world

Obama's plan to raise taxes on wealthy meets fierce opposition

94 Comments

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

© Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

94 Comments
Login to comment

Obama is lying to the American people again.

"Despite President Obama’s promise that “If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increase a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime,” his new budget raises 45 percent of its revenue from energy taxes that will be paid by everyone who fills a gas tank, pays an electric bill, or buys anything that was grown, shipped, or manufactured."

Herbert Hoover sunk the economy with his government spending and higher taxes. Obama and his wiz kids would be wise to look at the economic model JFK and RR followed. Both these fiscal conservatives lowered taxes and used targeted government spending to remedy the deep recessions their administrations faced. Obama is doing the exact opposite. Nice change suckers.

Obama's decisions so far has done nothing more than erode public confidence. Enjoy your Wagyu beef Mr. President while ordinary Americans retirement accounts disappear.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

VOR: Obama is lying to the American people again.

Its more like you failed to read the context again. He meant federal income taxes. He should have said federal income taxes. But nobody, not even the president, is perfect.

Glad we got that sorted.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

VOR: Obama and his wiz kids would be wise to look at the economic model JFK and RR followed.

Did those two have record national debts to pay off? I can tell you that RR created such a debt. In other words, his policies were never designed to pay such a debt and even he would tell you that.

There are different approaches for confronting a bear as opposed to a bull. And still different when confronted with multiple numbers of each.

I cannot tell you the best way to proceed. But I can tell you that the situation we face is so complicated so dire (if reports are to be believed) that a little Reaganomics is not going to be the quick fix. In fact, I would say there are not going to be any quick fixes this time. Either some new wonderful market will come along and save us or we are in for many years of pain. The government won't be coming up with that market short of a major war, and personally, I would rather have suffer in peace.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is the first step in bringing SOCIALISM to America. The next step will be a new wave of imports from China. Mao suits and Che Guevara shirts for everyone. Out with the pledge of allegiance. Your kids will be now made to recite from "Obama's Little Red Book."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

VOR: If your 45 percent figure is correct, then it is a good point about other taxes going up. Just remember, they won't be involuntary taxes, but rather ones we have choices in. No one is forcing us to consume energy but Mother Nature, and we have choices on what and how much we consume.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

reckless spending, earmarks and higher taxes of any kind for anybody is not the answer. Both JFK and RR faced deep recessions. Both lowered taxes, both restored consumer confidence, both navigated the country out of the economic messes they inherited from their predecessors. Obama is going in the same direction as Herbert Hoover and it didn't work then, its not going to work now. Just look at the mess Japan in for a more recent example.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

timorborder: This is the first step in bringing SOCIALISM to America.

Come on! Surely this must be second or third step by now, at least.

Anyway, your cold war rhetoric is getting tired. It just doesn't scare me like it used to. Maybe its all those other socialist programs we and our allies have that did not result in Mao suits and Che shirts and little red books? Or, maybe its the realization that no economic policy is synonymous with authoritarianism?

Anyway, you need to upgrade. Terror is the new panic button.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Eliminating the deduction for charitable contributions ought to be a red flag for even the most starry-eyed, kool-aid guzzling American who thought this Chicago hack, elevated to some sort of New Age deity, was like any Democrat who came before him.

This will devastate communities across the country and will considerably diminish the substantial charity that Americans (world's most generous in this category) provide via their churches and synagogues to those overseas, all the more since it is documented fact that conservatives give more to charity than do 'liberals.'

But this seeems part of Obama's radical goal - they want to control not only how much you make, who can make what (Reich - 'stimulus' construction jobs shouldn't benefit 'white males'), but even the charitable impulses your religous, philosophical leanings might arouse in you, with the goal being once again more power to a centralized body of collectivists who will distribute the fruits of your labor and inheritance as they see fit.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Vor: Both lowered taxes

So is Obama. He is lowering taxes on the lower and lower middle classes. And those people can keep the money if they just change their consumption habits, something that needs to be done. Then they can use the money in ways that will boost other sectors.

The biggest flaw I see is asking the American people to stop being so selfish and irresponsible. That killed Carter.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm kind of at a loss for words.

I kinda expect to pay a higher cost for cleaner electricity or increased taxes for new water systems. But nobody saw this coming.

We were told about the tax cuts and the tax cuts for the rich running their course. But we didn't expect to pay more for power and more for other green efforts now also. It wipes away the tax cuts and causes an increase.

The only real advantage is it negates a large portion of the tax increases due to green efforts. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No one is forcing us to consume energy but Mother Nature, and we have choices on what and how much we consume.

Unless you survive by digging for roots in a forest your statement does not have much substance. There's no avoiding the upcoming excise taxes. It will hit the poor and rich alike and that means less disposable income for people to purchase the things they need or want. Not quite the right recipe for getting the economy moving again.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

seems the Left has lost all sense of humor and what little sense of irony they had.

the quip about Mao's red book is tongue in cheek.

even us 'rigid' conservatives/libertarians can see that...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

or not being able to say anything different than what is stated, i reckon would cause some of you to panic!

Id say the new panic button would be word games?

He's upping the taxes, no doubt about that. Wonder what he is selling?

Health?LOL!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

rollonarte, welcome fellow libertarian. Penn & Teller for President.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

OK...the tax increases won't happen until the economy is recovering. Gosh, what could derail an economic recovery?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@timorborder Socialism is coming indeed.

When they allowed public libraries – we were all forced to read little red books while wearing Che T-shirts? How about when we hired police forces? Paved public roads? Permitted water works, sewer systems, bridges - and even dams on rivers? Thease are all social - shared amoung many - services, and not a little red book in sight (OK, I have seen a few of those T-shirts).

So it is OK to give handouts to big businesses and the wealthiest among the wealthy, but not a hand to less rich individuals? By not taxing the rich you are adding additional tax on the poor - as the bills all need to be paid eventually.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

VOR: "Unless you survive by digging for roots in a forest your statement does not have much substance."

Wrong. Turning off the lights in a room, and the TV when using your computer, etc. (ie. lessening power consumption) does not equal scrounging about for roots, my friend. What's more, people have the options of HOW MUCH power they consume, and in the near future, hopefully, what kind of power they use. This is all the more incentive for big companies to push for development of green energy, instead of relying on the crap that is plaguing the environment.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

timorborder: "This is the first step in bringing SOCIALISM to America."

Sorry, friend. Go and check out the, "Obama releases bush secret anti-terror documents" thread to see how bush was already using little red books to steal all your rights, and even had people like yourself saying, "domestic spying g--o-o-o-o-o-o-d, freedom ba-a-a-a-a-a-d". The sheep are still behind the rest of Americans who have moved forward and elected a president who will PREVENT Socialism.

Funny to see you guys still using the failed Republican playbook, though. Keep it up! Looking forward to Obama still being president in 2013 and beyond!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wow, some interesting new historical information on Herbert Hoover and JFK on this thread. I'll have to fire up the computer mouse thingy and head on over to that internet encyclopedia place to check it out for myself.

Otherwise, it is nice to see here that in the middle of a global recession with the potential to become a global economic collapse, Americans are so busy arguing about the popular new guy at school that they havn't noticed the crazed axe-murderer peering in the window.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I believe all that has supported him. including myself have been lead under false pretenses..

It is right about these taxes on carbon emitting sources. Yes we all will pay that extra cost, no and ifs or buts.. I was for dropping the tax breaks Bush put into place for the wealthy,, but on the wealthy individuals that would balance up the tax system for all Americans. Not raising taxes on items or products that in the end we will be paying more than what we started to begin with and this carbon tax is nonsense that will cost us more than what we would be saving from his so called tax breaks for the average fmilies and individuals.. What a JOKE. He already has shown he is not going to do nothing with the trade imbalance by kissing China's ass as the rest... REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS in the past..

He has already trashed the protectionism stance that would bring trade into balance and all because of other countries continually harping of the protectionist issue. So he caves into to all this crap that has been the focus of all that has benefited from our loss..

I believe he is nothing but a liar and a sell out and I am pissed.. But even you republicans,, your party did the same bullshit and also are responsible for the position this country is in today as well, especially the last eight years, and if you think that is not fact then you should be praising Obama for the same crap Bush has done in his two terms. Of course except for national defense that Obama seems as well as bowing to other countries on, such as Russia and his thought that we face no future threats from anyone such as Russia and CHina which is so friggin STUPID.. Obama right now in my opinion absolutely SUCKS!!!!!!!!! And I voted for the B*stard! Seems there is not a person in politics worth a damn and that goes for both parties. McCain was another winner. Just say anything to gain support but at the same time just another politician focused on wealth of those of the upper class and stepping on the middle and lower class.. Just as Bush, and his way with China, same with B. Clintons way with China.. Where are the people that will stand up for the US and think of the US first as which they are suppose to be representing and thinking of first???? I would love to had this straight to Obama and shake his had at the same time as he is stabbing us in the back and saying he is thinking of us.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Lets see, nine years of college, three degrees and working 12 hours a day and Obama wants to take more of my (earned) money to make things equitable. Equitable for who?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Everyone needs to look up 'socialism' in the dictionary.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I may not be the sharpest when it comes to "Progressive Math".

I'm a little confused so I'm sure a good progressive could help me here in my failure to grasp this concept.

Obama is going to fund his tax cuts through 'pollution fees' (fancy word for just yet another tax by the way).

Most of the $646 billion from the pollution fees would be used to pay for Obama’s tax credit, which provides up to $400 a year to individuals and $800 a year to couples. The plan also would raise money for clean-fuel technologies, such as solar and wind power.

The goal of this is........

But the Treasury secretary acknowledged that consumers could face higher electric bills because Obama would impose fees on greenhouse gas producers, including power plants that burn fossil fuels, by auctioning off carbon pollution permits. The goal is to reduce the emissions blamed for global warming while raising a projected $646 billion over 10 years.

“Now, if people don’t change how they use energy, then they will face higher costs for energy,” Geithner said.

Here were I need some help. So if people change the way they use energy that means this projected $646 billion is a load of malarky.

The only we he can raise that kind of cash to pay for the pittance he is giving back in tax relief is if.......Wait for it......People don't change the way they use energy!!!!!!

People change the way they use and consume energy then he doesn't have the money to pay for his rebate. Am I wrong in this? After all I went to a school prior to the 'New Math' age and back then they stuck with the one plus one equal two basics.

It's gonna be a long four years on the domestic side of the house with this guy in charge.

I will give credit on the foreign policy side though. He is pretty much following almost the same policy that McCain would have if he had been elected on that side of the house.

Then how is he going to pay for it after all?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You Americans and your obsession with taxes and money. This is why the French live longer. Or is it their universal health coverage? Ahh, whatever.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is all the more incentive for big companies to push for development of green energy, instead of relying on the crap that is plaguing the environment.

Whole-heartedly agree with conservation and totally on board with alternative energy solutions but you are berating me for something outside the scope of the conversation. This board is discussing Obama's new tax policy and the quote you extracted from my post about foraging for roots was used in the context that if you participate in American society, you are going to pay excise taxes in one form of another. Its inescapable for the poorest of the poor and the richest of the rich. Obama in not just taxing couples making over 250k. He's taxing everyone, capice?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sydenham- what's with the logic? This thread is about people from a bankrupt country complaining about having to pay taxes because they are worried about their country going bankrupt. Logic has no place here obviously.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It would appear that my brand of cynical humor is too much for some posters. I've hooked at least 3 people with a post that was merely designed to parrot the bleatings of a rightwing sheep. While I admire each of you with regard to your faculties for critical discourse, I question your ability to detect when somebody is winding you up.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sydenham- what's with the logic? This thread is about people from a bankrupt country complaining about having to pay taxes because they are worried about their country going bankrupt. Logic has no place here obviously.

total mis-characterization and lacking nuance.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

who did you wind up?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As more of these social services come into play, you are going to see an ever stronger IRS. We will be pursued by the very politicians who have problems paying their own taxes and not to mention are begin budgeted by those who can't balance their check books.

Obama just said today that "now is the time to buy stocks" and with the low prices I would agree but the outlook on everything looks so bad I'd advise against it. I would demand however, since is the time to put your money to sacrifice, all die hard Obama supporters must invest more than 50% of your incomes and provide another 20% to charities, which you won't be able to write off as at this very moment, there is a list being written up as to WHAT charity you will be allow to give to.

I almost feel as though there are certain elements are purposely taking the economy down.. What do these rich, over weight white libs want - to be the richest of all and become royalty?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

While I admire each of you with regard to your faculties for critical discourse, I question your ability to detect when somebody is winding you up.

If your joy is to wind people up, please warm a seat in the peanut gallery. Fact is, those right wing sheep you speak of are real, and we cannot be blamed for seeing sarcasm in words that we have seen people utter in earnest before. I really wish I could ignore them, but ever since they found Rush Limbaugh they are too unified.

Next time I suggest giving us a hint besides just stating the utterly ridiculous, because the utter ridiculous is being voiced with seriousness lately.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama is entertaining frieds with $100 a pound wagyu beef and being entertained by Earth Wind and Fire while people's retirement accounts are decimated. Maybe the serville don't have a problem with that but his image is taking a beating amongst everyone else.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If you purchase a manufactured product, pay for a service (including your internet service), buy a home, shop for groceries, etc., you will be paying higher prices, even if you are not directly taxed. Why? Because companies transfer their costs of operation, including fees and taxes paid to the government, to their customers. Carbon taxes equals taxes on everyone except the survivalist types living in the wilderness. So unless you live in the wild, walk to work, and grow your own food, you should contact your Congress-critter immediately and let him/her/it know that they needn't bother running for reelection if they vote for any legislation containing a carbon tax scheme (eg "cap and trade").

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Next time I suggest giving us a hint besides just stating the utterly ridiculous, because the utter ridiculous is being voiced with seriousness lately.

Touche!!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Garsh, we really dodged a bullet there. Good thing our vigilant, scrupulously impartial mainstream media was able to unmask that Joe the Plumber guy in time, eh.

I mean really, six weeks into Obama's presidency all the fear-mongering and the baseless repub assertions that 'spread the wealth' was a euphemism for far more radical policies seem so 2008, don't they.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's not that I disagree with any of what Obama wants to do here, but I think it should have been spelled out clearer. Now the republicans would complain even if it had all been spelled out, but I think a lot of us democrats are questioning the way it's being unveiled. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cow76

Everyone needs to look up 'socialism' in the dictionary.

I did, you might appreciate it with your handle and ll.

Socialism,

You have two cows. The government takes one and gives it to your neighbor.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

VOR: Obama is entertaining frieds with $100 a pound wagyu beef and being entertained by Earth Wind and Fire while people's retirement accounts are decimated. Maybe the serville don't have a problem with that but his image is taking a beating amongst everyone else.

So you think we should tax the rich or not? FYI, Obama did not get his money raiding retirement accounts, so I fail to see the relevance of your whine.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

OldGeezer: companies transfer their costs of operation, including fees and taxes paid to the government, to their customers.

Costs of operation are not being taxed. Profits are. Companies may transfer the taxes onto consumers to some degree in order to profit more, but there are are limits, which is why it does not cost 3 million dollars for a bulb of garlic. Trust me, the companies paying the most tax, either today or under Obama's plans, are profiting plenty. If they don't see that and feel the need to profit more on our backs, the problem is not Obama's, its theirs. Their greed needs to be reigned in. Greed is a big reason why we are in this mess in the first place.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So you think we should tax the rich or not?

Don't just tax the rich, eat them! Charles Lindberg, sorry blimp Limbaugh could loss a few pounds. Also, Doctor Strangelove (Dick Cheney) doesn't need his legs anymore, now that he is in a wheelchair.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"now is the time to buy stocks"

No, now is the time to be buying tax-free municipal bond funds and ETF's that are now returning as much as 11% and have severely lowered NAV's. Bebert has no plans to participate in Travis Obama's economy. Although, to be fair, Bebert has always wanted to see America's economy collapse and the military take over. We are on our way.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So you think we should tax the rich or not?

Their greed needs to be reigned in.

likeitis, you bought into the class warfare thing hook line and sinker. penalizing success not only destroys industrial innovation it zaps people of ambition. the least you can do is convince your fellow democrats to wait until the pharmaceutical companies develop a cure for cancer okay?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

rollonarte Eliminating the deduction for charitable contributions ought to be a red flag

It made me blink. But consider that it is not stopping anyone from making charitable contributions. Also consider that charitable deductions are not always on the up and up, and the system seems to be a little abused anyway. If the high wage earners are only contributing to charities in order to avoid taxes, then I have to question whether they are even considering carefully who they are giving to. Seems they just don't want to pay the government.

I cannot blame anyone for not wanting to pay the government, but guess what? We are deep in debt. Something has to be done. Our government gave far too much to that Iraq charity, so anyone not getting to hand money to a different charity should just be happy knowing that a lot of the money is for paying that off. I think America gave enough there to last for a while. Then we have that Wall Street charity. If anyone does not like it, then they should choose their charities more carefully next time.

This will devastate communities across the country and will considerably diminish the substantial charity that Americans (world's most generous in this category) provide

Devastate communities? Must you be so melodramatic? EVERYBODY is going to be suffering in the next few years regardless. If you are so worried about it, then you should be demanding that those who have more to give give already.

What I would like to see is a massive reduction in federal government. Now THAT would save some cash! But I also approve of this taking away of itemized deductions for the rich, even with regards to charitable contributions. Those can be reinstated when we are out of the woods. Time to tighten the belts.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But the rich need their mansions, illigal maids, 12 cars, yachts, planes, how dare he get at them, go for the low income, sub-prime loan loving workers. The rich are acting like Louis the XIV and the French had the perfect solution for that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

VOR: penalizing success not only destroys industrial innovation it zaps people of ambition.

We have enough cash cows that do need innovation and ambition, and they are not going to collapse through being taxed more. Now is not a time to be thinking of innovation. Now is a time to put our nose to the grindstone and just work with what we have until we can get out of the mess.

Hoping that innovation will make some huge new market is just too big a gamble, PARTICULARLY after the huge gambles that were already made on Wall Street and the Auto industry that are looking more and more like gambles lost.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We have enough cash cows that do need innovation and ambition

Sorry. Do NOT need.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

you guys have a warped sense of rich. go talk to the guy who has a window tinting business that employees 4 installers, or a gal who owns a cleaning company that hires a team of unskilled workers or the guy with a fast food franchise and hires high school kids. its people like this that make up the bulk of the $250k group Obama and the Democrats want to tax. You guys are really okay with hitting these guys up with new taxes from all angles even if it means these small business will experience a reduction in revenue, a likely reductions in staff and quite possibly shuttering their front doors altogether?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

likeitis, you bought into the class warfare thing hook line and sinker.

What I bought into is the simple fact that one percent of the households in America hold 38 percent of the wealth. If they were barred from ever making so much as a penny in their lifetimes ever again, their kids would still live a richer life than me.

Now don't take that a jealousy. I am not jealous (not that jealous anyway). I am happy with my life. I am happy I was never a spoiled rich kid. Just look at the numbers. Too much wealth has pooled at the top. Its like feudal times, only standards of living are better. We have debts to pay, and the poor are not in a position to pay them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You guys are really okay with hitting these guys up with new taxes from all angles

As long as the tax is progressive. I do not think Obama is focused on that group. He is just starting there. There is a huge difference between that and your characterization of being hit from all angles.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"The president's budget increases taxes on every American, and does so during a recession"

This is foreboding.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The US Tax System Described With Beer Analogy

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.”Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share? They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).

The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20,”declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,” but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!”

“That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

(originator unknown)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

likeitis wrote: "Costs of operation are not being taxed. Profits are." False. The proposed cap and trade policy would force companies to buy carbon permits if they produce a certain amount of CO2. This is where the administration plans to take in about $645 billion of revenue. This is not a tax on profits, but a tax on emissions (operational tax).

"Companies may transfer the taxes onto consumers to some degree in order to profit more, but there are are limits, which is why it does not cost 3 million dollars for a bulb of garlic." The limits are what the market can bear, which is why we import some foodstuffs, even though we produce more food than we consume. Companies exist to make a profit for its investors. If a company cannot transfer enough of its costs to make it an attractive investment, then investment dries up.

"Trust me, the companies paying the most tax, either today or under Obama's plans, are profiting plenty." The biggest group of corporate taxpayers is the small business with assets less than $1 million. In 2005, of the 5.1 million small businesses filing returns, 4.7 million had assets of less than $500 thousand. Small businesses paid $7.8 billion in taxes. This is more than the $7.4 billion in taxes paid by the 472,821 businesses with assets larger than $1 million. So no, I don't trust you.

"If they don't see that and feel the need to profit more on our backs, the problem is not Obama's, its theirs. Their greed needs to be reigned in." I see. You feel the need to stick it to "the man," right?

"Greed is a big reason why we are in this mess in the first place." The biggest reason for this mess is incompetence on the part of consumers, businesses, and government. Humans act in self-interest. Not all do so in a manner beneficial to themselves and others.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

VOR,

I think many of the posters here are those type of libs that have lived comfty lives and have brought a guilt trip onto themselves. Its always them with all these "let's help the poor people by attacking those with more....just don't burn my house down, I'm on your side" ideas. Hillary is famous for this.

How much more are the Pelosis, the Kennedys, etc.. willing to pay out? Oh, they made sure their raises came through the accepted charity lists and made sure their kids got into the big schools for free... so, now they want to attack those who don't make as much as they (contributions are still important) but make more than the large average person.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

(originator unknown)

No doubt he was a rich pig trying to fool everybody into feeling sympathy for the rich.

In no way is the few percent tax rise Obama is talking about "attacking them for being wealthy".

And this not about a general tax reduction. Its about a reduction for the lower and middle classes and an increase for the rich, who can afford it. No violence, I promise. They just might have to scratch off a new yacht from the Christmas list this year while retaining the new BMW, Rolex, and yearly rotation of Armani suits. Sniff.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skip,

yup and the Democratic party exploit's this immature view of the world to the hilt. this line of thinking is so similar to the way children view the world. ask them if they had a wish, what would they wish for and most would say, world peace and no more hunger. Pure and good but not at all grounded in reality.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I do not think Obama is focused on that group. He is just starting there. There is a huge difference between that and your characterization of being hit from all angles." You think? well then that needs to spelled out in laymen's terms otherwise there is going to be a lot of flak. Obama is loved by the media, so if what you say is correct and true, he needs to use it.

this got me: I am happy I was never a spoiled rich kid. Just look at the numbers. Too much wealth has pooled at the top" I'll say this again, and I apologize to anyone find this statement redundant, but my father was very left, a communist to be exact. One of the things that went wrong with Russia and is happening in China, is not that you have wealth at the top, but you have power at the top. I can not live under a government that has too much control by placements, positions or even cash.

But the rich need their mansions, illigal maids, 12 cars, yachts, planes, how dare he get at them, go for the low income, sub-prime loan loving workers. The rich are acting like Louis the XIV and the French had the perfect solution for that." 250k doesn't make you rich. And if you live in Tokyo, NYC, Chicago, or L.A, you are just above getting by.

Then we have that Wall Street charity. If anyone does not like it, then they should choose their charities more carefully next time." How many charities are you a part of? Two that I work right now hope we make the approved charity list (its a new thing) that comes out in April. If your charity is not on that list, you can not deduct anything. And yes, some charities are preparing for the worse right now and contemplating closing down.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

False. The proposed cap and trade policy would force companies to buy carbon permits if they produce a certain amount of CO2.

Not false. Also true. And yes, you have a point. But there are other ways to reduce the costs rather than just pass it off on consumers.

The biggest group of corporate taxpayers is the small business with assets less than $1 million.

I did not mean as a group. I meant individually.

I see. You feel the need to stick it to "the man," right?

Cheap shot. I could as easily say you feel the need to let them ride roughshod over the populace because you think you know a way to ride on their coattails.

The biggest reason for this mess is incompetence on the part of consumers, businesses, and government.

I make no claim to the biggest reason, but both things are reasons. Except for incompetence of the government. I cannot agree with that. I do not think it is the fault of government for failing to see all the crazy things businesses and people will do, and did. Its a matter of not having a crystal ball, not of being incompetent.

If a company cannot transfer enough of its costs to make it an attractive investment, then investment dries up.

Investment implies expansion. This is no time to expand.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm still so upset about Senator McCain's defeat that I ignore and/or critisize everything the Obama administration does, whether I understand it or not or indeed if it's good for America or not.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Incidentally, $645 billion over 7 years (what President Obama proposes) amounts to about $92.1 billion per year. This is roughly 13% of the total taxable 2005 income of U.S. corporations, before taxes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

likeitis:Investment implies expansion. This is no time to expand.

Bingo!Another great post,amigo.It really is just too funny watching the few remaining bush supporters here try to justify NOT taxing rich people,who we all know MUST have got there wealth by some ILL-GOTTEN method and probably voted for bush TWICE!Well, anyways, this is another promise that Obama has kept from his utterly brilliant campaign.And of course, the adjective "fierce" is just completely out of place here, since the rightists know that there day has past and the era of TRUE equality is here.There is some resistance, but it is because their NEW dear leader, rush, almost as bad as bush, who was the worst president ever from the get-go, tells them what to think.If I was rich I'd happly give over half of my income to this administration!.Why?because 40 percent of people don't even have health insurance, and the trul;y sad thing is they can't get hospital treatment.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

VOR, That was a damn good analysis of the US tax system. Not too ideological but just presenting the facts.

I wonder will the charitable donations to campaigns be affected in 2010, and will that come into play when he tries to run again.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

too funny watching the few remaining bush supporters here try to justify NOT taxing rich people,who we all know MUST have got there wealth by some ILL-GOTTEN method and probably voted for bush TWICE!"

1. Are you telling me 250k = rich? 2. who is saying anything about not taxing rich people? 3. Every person who has gained a bit of success did so in some ill gotten way, yet those who are on welfare and continue to keep having kids enroll on welfare are angles? 4. since the rightists know that there day has past and the era of TRUE equality" why the name calling? There are a lot of libs who make more than 250k and who are starting to complain very loudly. Tell me, how are these plans sooo filled with equality?
0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cut your emissions, use less power = you will save money, more power is available for others at cheaper rates.

Rich people and corps offshore lots of money (what's left after the market collapse).

Politicians emit tons of CO2 (the talk too much) = should be taxed for that.

Many people on JT should be getting bills in the mail soon since they go over the max CO2 character text rate per month. Some bills will be in the 1000s of $ -that's not ¥ !!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Not false. Also true. And yes, you have a point. But there are other ways to reduce the costs rather than just pass it off on consumers. What part of "Costs of operation are not being taxed" is true? Try none. How do you produce CO2? If you are a farmer, fisherman, rancher, trucker, manufacturer, or energy producer, you produce CO2 when you "produce" your goods and services.

I did not mean as a group. I meant individually. You had better specify then, because the top 100 most profitable companies from 2007 don't include many manufacturers such as Boeing and Pfizer. The fact is that aside from the big fuel producers like Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, and Conoco-Philips and transportation company United Airlines, the most profitable companies (besides Walmart) were insurance and financial services companies, not direct CO2 producers.

Cheap shot. I could as easily say you feel the need to let them ride roughshod over the populace because you think you know a way to ride on their coattails. Which you would base upon what statement of mine? The fact that I know what I am talking about? The fact that I believe that the government is spending too much money and on the wrong things?

I make no claim to the biggest reason, but both things are reasons. Except for incompetence of the government. I cannot agree with that. I do not think it is the fault of government for failing to see all the crazy things businesses and people will do, and did. Its a matter of not having a crystal ball, not of being incompetent.

Economists warned about problems in the markets before the dotcom bust and the sub-prime market crash. It is not magic. It is a matter of being willing to subordinate your own pride or beliefs and listening to the experts, then making decisions/policies based upon what you hear. It means that you acknowledge the limits of what you know. Individual consumers often don't bother trying to learn. Many business executives thought they knew better. Politicians generally think they know better and only listen to the people that believe the same as they do.

Investment implies expansion. This is no time to expand. Wrong again. Investment refers to investor capitalization. It is used to pay bills and operate the business, as well as expand. If investors don't see a good return on their investment, they pull out their capital and invest elsewhere. The company thus has less money to pay bills and operate the business. If the business loses more investor capitalization than it has liquid assets, it can't pay bills or operate its employee. If it fails to secure additional financing through bonds, loans, or investment, it goes out of business.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wars and mismanagement are very expensive (it's a form of tax and spend). Who is going to pay for them? The poor? They are the ones who die because of wars, lose their jobs because of mismanagement, don't have access like the better off. Fancy arguments abound, but the bills still have to be paid.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Wars and mismanagement are very expensive"

This is one of the questions I asked the hawks in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. I was told not to worry, "we've got that kind of cash".

And now, the very same people are wishing to shift the blame for just about every level of mis-management from the last eight years to the new administration, in it's first few weeks of operation. I wonder in fact where Americanwoman is these days, and all the othes that argued tricle-down tax breaks for the rich "work".

Amazing. Truly amazing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Anytime the government borrows money, it does so on the basis of future revenue. The projections made did not follow reality. The projections being made by this government will not follow reality. Politicians don't base their policies upon reality, but upon what voters will believe. The New Deal is good example of this. People believed in what FDR was doing, even though it didn't work and extended the Great Depression up until the ramp up for WWII, which was done with tremendous borrowing. In other words, the military-industrial complex and weapon sales is what pulled the United States out of the Depression.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Not only does Obama believe that America 'invented the automobile' he is equally clueless when it comes to basic economics:

“What you’re now seeing is a profit and earnings ratios get to the point that buying stocks is a good thing if you have a long-term perspective on it,” he said to reporters after meeting in the Oval Office with visiting British Prime Minister Gordon Brown."

How many points is that worth?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Trickle down economics is just another form of dependancy of the masses upon a perceived benevolent entity. From the perspective of most people money and power are in the hands of Others, the so-called capitalist idea of trickle down economics does nothing to free society, it is just a rearrangement of the deck chairs.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The purpose of taxation is to enable the government to pay its bills. Now one can justify deficits for any number of reasons. They will impinge on people's ability to enjoy the good economy (GWB) or the government needs to spend to offset private sector contraction (BHO).

There's little debate the "good economy" of the past eight years was based on a real estate bubble. If all those people who've been thrown under the bus for being underwater on their mortgages hadn't lived beyond their means with the complicity of the financial sector, well the boom would have been over earlier and the crash less severe.

There's little debate the private sector is contracting sharply and has been since last year, the fourth quarter stats were worse than expected. For those who want the private sector to pull us out of this, how can we reverse the contraction?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In other words, the military-industrial complex and weapon sales is what pulled the United States out of the Depression.

This would go under the heading of "socializing security." WWII put a lot of people to work, but Uncle Sam certainly borrowed to pay for it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Tom Friedman in his column today is correct:

We are coming off a 20-year credit binge. As a country, too many of us stopped making money by making “stuff” and started making money from money — consumers making money out of rising home prices and using the profits to buy flat-screen TVs from China on their credit cards, and bankers making money by creating complex securities and leverage so more and more consumers could get in on the credit game.

There's no easy answers here.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

To reverse contraction via the private sector, companies must be allowed to fail and restructure (if there's anything worth salvaging). Otherwise, investors and potential private creditors don't have confidence that the remaining companies are healthy, capable of remaining solvent. When the government bails out companies, it keeps unhealthy companies in business. Those unhealthy companies compete with healthy companies for a smaller market. This actually hurts the healthy companies and can drive them into insolvency.

This is not a popular answer because it takes time for recovery and people are impatient. The irony is that the CBO acknowledges that the bailouts and "stimulus" will actually hurt the economy in the long run, in exchange for short term results of dubious value.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

When the government bails out companies, it keeps unhealthy companies in business. Those unhealthy companies compete with healthy companies for a smaller market.

The criticism is that the government allocates capital to them which would otherwise go to businesses that compete in the free market. But what happens if the failing businesses themselves make capital available for business expansion in the private sector? Letting banks fail is much more complicated than letting GM fail. This was the logic behind bailing out the banks last fall with public money.

The next four years may be consumed by getting Merrill Lynch, Citigroup and AIG, among others, back on their financial feet.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Two words: zombie banks. Just as you can have unhealthy companies, you can have unhealthy banks. Unhealthy banks can't lend money because they have to shore up losses on the investment side. Meanwhile, the healthy banks find it no easier to get capital because investors can't trust the banks to earn a genuinely profitable return and Federal Reserve is focusing on rescuing the unhealthy banks.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Meanwhile, the healthy banks find it no easier to get capital because investors can't trust the banks to earn a genuinely profitable return and Federal Reserve is focusing on rescuing the unhealthy banks.

That's true. Investors are hesitant because they are unsure which banks are solvent and which are not (and what Uncle Sam plans to do about those that are unhealthy).

Politicians aren't stupid but savvy. They can't afford to let unemployment get too high and expect to remain in office so they try to fix things by running deficits, be they in the form of tax cuts or increased government spending. On the one hand, you're criticizing Obama for not allowing the economy to bottom out, however painful that may become, while on the other for not fixing things in the first five weeks.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I love all the whining that's being done. george bush gave the rich the biggest increase in their pocketbooks because of his tax breaks. Now that their tax breaks are coming to an end they are crying.

george bush gave the rich $4Trillion and they did whatever with it that they wanted with it. Now Barack Obama is reining in those tax breaks and the republicans feel that they are being penalized. They aren't being penalized, they are now paying more of their fair share.

The rich have been getting away with tax breaks like they were popcorn. george bush gave so many tax breaks. During the first 6 years everytime he spoke he almost always brought up another tax break. Those times are greatfully over. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Geithner and Rangel are tax cheats who dodged paying their own taxes, yet both demand others pay up.

If Obama's going to do it, he should at least have people leading the charge who did not break the law themselves.

These two have flaunted the laws for years and never had to pay a fine and now they are going to go after others.

Democrats are such hypocrites.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Politicians aren't stupid but savvy. They can't afford to let unemployment get too high and expect to remain in office so they try to fix things by running deficits, be they in the form of tax cuts or increased government spending.

It's ultimately a game of putting off the crisis that makes the market fluctuations so violent. Short-term gains in exchange for long-term stability. Ask a politician an economics question and he/she probably have no clue. Ask a politician what the polls say and they will probably know. I said that they are ignorant about the economic effects of their policies, not that they didn't understand the politics.

On the one hand, you're criticizing Obama for not allowing the economy to bottom out, however painful that may become, while on the other for not fixing things in the first five weeks.

Not correct. I'm critical of the administration for taking the wrong actions, not for failing to fix things. The economy is bigger than the government. The government can help or hinder, but not dictate. Expecting a turnaround in a short time is ludicrous. On the other hand, the bailouts and so-called stimulus spending is so wrong as to be insane from an economics perspective. The government is blowing billions on companies that are probably not worth saving. Moreover, federally subsidized companies such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been given boosts, despite being part of the fundamental problem.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122091796187012529.html

If the government wanted to do something without being part of the problem, it should have funded projects that would measurably improve the ability of the United States to compete in the international markets. It could have started a grid modernization project and ordered new power plants (nuclear and renewable). It could have eliminated the ethanol mandate and granted new tax credits for cogeneration (with added credits for solar systems). There's any number of things that they could have chosen to do that wouldn't have had such a deleterious effect on the long-term economic health of the country. It would have cost less and resulted in more employment. Of course, that's assuming that they really are interested in good answers

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TexasAggie

These two have flaunted the laws for years and never had to pay a fine and now they are going to go after others. Democrats are such hypocrites.

You are correct that these two didn't pay their fair share till it was discovered.

How about all the Americans that send money out of country to avoid paying taxes on that money? How about the money earned from US businesses that were shipped overseas?

I pay taxes on ALL my money. Not just the money I want to disclose. There are a lot of people who don't pay their taxes on purpose, also. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

250k is rich if thats what ONE person in a family is MAKING each year. How much of that are they spending on cost of living, how much on family expenses (I can understand if they have 8+ kids they're raising), how much on buying their home? (not their 2nd or 3rd or 4th home), how much on extravagance? (luxury is acceptable, but extravagance is pointless). I'm happy if I can at least make 35k a year after taxes and still be financially secure taking care of my family. I remember there was some millionare that said that some people that make 6-7 figures can't quite understand that they can live quite well even if they aren't making 200k,500k,or Millions each year. Its a simple thing called budgeting your expenditures.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm happy if I can at least make 35k a year after taxes and still be financially secure taking care of my family."

YOu are not happy. You are settling for less. If you are still in your early 20's, I can understand. But if you are not and you have a family and live in a big city, you are not happy nor are you financially secure, you just simply budget well.

If you live in Japan, as many on this board do and are American, you can not possibly live well and you need to make sure you US taxes are not affected in anyway and that means by letting a pro do your taxes. That ceiling of 80k is not as automatic as many believe.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Tax increases only serve to slow an economy even more, by taking more money out of the private sector and putting it into Big Government, which will use it to make itself even bigger and more stifling. It's a vicious cycle that must be stopped. Government should not be allowed any more money - in fact, they should have their revenue cut sharply, and with it there should be drastic cuts in the size of government itself. Get Big Government out of the way and let the people do what they are good at!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Skip, its not about being happy, its about being able to meet your basic needs and still have enough to get by on when things don't always go the way one wants (hint:the present economy/unemployment rates). Considering the fact that even some banks are pretty much unreliable in the long run even holding on to ones hard earned money kinda makes things interesting that there is no sure fire way. People lose jobs, become disabled etc.

My way of thinking is this, If I can live comfortably (not luxuriously)off of a lower catagory of income then I should be able to live extremely well of a much higher income. 35k (if only 1 person is working)I know can cover a family of 3 and might actually be able to save about 5k out of that. With a spouse working you may be able to add an additional 12k(part time low-income job) to an extra 70k+.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

remember the old saying, "Be happy with what you HAVE." cos' it may not be around forever.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Dang I seem to be pressing the submit button too fast. If I were making a nice sum of 60k by myself (excluding family members) I would be able to live comfortably off of about 20k of that(that would still include some medium quality wants) and the rest could be tossed into savings. When I was younger (I'm in my early 30s now) I used to be able to live off spending and still was able to save at between $500~$600usd a month. While spending does help the economy move, its bad when people don't know when they have enough and end up having to spend more to maintain what they have (i.e. overpriced houses, multiple cars, 1000 cable/dish channels). Well, I'm ending it at that since my poor mind is a little tired right now.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

All I have to say is that most rich don't care a thing about the poor, why should I care about them? I say tax them all!! tax them until they are not as rich but not as poor as me :(

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Most poor just want to get rich.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

bush handed out tax breaks to the rich like candy to a baby. Only the top 2% has done well in the last 10 years. The rest of Americans have been going down the tubes. Letting wealth concentrate is the top 2% is a recipe for failure of an economy. Look at the Philippines for example. A handful of families run the country, 40% are in dire poverty. That is the america that bush and the republicans want, that is not what Obama wants. He wants fairness, not welfare for the rich.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I am wealthy there guy, and I don't think Obama has the right to take away my hard earned cash there guy. This is a redistribution of wealth there guy that can only happen under a socialist government there hey guy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

All I have to say is that most rich don't care a thing about the poor, why should I care about them? I say tax them all!! tax them until they are not as rich but not as poor as me :(

Most of the rich give to charity. Sure it may be as a result of the Tax writeoffs that Obama is taking away, but nevertheless the majority of charitable donations come from those who can afford to give, and do. Still think they care nothing about the poor?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

To those who say this new tax system is detrimental to their cost of living: WHAT is going on in your life that you can't live on 4850 dollars a week? HOW could you possibly be broke? I lived pretty comfortably making less than 200 a week in Philly a year ago. I even had satellite cable. Basic cable, but still. I was able to budget and pay all my bills and taxes. I wasn't driving or anything, but how could someone making more than 24 times what I was making complain about cost of living?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Even if he confiscated all of wealth of the richest 1%, that would still not pay for the mountain of new government spending that he introduced.

Taxing-and-spending its way to wealth has never worked for any government in history.

Btw, isn´t one definition of insanity to repeat the same mistake over and over, expecting a different result?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The best stimulus for the economy would be abolition of income tax and IRS all together. America did not have those when it was a real land of opportunities. Now it's just a land of welfare. Go Ron Paul!!

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