Forums
This is an index of all forums posting across the site.
Obama-Nomics
I usually stay away from this stuff. Had to do this post.
Obama will eliminate the cap on Fica taxes. It is currently a 6.2% tax imposed on the first $100,000 of income.
He will remove that and tax all of everyone’s salary. Self employed folks pay double or 12.4% on our first $100,000 because will have to pay the employer and employee portion.
That is assuming you are generating income. He is also raising the top bracket from 35 to 39.6.
What I am trying to say is if someone makes $400K in a year, here is how Obama will hurt them using rough numbers
* $36,000 in extra fica tax
* $20,000 in extra income tax
That would be a $56,000 hit to those 400K earners.
That will DESTROY our economy and throw the country into Depression as that money will not be pumped into creating new jobs and buying things.
He is crazy.
i agree with HelloDolly, cite your sources please. but for the sake of argument: Do you even make over 400,000 dollars? first off, 56,000 is nothing to someone who makes that much money, and lets face it, you don't need that fourth mercedes. Don't forget we are TRILLIONS of dollars in debt because a conservative that doesn't understand finances took office and started a few wars. Where do you think that money is going to come from? The magic Debt Fairy (cousin of the tooth fairy) is going to put a check under Dubya's pillow?
The rich don't stimulate this economy, the middle class does.
If folks who reply to the orignial post do not believe that taxes are going up on business owners in an Obama led administration so that the money can be REDISTRIBUTED to the middle class, then they need to either change the flavor of Kool-Aid they are drinking or stop drinking it all together.
The dems want to BUY the middle class by providing them entitlements. 10 million of the some 40 million Americans without health insurance are illegal Aliens. They want to provide all of those folks with insurance, scholarships and other goodies that will ensure their votes will go to Democrats. It is predicted by year 2012, that latinos will make up 20% of the electorate. A very effective strategy indeed to obliterate the republican party.
The first poster did not even mention Obama's intention to raise the capital gains tax from 15 to 30%. That will induce a mass selloff that could tank our stock market. If you couple this with his intention to raise income taxes and remove the cap on SS taxes, it is a disaster for entreprenurial minded Americans who create jobs and pour money back into the economy.
If you are into Socialism, Obama is your guy. If you believe that really Big Government is the most efficient way to run our country, vote Obama. All I suggest, is you keep stocking up on the Kool Aid because once Big Brother gets its claws in to you, there will be no letting go.
As far as funding the war, let's have a debate as to how to fund it including having Iraq fund with oil proceeds. What about the disgustingly rich oil Companies? They should be chipping in as well. But let's not burden ONLY the small business owner who through entreprenurial desire and a lot of HARD WORK has been able to get ahead and provide a nice living for him or her self and family. It is just an equation that will not work for our economy.
Shooting someone down is one thing. But just categorically dismissing a coherent and well thought out analysis is actually a public disservice.
It is not a lie that Obama wants a universal medical plan and wants to raise taxes. His voting record is further to the left than Hilary's. These are facts...not fiction.
Most of us conservatives believe we are taxed enough as it is and that the government is horribly wasteful in the mangement of money. Why would one want to raise taxes and feed the beast?
Smarter Thanyou, Your argument is subjective.
saying "Obama wants to raise taxes", is more of a technicality than an actual truth and is subjective to what class you are talking about. Obama's current plan would be to cut tax rates for middle to lower class and close loop holes for the rich. The same loop holes that allow millionaires to pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes then their middle and upper middle class counterparts and the same loop holes that encourage outsourcing of American jobs. Your statement is a blanketed, half-truth because Yes by closing those holes the upper 10 percent would have to pay more.
The reason we need to "feed the beast" as you put it is because of the deficits and class gaps created by Reganomics. We are facing a debt, unemployment, and a recession head on, and to think the market will fix itself is absurd. President Bush (a conservative mind you) has been sitting back and waiting for the economy to get back in the black, but crossing your fingers and praying only does so much (which is absolutely nothing). We used social programs before in this country to fix our economic problems once and it worked, its not as if Obama and the democratic party's platform is unprecedented.
So how do you fix these problems exactly?
democrat philosophy
You reasonably tax those who have money to spare, and cut on needless overspending (ie Iraq) where feasible to create a surplus. re-distribute the money into social work programs that will create jobs (build a fence, solar panel industry, national parks) thus creating a larger tax pool and having less people dependent on welfare and unemployment programs.
republicans philosophy
leave it up to the good will of business owners. let it be free.
Now i am not a conventional advocate of liberal monetary policies. But the current economic environment calls for government run stimulus, if we were in a surplus i would be advocating the opposite.
Things were sounding decent until your "less people dependent" idea. The less people dependent thing will never happen under an entitlement based policy which takes from the "rich" and gives to the middle class. In fact, the dems want more people dependent on big government because that means more votes and more need for a bigger government.
Also, let's be careful of how we define the rich. Is that over $100K, $200K, $300K in annual earnings? Have you looked at the price of housing, gas and other costs in Metro areas? $300K BEFORE taxes does not stretch as far as it used to. I would hardly call someone rich with that salary, especially if they are a sole wage earner with a boat load of kids and other obligations. I know many folks in the suburbs of a Metro area with that kind of income with families to raise, enormous school debt, etc and they are by no means considered rich. They are comfortable, have a nice house, two nice cars in the driveway and contribute to their 401(k) but since when did that become a crime. Some of these statements made about taxing the "rich" are relevant to people who are by far not rich.
You criticized my commentary claiming I was making blanket statements. But your "reasonably tax those with money to spare" is the biggest generalization and myth in the whole democratic platform. It hurts people who by any standards of net worth accumulation are not rich but are trying to build something of value...of their future. But then again, that capitalistic ideal is something that doesn't resonate with the liberal thinker I guess. Also is a tax of over 50% of someone's earnings reasonable. That's where we are headed. Did you ever start to think that we are taxed reasonably right now and that if you have an inefficient machine like the government, you don't feed it with more fuel. Lobbyists control our country and who do you think the politicians will be looking out for...us or the special interests. The FDR days are over. This really is the New Deal and it stinks because DC is corrupt.
I will finish my dialog here as your arguments are getting thinner and more general as we go.
Both parties are corrput! Example. Private Hedge Firms get the same capital gains treatment that all investors do as opposed to paying ordinary tax rates, which are much higher. Billions of dollars of income is taxed at 15% instead of 35%. The whole purpose of capital gains rates is because theoretically folks have already paid one level of tax and shouldn't pay ordinary tax rates on investment income.
But this does not apply to Hedge Firms because they are investing mostly other people's money and this is what they do for the main line of business. It is not a passive activity. Therefore, they should pay ordinary income tax rates like the rest of us. Do you know how much money would go into treasury if these Firms just paid their fair share? I do not even think it is estimable it is so high.
Why do they not? Uhm let' see. Last cycle, the Hedge funds poured millions into both partie's campaigns with the majority going to democrats because it was obvious they were going to win both houses of congress. Who was the culprit on the Democratic side. Charles Schumer of NY. He sighted his concern that raising the capital gains rate would cause Hedge funds to leave NY. Why would asking a Firm to pay their normal tax rate cause someone to leave the state? Or was Schumer's real concern it would cost the Democrats millions in campaign contributions that it could not afford going into this year's election cycle?
Now wouldn't it much fairer to ask Hedge funds to pay their fare share? If so, you might want to send a letter to Mr. Schumer because he has killed legislation to try to do exactly that. So before we start debating who needs to pay their fair share and who can afford what and what is reasonable, all I ask is that you consider the level of corruption in DC on both sides and let's not blindly raise taxes on folks who are following the rules and creating jobs.
It's been nice but if you want to learn anymore, I will have to start charging.
Who says it's inherently unfair to treat hedge funds different from private individuals?
We already do that with corporations.
Hedge funds, private citizens, corporations -- they ARE all different. The roles they play in society, the amounts and kinds of risk they carry, all different.
If you want to argue that they're making enough money and they should contribute more to trimming down the deficit, by all means, make the pitch. But arguing that the only fair plan is to treat a hedge fund like Joe Schmoe, does not, in esse, have any logic underpinning it.
The proof is in the pudding, as it were. Examine the last three republican presidents and the most recent democratic president. The R's built up a tremendous amount of debt, Reagan set a record amount of debt creation until Dubbya took the title from him. Clinton setup a system to pay down the debt to a manageable level by 2010 (or was it 2012?). Anyway the R's have done nothing but drive our economy into debt, Clinton attempted to fix the problem and in so doing taught Dems (finally) the valuable lesson that money is important. I cannot see how you can argue against these simple monetary facts.
Obama has said on several occasions that he will raise taxes and I believe him at his word. Why would he lie about raising taxes by eliminating the death tax, eliminating the cap in FICA earnings, and raising income tax on the wealthy and Corporations. That is all fact and it's easy to find, even you supporters of Obama can use Google?
I just hope everyone realizes that these higher taxes will stifle the US economy beyond anything we have seen so far. The 19% mortgage interest rates of the Carter administration will be upon us all again. If Obama gets his way it will stifle things so completely he will have to declare an end to the US Constitution and declare himself Dictator in Chief and his Polite Bureau will end all Freedoms we have been bestowed by our Creator.
factcheck.org is a nice website that counter-spins republicans and democrats alike:
- The resolution Obama voted for would not have increased taxes on any single taxpayer making less than $41,500 per year in total income, or any couple making less than $83,000. The $32,000 figure is approximately the taxable income of a single person making $41,500 per year, after all deductions and exclusions.
- Obama's vote (for a non-binding budget bill) does not change the fact that his own tax plan would provide a tax cut of $502 for a non-married taxpayer earning $35,000.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/the_32000_question.html
The McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee both claim that Obama has voted 94 times “for higher taxes.” We find that their count is padded.
After looking at every one of the 94 votes that the RNC includes in its tally, we find:
- Twenty-three were for measures that would have produced no tax increase at all; they were against proposed tax cuts.
- Seven of the votes were in favor of measures that would have lowered taxes for many, while raising them on a relative few, either corporations or affluent individuals.
- Eleven votes the GOP is counting would have increased taxes on those making more than $1 million a year – in order to fund programs such as Head Start and school nutrition programs, or veterans’ health care.
- The GOP sometimes counted two, three and even four votes on the same measure. We found their tally included a total of 17 votes on seven measures, effectively padding their total by 10.
- The majority of the 94 votes – 53 of them, including some mentioned above – were on budget measures, not tax bills, and would not have resulted in any tax change. Four other votes were non-binding motions related to conference report negotiations.
It's true that most of the votes the GOP counts would either have increased taxes for some, or set budget targets calling for such increases. But by repeating their inflated 94-vote figure, the McCain campaign and the GOP falsely imply that Obama has pushed indiscriminately to raise taxes for nearly everybody. A closer look reveals that he's voted consistently to restore higher tax rates on upper-income taxpayers but not on middle- or low-income workers. That's consistent with what he's said he'd do as president, which is to raise taxes only on those making more than $250,000 a year.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/tax_tally_trickery.html
