business, I am very much looking forward to being able to pay this tax.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I suspect the real reason why the super rich do not pay taxes in accordance with their income is the fear that they will simpley upstakes leave the country and become tax exiles.In doing so they would remove trillions of dollars from the U.S economy.Am i right, and is this why Obama is doomed to failure with his proposal?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I suspect the real reason why the super rich do not pay taxes in accordance with their income is the fear that they will simpley upstakes leave the country

The sentence doesn't make sense. Did you mean to say the reason that the super rich are not made to pay taxes?

Well, if so, I suppose that it means that they truly don't love their country very much. Anyone who "fears" that the rich will up and leave probably don't have much faith in the rich or themselves.

It's probably one of the most defeatist attitudes out there.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits, yes ,your amendment is correct, i just asked the question as I fail to see any other reason at present. i would have thought that when it comes to the tax system everyone should contribute fairly in proportion to their income. It does not happen here and yes we do have tax exiles in Ireland, several have taken up residence in the U.S

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Am i right, and is this why Obama is doomed to failure with his proposal?

No, I think you're wrong on both points. Wherever people live, taxes exist - and chances are those taxes are greater than in the US - excepting tax havens, of course, but those are not well known for their productive work forces, are they? So much has been made of "job creators" and so little attention paid to "job fulfillers," who don't exist in the quantity and quality in other locations.

Also, Obama's plan is not doomed due to some feared "job-creator drain"; it is doomed simply because the Republican Party will not abide further tax burdens on the rich. To the contrary, the raison d'etre of the Republican Party is to take an historically light tax burden and lighten it further. Failure of this proposal, though, is rather inconsequential; it is just a salvo on what will undoubtedly become a very long, hard-fought battle for the future of America.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

how about starting taxing the extremely profitable business of religion?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

About time this happened. Good for Obama. I hope it will help him get re-elected. He needs more time to fix things.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

These days the tax heaven is Switzerland. At least for corporations. You do have to put some actual executives there, but that's not usually a big deal. So you create your shell company there. Transfer your patent portfolio there and then take advantage of Swiss loopholes to pay next to nothing in taxes.

What Obama is doing wouldn't change that one bit. He's just looking at rolling back some Bush era tax code changes to capital gains. Won't happen because congress doesn't actually care about jobs or the economy. They just want the white house.

Flat tax isn't going to happen. Too many corporations have become accustom to the loop holes. Flat tax is a campaign talking point, not a legislative agenda.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) is aking to remove tax hike to riches before sitting down to tuckled down Obama's job bill. He thinks tax hike to riches will hurt American economy. Will it? Riches have to start paying a fair share if they want to turn the country around.

According to a consensus among broad economists in this country believes Obama's job bill will increase GDP growth by 1.5% and drops unemployment from current 9.1% to 8.1% or even to 7.5%. I am for Obama's job bill. If everyone wants to reduce the huge debt from current level, the first focus is a job growth. This debt has been doubled (200%) because "W" decided to go to two wars with credit cards. Make no mistake here, the debt was DOUBLED by "W". That's the fact.

I believe Rep wants Obama to fail for 2012 Presidential election. Their (R) focus is not on people of this country. People need jobs, so that they can buy food, keeping up with mortgage, and taking care of families.

Let's support this job bill. Let's support this tax hike to riches. Let's turn this country around. We no longer can wait.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Republicans say adding to the tax burden will hit small business owners and therefore harm job creation.

So what's the real story on this? Businesses usually exist separately from their owners in the form of corporations. At least the types of business that are doing any kind of substantial hiring. I can see how the tax would hurt sole proprietors but if you're making over $1,000,000 a year you probably aren't set up as a sole proprietor. If you're a corporation then the individual income is being taxed but jobs aren't created from the owner's individual income.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

they would remove trillions of dollars from the U.S economy.Am i right, and is this why Obama is doomed to failure with his proposal

christina, you are talking about corporate tax. As a matter of fact 1.2 trillion dollars corporate cash is sitting offshore. We need to bring these money back to US for a job growth. We may need to lower US coporate tax rate.

Obama is talking about a personal income for riches who can afford to enjoy investment tax loopholes. We need to fill these loopholes as well as tax hike who make over $250,000.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The President of the United States cannot unilaterally raise taxes. All tax bills must originate in the House. The article's headline is wrong.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Flat tax is a campaign talking point, not a legislative agenda.

motytrah, I have been a strong opponent on flat tax since Buchannan was running Presidential campaign many years ago. I hope you remember him (R).

I am for a proportional tax system according to income earned. If flat tax 20% is applied to people who earn less than $12,000 (US poverty line), that will be $2400 for tax they need to pay. That is a lot of money for people in poverty. Let's say you appy the same tax to riches who earn $500,000 (hyoothetical numbers), their 20% tax is only $100,000. They still have $400,000 lfeft in their hands while poor only have $9,600 in their hands to live on. Do you think that is fair? Again I am for a propotional tax, not for a flat tax.

I am pasting the pro/con of flat tax here, and you will be the judge..

A flat tax is a tax system, which refers to a tax on household income, taxes at a uniform rate, regardless of income level. The United States implements a progressive tax system, meaning that high-income earners pay taxes at a higher rate than low-income earners. Although many advocate for a flat tax in the U.S., the system remains progressive.

Pros of Flat Tax

Simplicity is considered a significant benefit of the flat tax system. One tax rate makes for easy computation by the Internal Revenue Service and straightforward payments from taxpayers. Because the flat tax taxes only one income, it is easier to understand and to report. Taxpayers save the financial cost of complying with current IRS regulations, which often includes lawyers, accountants and other resources. The flat tax remains a popular idea in part because it eliminates double taxation. It removes the section of the tax code that is biased against the formation of capital. It eliminates the death tax, capital gains tax and double taxation of savings and dividends. Families and individuals are not required to report dividends, interest or other business-related income; this income is taxed at the business level. The flat tax makes it unnecessary to pay interest, dividends and other business tax at the individual levels. A flat tax employs territorial taxation, which is when the government only taxes income that is generated within national borders. In the global economy, taxes remain a critical component of business; countries with low-taxes benefit from jobs and capital. A good tax policy is important to generate revenue for business and also because the penalty for a poorly received tax system on a global scale may be substantial and long-term. The flat tax eliminates global taxation and allows the United States to compete more evenly in global markets. Fairness remains a lauded feature of the flat tax. For example, a taxpayer who makes $5,000 pays the same tax rate as someone who earns $500,000. The taxpayer making $500,000 pays more taxes simply because the income is greater, however, this taxpayers pays an equal percent to the $5,000 taxpayer. This tax system does not discriminate based on income level; everyone pays the same percent of income.

Cons of flat tax

Opponents of the flat tax contend that the flat tax system penalizes the low-income segment of the population. Low-income individuals and families must spend money on the same necessities required by higher-income people. However, after the necessities are purchased, the poorer taxpayers, because they earn less, will have less money left over to pay taxes, at the same rate as those earning higher income amounts. Implementing a flat tax system could dismantle the IRS. Many view the IRS as an imposing, intimidating arm of government; however, this institution employs numerous people who were trained to work in the tax industry. IRS employees would most likely lose their jobs under a flat tax system. Many believe that a flat tax system reduces tax for, and actually benefits, high-income earners. For example, if the tax rate were 10 percent, then someone making $1,000 would have $900 spending income left after taxes. Someone who makes $10,000 is left with $9,000 after taxes; this inequity is thought to prove that a flat tax disproportionately benefits the rich. If the rich paid less tax, many believe that the government would lose significant revenue. A uniform tax rate treats individuals and corporations fairly, but it eliminates a backup revenue source, the extra dollars generated by taxing high-income earners at a higher rate for the government. The government relies heavily on revenue generated from income taxes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A flat tax is a tax system, which refers to a tax on household income, taxes at a uniform rate, regardless of income level. The United States implements a progressive tax system, meaning that high-income earners pay taxes at a higher rate than low-income earners.

Not quite.

The truth is that incomes at the same level are taxed equally. The wealthy person pays exactly the same flat rate on the first $5000 earned as the poor person and everyone else. The same is true of the first $10k, $50k, $100k, etc. Their are multiple brackets of income, however, but the rate within each bracket is indeed flat.

So, if the rate is flat at 0% on the first $10K earned, the wealthiest person pays ZERO on the first $10K they earn in a given year. The rate might jump to 5% between $10k-$30k and rich and poor pay that same flat rate too. So, everyone, rich and poor, enjoy the same flat tax rates on the same income levels. It's just that, at the highest income brackets, the flat rates within them are much higher percentages than at the lower brackets.

Advocating a single rate regardless of income bracket is completely nuts. Nobody who would be taken seriously could ever recommend it.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The President of the United States cannot unilaterally raise taxes. All tax bills must originate in the House. The article's headline is wrong.

LOL. The president can not formally introduce a bill. But he can certainly send legislation to Congress and a member of his party (usually) will sponsor it and introduce it for him.

The article's headline is most certainly not wrong.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

LOL. The president can not formally introduce a bill. But he can certainly send legislation to Congress and a member of his party (usually) will sponsor it and introduce it for him.

The article's headline is most certainly not wrong.

Yes, it is wrong. It says, "Obama to raise taxes on millionaires." Only Congress can do this. The President can approve the hike. A better headline would have been, "Obama proposes to raise taxes on millionaires" or "Obama to Congress: raise taxes on millionaires."

The sloppy language and lack of understanding about our constitution is one of the reasons nothing can get done in Washington.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) is aking to remove tax hike to riches before sitting down to tuckled down Obama's job bill. He thinks tax hike to riches will hurt American economy. Will it? I do not believe so.

Riches need to start paying a fair share if they want to turn this country around. Let's make sure a tax cut for riches "W" implemented will expire. US balance sheet is not like it used to be compared to 12 years ago. Let's make sure riches will share the burden as well as we all do.

According to a consensus among broad economists in this country believes Obama's job bill will increase GDP growth by 1.5% and drops unemployment from current 9.1% to 8.1% or even to 7.5%. I am for Obama's job bill. If everyone wants to reduce the huge debt from current level, the first focus is a job growth. This debt has been doubled (200%) because "W" decided to go to two wars with credit cards. Make no mistake here, the debt was DOUBLED by "W". That's the fact.

I believe Rep wants Obama to fail for 2012 Presidential election. Their (R) focus is not on people of this country. People need jobs, so that they can buy food, keeping up with mortgage, and taking care of families.

Let's support this job bill. Let's support this tax hike to riches. Let's turn this country around. We no longer can wait. Playing a fair game to equality is what WE are as Americans.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A better headline would have been, "Obama proposes to raise taxes on millionaires

Frederock, I agreed. That's a correct headline how it should be written. Maybe whoever wrote this did not understand the US Constitution.

Yabit, I agreed.

The president can not formally introduce a bill. But he can certainly send legislation to Congress and a member of his party (usually) will sponsor it and introduce it for him.

I see both of you are correct. All bills associated with money have to start from the congress.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is better if the millionaires and billionaires keep their money. This idea that taxing the wealthy will somehow help the poor and middle class is just none-sense. It's always amusing to read comments such as on this board about how "republicans only have the interest of the wealthy few at heart and want to screw everyone else". Well, what is it that those of you want? for the rich to be taxed and have that money given to those whom don't earn as much? or is it hat you want that money to be spent on counter productive programs such as stimulus packages and bailouts? If the money does not go into such harmful govt economic policies then it goes into wasteful social programs and building more military guns and bombs.

Truth is at this point all forms of taxation is theft from an fiscally irresponsible govt and president. Economic growth is accomplished by one and one method alone, Savings, Investments and production of real goods and services. Wealthy people are wealthy BECAUSE they save and invest their money. Those whom are not wealthy instead spend that paycheck once it comes in on frivolous things. When the money that is saved up is taxed away then essentially you take away the capital needed for job creation, and no Govt can't create jobs.

Wealthy people already pay most of the taxes in the U.S already. They have to pay Accounts Receivable Tax, Building Permit Tax, CDL license Tax, Corporate Income Tax, Excise Taxes, Federal Income Tax, Gross Receipts Tax, Inheritance Tax, Inventory Tax, Luxury Taxes, Marriage License Tax, Medicare Tax, Personal Property Tax, Property Tax, Real Estate Tax, Social Security Tax, Sales Tax, State Income Tax, Utility Taxes, Vehicle License Registration Tax.

Those taxes and more add up about 50% of taxes on the wealthy. Obama tries to justify his disastrous plans by somehow stating that Warren Buffet pays less in taxes then his secretaries. The problems with this logic is that Buffets gets all his income from Capital gains and Dividends which are taxed at a 15% rate anyways and he saves what is left. If the liberals get their way with these tax schemes then in reality everyone not just the wealthy are going to get screwed over.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It amazes me how people can spew nonsense about tax fairness when nearly HALF of all U.S. households do not pay ANY federal income taxes. And many of those households, on top of not having any tax liability, get an Earned Income Tax Credit which gives them their Social Security premium back without having any loss of their future benefits. Then there is the Dependent Child tax credits for even more money sent to people who didn't owe any tax - $4 billion of which was paid just last year to illegal aliens alone, according to a just released audit. The top 10% pay 75% of all income taxes....and yet people claim "they don't pay their fair share"? No wonder Obama is getting nowhere with his attempt to incite class warfare to cover up his utter failure to keep and create jobs. It is just unbelievable.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Wealthy people are wealthy BECAUSE they save and invest their money.

So the poor are poor solely because they have a spending problem?

(I'm glad to see Japan Times attracting such a young audience. I'm guessing the writer of the quoted passage above is no more than 12 years old.)

Wealthy people already pay most of the taxes in the U.S already.

LOL! The richest 400 in the United States have as much wealth as the bottom 100 Million. We're talking four hundred people compared to one hundred million people. And you're whining about the rich paying taxes? Cry me a river.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Wealthy people are wealthy BECAUSE they save and invest their money

AiserX, so are you telling poor do not know how to earn and save? Well, if you truly believe that then I recommend you to read a current US social problem described in "Nickel and Dimed". This has been a best seller book for a long time on NY Times. After reading it, let me know if you will have a same opinion as you have posted. The fact is poverty has been growing very rapidly in US. What about single mothers with kids whose ex are dead beat dads? What about a people with disability? What about people who are unemployed? These people are just trying to keep their heads above water. It is nothing to do with their ability to save.

Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America is a book written by Barbara Ehrenreich. Written from the perspective of the undercover journalist, it sets out to investigate the impact of the 1996 welfare reform on the "working poor" in the United States.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The top 10% pay 75% of all income taxes....

@Suzu1, I do not understand where you got the info, US Fed income (a personal income) tax 2010 is listed below. A 35% is max proportional tax rate, not 70% as you described. FYI

10% Bracket

$0 – $8,500

$0 – $17,000

$0 – $12,150

15% Bracket

$8,500 – $34,500

$17,000 – $69,000

$12,150 – $46,250

25% Bracket

$34,500 – $83,600

$69,000 – $139,350

$46,250 – $119,400

28% Bracket

$83,600 – $174,400

$139,350 – $212,300

$119,400 – $193,350

33% Bracket

$174,400 – $379,150

$212,300 – $379,150

$193,350 – $379,150

35% Bracket

$379,150+ over mllions, billions

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@yabits

LOL! The richest 400 in the United States have as much wealth as the bottom 100 Million. We're talking four hundred people compared to one hundred million people. And you're whining about the rich paying taxes? Cry me a river.

Funny? fact is the top earners pay the most taxes. That list of taxes I've listed is where 50-90% of all tax revenues come from. Keep in mind 40-60% of Americans earning the avg income of 44k and below pay no taxes what so ever. So they amount they owe to the IRS piles up year after year of constant tax evasions. Then here we have you whining and crying with class envy about how the rich should pay more taxes? you got to be kidding me, not too un-common.

@globalwatcher

Answer to first question is, I'm afraid most poor people don't know how to save and as well as those in the middle class. Homeless people don't save the money that they struggle to earn, they spend it right away on cocaine or cigarettes. As for the fraud that is Barbara Ehrenreich and her Nickel and Dimes book, i would suggest you read this piece from the mises institute <http://mises.org/daily/1655/Two-Very-Fashionable-Frauds

Did you know that it's the Govt's fault for the economic plight of those whom are disabled? http://mises.org/daily/1772 and http://mises.org/daily/172/The-ADA BTW, I come from 1 of those homes of which had a single mother now I don't have to worry because I saved and invested my way out. Those in similar situations do not from my experiences and observations.

Look, govt can't solve nothing. It makes things worse, even if you pass some bill of which may have an appealing name and may sounds generous in it's intentions the fact is that it always leads to dangerous untended consequences such as here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ij4H9M55c64

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Wealthy people are wealthy BECAUSE they save and invest their money. Those whom are not wealthy instead spend that paycheck once it comes in on frivolous things.

That's right, everyone starts out exactly the same and it isn't better education, better opportunities, connections or inherited wealth that make the rich rich or even good old fashioned luck; it's their farsighted ability to save their paycheck from the car factory instead of spending it on frivolous things like rent, food and clothes.

I'm assuming that AiserX is already well on his way to his first million, saved out of his weekly pocket money.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But Obama will not indicate a specific rate or provide other details such as how much revenue the plan would raise

So therefore this whole thing is about getting re-elected and has nothing to do with improving the economy. President Obama never plainly lays out in detail any plan so as not to be held to account by his wealth campaign contributors. He leaves the dirty work to his gophers in Congress; Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Obama is interested in his idea of "fairness" and not about growing the economy for the benefit of all. As for his so called "Buffet Rule", nothing is stopping Mr. Buffet from writing a huge check to the federal government if he feels like he should be taxed more. The way to fix the tax code is not to make it more complicated by making another rule similar to the disasterous Alternative Minimum Tax (ATM) that was supposed to only hit the wealthy but over the years has now affected the middle class. The solution is to get rid of the complexity with a low flat tax for all types of income.

Obama is clueless about how capitalist economies work. He wants to have a command economy in which the government makes the decisions that should be made by businesses and millions of individuals in the marketplace (aka Solyndra). Socialism doesn't work - ask the great nation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). Or sorry you can't, they went bankrupt and don't exist anymore.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Raise taxes on the millionaires! Yeah! That'll fix the gov't's financial problems and the economy fer sure!

Meanwhile Obama's approval rating has hit an all-time low, and his disapproval rating has hit an all-time high. I wonder why...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Homeless people don't save the money that they struggle to earn, they spend it right away on cocaine or cigarettes.

@AuserX,

Homeless people are not paying any tax at all as they have no permanent address and no jobs/income. The book of Nickel and Dimed is not talking about cocaine, cigarettes and alcohol addicts. It is actually talking about WORKING POOR OF AMERICA who are trapped in unique situations due to job loss, divource and disability. It is nothing to do with laziness and spending/savings.

I am glad to hear your success story. You are a proud man, and have accomplished a lot indeed. I like to hear more successful stories like yours. I would like to add one more wisdom. "When I fed them, they were satisfied, when they were satisfied, they became proud; then they forgot ME".

Good luck to you and more success in life, AiserX, keep it up.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama is interested in his idea of "fairness" and not about growing the economy for the benefit of all.

@Walfpack,

Yes, he is for GDP growth. Please read what I have posted. Without a job growth, there would be no GDP growth. Without GDP growth and tax hike to riches, there would be no debt reduction in the near future. Please look at the 2010 tax bracket I have listed. The max porportional tax is a 35%. Obama wants to lower personal income tax who earn less than $250,000 from current level..

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Keep in mind 40-60% of Americans earning the avg income of 44k and below pay no taxes what so ever.

That doesn't seem to agree with what your link says - The average American family already pays more in taxes than for food, clothing and shelter combined - unless the average American family spends nothing whatsoever on food, clothing and shelter.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama is clueless about how capitalist economies work.

I believe he has the best economic team including a newly appointed labor economist from Princeton Univ. I forgot to add this to my above post.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

cleo, you are right on.

I was working for the gov until April 15th. All income earned before 4/15 went to Fed income, Social Security, State Tax. In addition to that, I had to pay, motor vehicle registration tax to city, property tax to city and state, savings/investment tax, universal communication tax (telephone, internet and cable), ulility tax.....what else am I missing? I am sure I can come up with more to list. My brother who is a millionaire is actually paying less than what I pay to the govts. How could it be?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

People of modest means pay an incredible amount of taxes. You can read up on this at the Citizens for Tax Justice, which is at www.ctj.org.

Most American taxes are regressive. Only the federal income tax, and some state income taxes are "progressive" (the higher income people pay more.) But there are so many loopholes and exemptions that these progressive taxes are skirted around.

Thus, the need for a millionaire tax. They are not job creators. They are just sitting on the piles of money, doing nothing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Keep in mind 40-60% of Americans earning the avg income of 44k and below pay no taxes what so ever.

LOL, AiserX, where did you get that fact? Please read 2010 income tax fact.

That's why we need to close all loopholes. Upon sale of the business, actually they will need to add up all loopholes as income earned for the future. They may eliminate tax averaging. That's what I have been told after the tax reform. That's very fair.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Obama's imperial presidency has been a disaster.

This latest tax won't add jobs.And right now it is jobs that people want.

You can only a go so far in going after the wealthy.If living off of their wealth they simply shelter their money;if wealthy because theey own a business the tax is ulltimately passed on to the consumer or the business cuts back on employees.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Finding the right balance is indeed difficult. If you tax the rich too much, you may stifle investing. If you tax the middle class too much, you may stifle buying. If you tax the poor too much, you wind up with homeless people.

But anybody who thinks we are anywhere near taxing millionaires too much is not quite right in the head.

But, of course, asking Congress to vote on this is like asking foxes to vote on whether to patch the holes in the hen house or not.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't think I ever said that rich aren't taxed enough until I found the US in a situation where the government simply doesn't have enough money to pay the bills. The money has to come from somewhere and spending cuts still makes us fall far short. At this point it's a question of survival, not ideology.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

You can only a go so far in going after the wealthy.If living off of their wealth they simply shelter their money;if wealthy because theey own a business the tax is ulltimately passed on to the consumer or the business cuts back on employees.

@Liberman2012

You are talking about a corporate tax here, sounds like.

Obama is talking about a personal income rate hike to riches. The highest tax rate in US is a 35% if they earn more than $379,150. A progressive (propotional) tax stops at a 35% since Bush (W) took office. This is a key issue. They are not paying a fair share for years as well as you and I do.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@globalwatcher:

Yes, he is for GDP growth. Please read what I have posted. Without a job growth, there would be no GDP growth. Without GDP growth and tax hike to riches, there would be no debt reduction in the near future.

I disagree with you on this because I don't think President Obama's goal is to provide everyone with an opportunity to become wealthy. What is more important to him is for minimize the number of wealthy people and maximize the number of people that make about the same in income. In other words - socializing incomes by redistribution of wealth. Also, given the incredible increase in the debt over the past three years I don't think many people can seriously believe Obama feels that reducing the national debt is an important goal.

I believe he has the best economic team including a newly appointed labor economist from Princeton Univ. I forgot to add this to my above post.

If this were true, then the economy of the US would be growing now at a faster rate than the 7% growth rate that occurred after a similarly devastating recession in the late 1970's and early 1980's. In fact, the reverse - a double dip recession - is a real possibility due to Obama's misguided Socialist economic ideology.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Walfpack, as President has just said this is not a class war, it is math.

Super riches have two pots; a personal income pot and an investment pot. These riches only pay 15% (FIFTEEN) on their investment pots while you and I are paying according to income bracket since Bush took office. My brother who is more than a millionaire is paying less than what I pay for tax because of this.

Speaking about debt reduction, it takes a balancing act; GDP growth and revenue increase/spending cut.

I do not know if you have read my previous post, so I will say it again. According to a consensus among broad economists in this country believes Obama's job bill will increase GDP growth by 1.5% and drops unemployment from current 9.1% to 8.1% or even to 7.5%. By the way, I am a demand side economist. FYI

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hahaha, given the option, I'd rather be a millionaire and pay the tax than not be a millionaire and not pay the tax. When I'm a millionaire, I'm rich and don't have to worry about the little things like bills, hahaha........

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites