Tax rates on track to soar

[jdobbin]

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/...-rich-tax_N.htm

Three tax increases proposed by President Obama and House Democrats on the richest Americans could produce the highest tax rates in a quarter-century.

The latest is this week's proposal by House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., and others to impose a surtax of up to 5.4% on annual incomes of $350,000 or more to help pay for overhauling the health care system. About 500,000 taxpayers earning $1 million or more would pay the full surtax.

It certainly looks like some major tax increases are coming in the U.S.

This should give the Republicans an issue that is longlasting for them on the federal side of things.

The only problem for them is that many of the future contenders for the party at the state level are also having to deal with the issues of tax increases. Hard to run federally if you had a reputation of taxing at the state level.

[Topaz]

Yes, the US is in a real mess and Rush and Hannity are loving every minute of it because they have lots to talk about and all are negative because their pay cheques are going to be hit for help pay for the healthcare for the lower tax payer over there. Anyone making over 350,000 as a couple will have increase in taxes and all the rich Republicans are screaming about the increase.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, the US is in a real mess and Rush and Hannity are loving every minute of it because they have lots to talk about and all are negative because their pay cheques are going to be hit for help pay for the healthcare for the lower tax payer over there. Anyone making over 350,000 as a couple will have increase in taxes and all the rich Republicans are screaming about the increase.

It's not just the "rich Republicans".....small business owners are going to be hurt by the taxes and penalties if they don't participate. The US is not in trouble...but Obama's plans sure are.

[Pliny]

Yes, the US is in a real mess and Rush and Hannity are loving every minute of it because they have lots to talk about and all are negative because their pay cheques are going to be hit for help pay for the healthcare for the lower tax payer over there. Anyone making over 350,000 as a couple will have increase in taxes and all the rich Republicans are screaming about the increase.

Obama is the best medicine for all it's ills apparently so why is the US in a real mess?

[GostHacked]

Obama is the best medicine for all it's ills apparently so why is the US in a real mess?

not sure, buuuut, the taxes are needed to take care of the balloning defecit due to a financial crisis rooted in the housing and credit markets which were bailed out by taxpayer money from the government. Not to mention the money spent on the war on terror.

Even if McCain was in office, this would have been the eventual plan as well. Simply because all this happened on the previous Admins watch.

[rabidgoose]

not sure, buuuut, the taxes are needed to take care of the balloning defecit due to a financial crisis rooted in the housing and credit markets which were bailed out by taxpayer money from the government. Not to mention the money spent on the war on terror.

Even if McCain was in office, this would have been the eventual plan as well. Simply because all this happened on the previous Admins watch.

Here is what the Congressional Budget Office report says about the topic.

[August1991]

It certainly looks like some major tax increases are coming in the U.S.

Major "effective" tax rate increases? Nominal rates may change but effective rates will stay the same.

This policy will make some tax lawyers and accountants very rich - that's all, if that.

The US has been down this road before.

Edited July 17, 2009 by August1991

[Shady]

Spend more money and raise more taxes. That's exactly what this economy needs.

I have a thought. Is Barack Obama already the worst President in American history? Just wondering.

[Shady]

Major "effective" tax rate increases? Nominal rates may change but effective rates will stay the same.

This policy will make some tax lawyers and accountants very rich - that's all, if that.

The US has been down this road before.

I have to disagree. Obama has already stated that he's going to let Bush's tax cuts expire in 2010. That means each tax bracket will see a 5% increase in their rate. As for Obama's current tax proposals, the NY Post has a very nice chart, illustrating the results related to someone working in the state of New York, and also the city.

PIC

[Guest Tyler90]

Yes, the US is in a real mess and Rush and Hannity are loving every minute of it because they have lots to talk about and all are negative because their pay cheques are going to be hit for help pay for the healthcare for the lower tax payer over there. Anyone making over 350,000 as a couple will have increase in taxes and all the rich Republicans are screaming about the increase.

Yes because we all feel terribly bad for the millionaires

but seriously, high taxes are not a bad thing at all, time people realized this. There is nothing more important than health care and education and we get those free because we pay taxes, high taxes sometimes, but did you know what, if we didn't give the money to the government, we'd have no social services, and that would be a terrible, terrible world. So I find it stupid that people complain about how high taxes are (especially seeing as how it is mostly the richest amongst us who do so, and they are the ones who can pay it no problem).

[Bonam]

Yes because we all feel terribly bad for the millionaires

but seriously, high taxes are not a bad thing at all, time people realized this. There is nothing more important than health care and education and we get those free because we pay taxes, high taxes sometimes, but did you know what, if we didn't give the money to the government, we'd have no social services, and that would be a terrible, terrible world. So I find it stupid that people complain about how high taxes are (especially seeing as how it is mostly the richest amongst us who do so, and they are the ones who can pay it no problem).

What an incredibly socialist point of view. Health care and education are indeed important, and cost money. This money can be collected by the government in the form of high tax and used to provide the services. Or the services can be provided privately and users can pay for them, with the money they saved due to paying much lower taxes. Why would the world be so terrible? People taking responsibility for their own actions rather than relying on society to constantly bail them out is a much more attractive world in my view.

[punked]

What an incredibly socialist point of view. Health care and education are indeed important, and cost money. This money can be collected by the government in the form of high tax and used to provide the services. Or the services can be provided privately and users can pay for them, with the money they saved due to paying much lower taxes. Why would the world be so terrible? People taking responsibility for their own actions rather than relying on society to constantly bail them out is a much more attractive world in my view.

And those who don't have the money can go with out an education and die in the streets. The times before the French revolution were wonderful we all hope it goes back to then.

[Bonam]

And those who don't have the money can go with out an education and die in the streets. The times before the French revolution were wonderful we all hope it goes back to then.

You talk about "not having money" as if it is permanent feature of an individual. In your view, the rich and evil just somehow have money, and the poor and innocent are cursed to forever lack it. This is not the case. Those who are willing to work can make money and improve their own lives. The consequences of failing to do so and the benefits of doing so are what drive hard work and innovation. It is these factors that have built our societies up from the start of the industrial revolution to our modern prosperity.

If everything is provided to an individual by the government, what motivation does that individual have to go out and achieve everything for themselves? As the government provides more and more, providing better and better conditions for those that "don't have money", fewer and fewer will want to bother working, instead living off the charity of the government. As more and more of the population does this, the economy declines, and cannot support the costs of so many social programs, and everyone's quality of life begins to decline, until the poor are worse off than they ever were, and the economy itself is utterly rotten.

That is the trap of socialism. At any moment in a prosperous society it may seem like a good idea, "let's just help these people out a bit more", but in the long term it leads to utter ruin.

[punked]

You talk about "not having money" as if it is permanent feature of an individual. In your view, the rich and evil just somehow have money, and the poor and innocent are cursed to forever lack it. This is not the case. Those who are willing to work can make money and improve their own lives. The consequences of failing to do so and the benefits of doing so are what drive hard work and innovation. It is these factors that have built our societies up from the start of the industrial revolution to our modern prosperity.

Accept in these situations those who have money use it stream the money upward. Like how they would lend to the Farmers of the west and wait until it was time for the crops to go on the market to call it. Flooding the market with wheat and what not to drive the price down so that those Farmers could only pay enough not to go into debt more. Then they would take that cheep crop and sell for much much more. It isn't as simple as you make it out to be. It pays society to have an educated base, who have more then a living income. You want a Libertarian world well go to Somalia it is the way it is done there.

[Bonam]

It pays society to have an educated base, who have more then a living income.

Of course it does, and the surest way to make sure that people get an education is to make the rewards for doing so tangible. When homeless people are provided housing that is beyond the reach of middle class professionals, what incentive is that to get an education and to work?

You want a Libertarian world well go to Somalia it is the way it is done there.

Well actually Libertarianism emphasizes the role of government in protecting property rights of its citizens. The violence and lawlessness in Somalia is not at all what Libertarianism advocates.

That being said, I'm not a Libertarian. I recognize the value of government and social institutions to a certain extent. I believe government has important role to play, in providing people with equal opportunities (as opposed to equal outcomes, which is what socialists want). There are also important endeavors that are carried out by government that Libertarianism pretty much ignores, such as large scale scientific research. space exploration, etc, which can only be realistically carried out with government funding.

[punked]

Of course it does, and the surest way to make sure that people get an education is to make the rewards for doing so tangible. When homeless people are provided housing that is beyond the reach of middle class professionals, what incentive is that to get an education and to work?

What country that provides an education for its people has that happened in again? Oohhhhh no where you say? Poor arguement, based not in reality but in your hate for the poor.

[Bonam]

What country that provides an education for its people has that happened in again? Oohhhhh no where you say?

Not sure what you're trying to say there. Would you like to elaborate?

Poor arguement, based not in reality but in your hate for the poor.

I have no hate for the poor. I have a belief that people can and should help themselves, rather than expecting the government to do it for them. I have more respect for "the poor" than people like you, because I believe the vast majority of them have the capability to face their challenges, rise above their circumstances, and achieve something. I do not believe that they are inept and incapable, I do not think they should be made into a permanent victim class.

[punked]

I have no hate for the poor. I have a belief that people can and should help themselves, rather than expecting the government to do it for them. I have more respect for "the poor" than people like you, because I believe the vast majority of them have the capability to face their challenges, rise above their circumstances, and achieve something. I do not believe that they are inept and incapable, I do not think they should be made into a permanent victim class.

I think that belief is what depend the great depression. I think King, and Bennett kept saying "their are jobs Canadians are just too lazy to go out and find them." Than they would continue to do nothing. It should also be noted their was no social assistance during that depression to help people out.

[Bonam]

I think that belief is what depend the great depression. I think King, and Bennett kept saying "their are jobs Canadians are just too lazy to go out and find them." Than they would continue to do nothing. It should also be noted their was no social assistance during that depression to help people out.

So you think the recession would have ended faster if the government had sunk itself in debt while sending out welfare cheques to everyone?

[punked]

So you think the recession would have ended faster if the government had sunk itself in debt while sending out welfare cheques to everyone?

I think the depression would have been lessoned and over sooner if the government would have offered some social safety nets. The types you advocate for getting rid of. There is nothing wrong with letting the old eat, or the young read.

Edited July 18, 2009 by punked

[Bonam]

I think the depression would have been lessoned and over sooner if the government would have offered some social safety nets. The types you advocate for getting rid of. There is nothing wrong with letting the old eat, or the young read.

Where have I advocated not letting the "old eat" or the "young read"? We have public education through high school, and a variety of government programs to help fund people through post-secondary education as well, all of which I support. As for the old, they receive pension, as well as having had the opportunity to save up for their retirement for their entire lives. Furthermore, families should contribute to taking care of their elderly family members. Retired grandparents can contribute greatly to a family unit, by, for example, taking care of the kids while both parents work to make money. Arrangements such as this seem to have been all but forgotten in our modern culture.

Edited July 18, 2009 by Bonam

[punked]

Where have I advocated not letting the "old eat" or the "young read"? We have public education through high school, and a variety of government programs to help fund people through post-secondary education as well, all of which I support. As for the old, they receive pension, as well as having had the opportunity to save up for their retirement for their entire lives. Furthermore, families should contribute to taking care of their elderly family members. Retired grandparents can contribute greatly to a family unit, by, for example, taking care of the kids while both parents work to make money. Arrangements such as this seem to have been all but forgotten in our modern culture.

This is the direct quote from you.

Or the services can be provided privately and users can pay for them, with the money they saved due to paying much lower taxes. Why would the world be so terrible?

Remember when it was like that? Literacy rate was around 10%, people died in the streets due to poor sanitation, and not being able to get medical help. The old froze to death becuase they could not afford to heat their homes, and the farmers were kept indebted so that their crop would come to market at a cheep price and the rich would get richer. That is why that is so terrible. The depression changed that because when life gets sooooo bad you can eat you want a change. The system changed and here we are.

[Bonam]

This is the direct quote from you.

Yes, I clearly stated that services can either be provided for by tax-payer money or by private services which people can pay for with less taxes. There is a balance that must be struck, an optimum, that is at neither end of the spectrum. Leaning too far either way is detrimental, and my view is that we have now leaned too far to the socialist side.

Remember when it was like that? Literacy rate was around 10%, people died in the streets due to poor sanitation, and not being able to get medical help. The old froze to death because they could not afford to heat their homes, and the farmers were kept indebted so that their crop would come to market at a cheep price and the rich would get richer. That is why that is so terrible.

Sorry no, wasn't alive then. I do however remember when there were certain nations espousing the principles of equality for all, from everyone by ability to everyone by need, and the people in fact lived in destitute poverty while the government wasted away all of the nation's potential and riches.

The system changed and here we are.

Yes here we are, in the middle of another recession.

[punked]

Yes, I clearly stated that services can either be provided for by tax-payer money or by private services which people can pay for with less taxes. There is a balance that must be struck, an optimum, that is at neither end of the spectrum. Leaning too far either way is detrimental, and my view is that we have now leaned too far to the socialist side.

Ok we can agree all things are great in moderation.

Now what education and health programs (your words not mine) do you want to get rid of?

[Craig1]

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world, no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."

Woodrow wilson