# The Obama File

Discussion in 'Politics' started by eyeswideshut, Oct 5, 2011.

1. ### madanthonywayneMorning in AmericaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
12,461
A nice summary of what's wrong with Obama's "jobs bill":
Temporary tax cuts and permanent tax increases. Now that's stimulus!

3. ### joepistoleDeacon BluesValued Senior Member

Messages:
22,908
Back to referencing right wing rags not noted for their attention to truth I see. There are several lies in that article you cited, not the least of which is the claim that the Obama administration promised that the original stimulus package would reduce the unemployment rate to 6 percent by now. The Obama administration never issued such a guarantee or statement. That is just one of the many lies promulgated by Republicans/Tea Party folk to fool the uninformed.

The reason the Obama jobs package is needed, is because unemployment is at 9.1 percent. And in order to get unemployment down to more normal levels (5 - 6 percent)government needs to incent spending with stimulus - buy goods and services. It is a temporary measure to intended to restore confidence and spending in the economy thus keeping people employed. Longer term we need to pay back the money borrowed by Bush Jr. and Deficits Don't Matter Cheney to fund their wars and funnel money to the wealth in this country via entitlement expansion (e.g. Medicare Prescription Drug program).

As for tax rates on high income earners, tax rates for high income earners are at historic lows. They have not been lower for high income earners since the Great Depression.

Now given the huge transfer of wealth we have seen from the middle class to the wealthy in this country under Republican leadership, it is time to restore a little balance to the system. The wealthy are going to need to stop transfering economic burden to the middle class and start picking up their share of the burden.

The wealthy in this country were not complaining when George Jr. and Deficits Don't Matter Cheney and their Republican fellows in a Republican congress were doubling the national debt and raising the debt to GDP to close to 100 percent while running the nations economy into the ground. The deed has been done. It is now time to pay the pipper.

Last edited: Oct 10, 2011

5. ### madanthonywayneMorning in AmericaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
12,461
Top marginal tax rate 1988: 28%
Top marginal tax rate 2011: 35%
Source: http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

Did the great depression last until 1988?

7. ### KittamaruAshes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
13,938
Personally, I feel there should be a 50% tax on any and all money leaving the country, as well as on anyone making more than, say, 5 million a year... I mean, really... what in the name of God Almighty does a single PERSON need with that kind of cash? And hey, taxing money leaving the country would keep it here as opposed to overseas (though, I dont' know HOW you would do that or if it's even legal... so... yeah)

8. ### TiassaLet us not launch the boat ...Staff Member

Messages:
35,918
Nice Try

As Robert Reich points out, most of the income of the wealthy is taxed as capital gains. Presently, the amount of GDP tied up in tax revenues is exceptionally low. According to Bruce Bartlett, formerly a domestic policy advisor to Ronald Reagan and deputy assistant secretary for economic policy at Treasury for George H. W. Bush:

By this measure, federal taxes are at their lowest level in more than 60 years. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that federal taxes would consume just 14.8 percent of G.D.P. this year. The last year in which revenues were lower was 1950, according to the Office of Management and Budget.

The postwar annual average is about 18.5 percent of G.D.P. Revenues averaged 18.2 percent of G.D.P. during Ronald Reagan’s administration; the lowest percentage during that administration was 17.3 percent of G.D.P. in 1984.

In short, by the broadest measure of the tax rate, the current level is unusually low and has been for some time. Revenues were 14.9 percent of G.D.P. in both 2009 and 2010.
____________________

Notes:

Bartlett, Bruce. "Are Taxes in the U.S. High or Low?" Economix. May 31, 2011. Economix.Blogs.NYTimes.com. October 10, 2011. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/are-taxes-in-the-u-s-high-or-low/

9. ### joepistoleDeacon BluesValued Senior Member

Messages:
22,908
I said tax rates, meaning the rate people actually pay. And as pointed out many times before and as Tiassa has just mentioned, the wealthy derive most of their income from investments (capital gains) rather than earned income. The top capital gains tax is 15%. Before the Great Depression it was 12.5 percent.

So if one looks at history, you just cannot find a case to support the Republican party line that you cannot tax the rich without impairment of the economy and employment. Low tax rates for the wealthy does not correlate with periods of high prosperity. In fact quite the opposite is true.

10. ### adoucetteCaca OccursValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,829
Ah YEAH, in that investments are made with money that has already been taxed as income.

So for millions of us wage earners we get taxed (State, Federal, FICA and Sales tax) that already equals nearly 50% of our income, and then after meeting our basic expenses (house, car, food, medical, heat, electricity, phone, clothes etc) the few percent we have left over we can actually invest and now you want to tax the profits we make on those investments at income tax rates?

WTF????

You really don't want people to be able to get ahead in this world do you.

Arthur

11. ### KittamaruAshes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
13,938
See, again, this is where I think hte tax system needs a massive overhaul... they need to figure out what the minimum "true income" (what you actually get in the bank) is to manage the necessary items, then double that (to allow for some basic niceties). Anyone making that or less shouldn't pay nearly as much as someone making more than that. Anyone making 10x or more should pay much more in taxes as, obviously, they can easily afford it.

It's a simple idea where a flat tax really doesn't make sense... taking 25% of someone who only makes 20k a year hurts far more than taking 25% of someone who makes 200k a year...

12. ### joepistoleDeacon BluesValued Senior Member

Messages:
22,908
WTF? You are creating another straw man. One, no one is talking about taxing the middle class.

Two, how many times is it that a dollar can be taxed in your view? Maybe we need to include a tax marker on all dollars in circulation to indicate how many times it has been taxed? Using your logic, why are you paying taxes on your income? Your employer paid tax on that portion of your salary that was derived from corporate income. Your arguement here is absurd.

Three there is nothing wrong with taxing money when it changes ownership. In case you did not hear, the Republican supremes have ruled that corporations are people and entitled to rights like freedom of speech.

13. ### TiassaLet us not launch the boat ...Staff Member

Messages:
35,918
(chortle!)

And, yes, let us be as dramatic as you want to be.

Remember IPO fever in the 1990s?

Check in with $100,000 that remains after your salary is taxed. Buy in at$20. The tech company stock soars to $400. You sell out, holding a total of$2,000,000.

You want the cash, so you don't roll it into new investments. That money is now taxable as a capital gain. Specifically, you'll pay 15% of $1.9m. The original$100,000 isn't a capital gain.

Though I suppose we can acknowledge that Alex Rodriguez, who made $32m this year through his salary for playing baseball, is a wage earner, and thus pretend he's not getting ahead in the world. 14. ### adoucetteCaca OccursValued Senior Member Messages: 7,829 Not at all dramatic. Are you claiming that the money I have left over isn't AFTER Income taxes, SS Taxes, Medicare Taxes, Property Taxes and Sales Taxes have been taken out? Ah very few of us have$100,000 AFTER our salary has been taxed and we've paid for our house, car, food, clothing, utilities and medical costs.

Total BS, the few times that happens are rare indeed, and as many investments I've made over the years NONE have come close to a 20 to 1 appreciation. If they were common I wouldn't worry about paying taxes on my investments but the fact is the average appreciation of investments tends to be equal to the Stock Market, which tends to be positive, but not huge, maybe 3 or 4%. So try dealing with reality.

Hell of a gold plated strawman you constructed there but the fact is most of us aren't Alex Rodriquez now are we?

The POINT though is you want to treat us like we were.

Arthur

15. ### TiassaLet us not launch the boat ...Staff Member

Messages:
35,918
Oh, poor you

Well, I was running with a hypothetical figure, so, whatever.

I like round numbers. And there is a thing called a savings account, you know.

Overnight millionaires, while not common, were not unheard of during the dot-com boom. Living in the Seattle area, we heard about them ... if not frequently, then regularly when there were wildly successful IPOs.

But, at any rate, it's big, round numbers in order to make a point.

Which, naturally—

—you dodged.

So I dipped your straw man in gold. Maybe next time I should just gut it for fertilizer. Quit crying.

16. ### adoucetteCaca OccursValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,829
Again, the fact is that the entire Middle Class is saving money for retirement and plans on living on their investments and you want to GUT THEM.

Yeah and the average American Savings by year is:

■35 – 44: $22,460 ■45 – 54:$43,797
■55 – 64: $69,127 http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/average-retirement-savings-by-age.html So here's someone in their mid 50s, working hard and saving 3 times more than average and going into retirement has ~$210,000, and finally the growing interest on his savings is starting to add up and help boost it to be enough for retirement and still you want to tax it even more than the current 15%.

So much for rewarding someone who has worked hard their whole life

How much is ENOUGH?

Yeah, well you don't make tax policy based on something that happened during the dot-com boom to a FEW savy/lucky investors and raising the rate on investments doesn't just affect millionaires.

Except your point is bogus because you used figures that only apply to a very small number of people but the increase in interest rate applys to the entire middle class.

BS, try discussing the issue rationally since it deals with real people with real lives.

The fact is that investments are great for the country. By their very nature they are used to build the country, create jobs, spread the wealth and yet you want to make them less attractive.

Arthur

17. ### quadraphonicsBloodthirsty BarbarianValued Senior Member

Messages:
9,391
So your complaint is... that Obama has proposed a way to pay for the stimulus over the long term? As opposed to just piling it onto the deficit? And that he wants the richest Americans to pick up most of the tab?

How about you and adoucette cut the whining and naysaying and actually propose something useful, if you want anyone to take your high dudgeon seriously.

Also, producerism is crap ideology; nothing more than cheap apologetics for fascism.

18. ### adoucetteCaca OccursValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,829
So you think we should screw those who have worked hard and saved enough to make modest investments by upping the taxes on their investments?

Arthur

Last edited: Oct 10, 2011
19. ### joepistoleDeacon BluesValued Senior Member

Messages:
22,908
No that is you making stuff up again.

Your material was by age group not by year - one of them minor details again.

Wow, nice. But just who is it that is arguing to increase income taxes on the middle class? Oh that is right, no one.

That is you and the Republican/Tea Party fear mongering again.
No the arguement is not bogus, because no one is talking about increasing the taxes on the middle class. And it demonstrates a point, a point you do not want to acknowledge. Your claim about double taxation doesn't hold water or anything else for that matter.

Hmm, interesting. One how do you know what Tiassa want to do? Two investment is good for the country. But you my friend are cherry picking the issues.

We have to make choices. It is not like we only have two choices. We have demand problem in the economy. We have an unemployment problem. We have deficit problems and a debt problem. So we have to make choices.

Who should pay the nations debt and expenses? Who should pay for what has already been spent? Should a billionaire pay less of his/her income in tax than an average working stiff? I don't think so.

Are you going to try to tell me that if an investor has to pay the same tax rate on his/her investments as a working stiff pays on his wages, the investor won't invest? If so that is hogwash. Where is your proof? If you make an absurd claim you should be able to prove it. When capital gains taxes were north of 28 percent, it didn't stop people making capital investments - not at all.

What is needed is some good old fashioned fiscal responsibility.

20. ### adoucetteCaca OccursValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,829
No shit sherlock, that's exactly what the site name says, by year obviously means by year of age

And the point is valid even if you don't get it.

The issue with Tiassa was the implied raising of the Capital Gains rates and that would obviously raise the taxes on the Middle class.

BS, why do you think they treat it differently at all?

The only advice I should take is to leave you on ignore.

And on their normal INCOME they don't. This is about investment income.

Why YES

The historical evidence suggest that capital gains tax reductions tend to increase tax revenue. When capital gains tax rates were lowered in 1978 and again in 1981, revenue climbed steadily. Conversely, when the tax rate was increased in 1987, revenue began declining despite forecasters predictions it would increase. For instance, capital gains tax revenue in 1985 equaled $36.4 billion after adjusting for inflation, yet$36.2 billion was collected in 1994 under a higher tax rate. In other words, tax revenue in 1994 was slightly less than it was in 1985 even though the economy was larger, the tax rate was higher, and the stock market was stronger in 1994.

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/capgain/capgain.htm

21. ### TiassaLet us not launch the boat ...Staff Member

Messages:
35,918
Whatever you say

This is an excellent example of why people patronize you by responding at all. When did we move onto interest rates? Last I checked, we were discussing wages, taxes, and capital gains taxes.

You've been dishonestly trying to wrench a middle class issue out of something intended to affect the richest few in society. And we've tried to follow your straw men and changes of subject, but you hopped the plot a while ago.

If you want people to actually take you seriously, instead of merely tolerate you, perhaps you might demonstrate that you're capable of following the discussions you take part in. You know, from point A to point B to point C, instead of point "whatever-Arthur-decides-to-say-this-time".

22. ### adoucetteCaca OccursValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,829
Give it a rest Tiassa, that was simply a typo and should have been "increase the Capital Gains Tax rate", (which is the only point I've been discussing with you in this thread).

Last edited: Oct 11, 2011
23. ### Repo ManValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,955
Yes, it appears that an increase in the capital gains tax would have a devastating effect on the middle class.