Obama and Taxes (1 Viewer)

[Spiderman]

For some time now, there has been debate regarding the President’s exact terminology regarding his statement that he would not raise taxes on the American people but instead cut their taxes. I have argued that this applied to all taxes and that therefore the President was lying, but others insisted that he was referring to just income taxes, so it was a play on words and not actually a lie.

On Sunday, the President clarified his comments by stating that he had not raised taxes on the American people even once since he’d been in office. This was clearly an intentional falsehood told to the American people, which is a lie. In fact, the President has raised taxes on the American people over two dozen times since he’s been in office and clearly he knows that.

2/4/09 – The President signs a hike in Federal tobacco taxes after just 16 days in office. This raised taxes on the mostly middle and lower class Americans, the primary users of tobacco products in our society as the tax hike raised taxes 156% on these products, or roughly 62 cents per pack. For Americans who smoke a pack or two a day, that amounts to anywhere from $225 to $450 dollars per year in tax hikes. The President had stated that no American making less than $250,000 a year would see any form of a tax increase.

3/23/10 – The Healthcare Reform Bill enacted two dozen new or higher taxes, at least seven of which directly impact the American people, unlike the others which indirectly affect them through a proxy that will raise costs to them as a result of the tax increases. Among those tax increases are:

1. Individual Mandate Excise Tax

2. Employer Mandate Excise Tax

3. Small Business 1099-MISC Information Reporting

4. Surtax on Investment Income

5. Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans

6. Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax

7. Medicine Cabinet Tax

8. HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike

9. Flexible Spending Account Cap (Special Needs Kids Tax)

10. Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers

11. “Haircut” for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% of AGI to 10% of AGI

12. Tax on Indoor Tanning Services

13. Elimination of tax deduction for employer provided retirement prescription drug coverage

14. Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike

15. Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals

16. Tax on Innovator Drug Companies

17. Tax on Health Insurers

18. Biofuel tax hike

19. Tax on Health Insurers

Accordingly, the President has signed in $7 in tax hikes for every $1 in tax cuts.

Of all tax cuts he has put in place so far, 90% are temporary, while the tax hikes are permanent (100%).

Overall, he has presided over a net tax hike of $619 billion.

I think that idea can now be abandoned.

 

[Follows Closely]

People stopped believing this a years ago.

 

[Tiny Dancer]

Accordingly, the President has signed in $7 in tax hikes for every $1 in tax cuts.

You can't say "accordingly" if you haven't given enough information to reach the conclusion. Where does this number come from?

 

[D_House]

Good discussion on Obama and taxes in this thread: Tax Bills Lowest Since 1950

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Obama’s budget proposal will take aim at the wealthyPresident Obama plans to propose raising $320 billion over the next 10 years in new taxes targeting wealthy individuals and big financial institutions to pay for new programs designed to help lower- and middle-income families, senior administration officials said Saturday.

In his State of the Union address Tuesday night, Obama will propose raising the capital gains and dividend tax rates to 28 percent for high earners; imposing a fee on the liabilities of about 100 big financial institutions; and greatly broadening the amount of inherited money subject to taxes.

Obama will also seek to boost private retirement savings by requiring employers without 401(k) plans to make it easier for full-time and part-time workers to save in individual retirement accounts, which could assist as many as 30 million people. The administration would provide small employers tax credits to cover costs.

Senior administration officials said that the package would highlight the president’s desire to boost taxes on the nation’s wealthy households and help lower- and middle-class families. New tax credits would help those in need of child care and households with two earners, they said, while other proposals — such as covering community college tuition — would help students.

The moves would “eliminate the biggest tax loopholes and use the savings to let the middle class get ahead,” said one of the senior administration officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity during a conference call with reporters to describe the plan before the president’s speech. This person also said that 99 percent of the impact of the tax increases would fall on the top 1 percent of earners.

The ambitious — and controversial — proposals demonstrate the White House’s increasing confidence about the trajectory of the U.S. economy. For the past year and a half, it has debated how much it could trumpet the recovery when so many Americans have not felt any change in their own economic outlook.

But the plan drew immediate fire from Republican — and could face criticism from some Democrats — who have in the past increased the amount of money exempt from inheritance taxes they branded “death taxes.” Most Republicans have long opposed increases in capital gains rates, and many favor eliminating the tax altogether.

“This is not a serious proposal,” wrote Brendan Buck, a spokesman for House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) in an e-mail late Saturday. “We lift families up and grow the economy with a simpler, flatter tax code, not big tax increases to pay for more Washington spending.”

“Slapping American small businesses, savers, and investors with more tax hikes only negates the benefits of the tax policies that have been successful in helping to expand the economy, promote savings, and create jobs,” Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) said in a statement Saturday night.

“The president needs to stop listening to his liberal allies who want to raise taxes at all costs and start working with Congress to fix our broken tax code.”

The administration tried to head off some of that attack by asserting that elements of the package resembled proposals endorsed by Republicans. Officials also said that the capital gains tax rate was 28 percent during President Ronald Reagan’s terms in office. The Obama administration would also seek to limit the impact of the tax increases by saying the higher capital gains and dividend rates would apply only to couples earning more than $500,000 a year.

Officials said that the relatively low capital gains tax rate with a top rate of 20 percent has enabled the 400 highest-earning taxpayers — with $139 million or more of income — to pay an average rate of 17 percent when the top income tax rate is 35 percent.

The proposal to impose a 7 basis point fee on financial institutions with assets of more than $50 billion will also run smack into opposition from big banks and insurance companies. The administration compared the fee with a proposal by former House Ways and Means Committee chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.) for an excise tax on large financial institutions. And last week, the House Budget Committee’s ranking Democrat, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), proposed a 0.1 percent surcharge on financial market transactions.

One of the senior administration officials Saturday said that the goal of the proposed fee from the White House was to discourage big financial institutions from excessive borrowing. He said that despite banking revisions after the 2008-2009 financial crisis, highly leveraged financial institutions “still pose risks to the broader economy,” adding that “this fee is designed to make that activity more costly.”

The economic recovery has freed the president to push for more ambitious domestic policies, many designed to help those in the poor and middle class who are still lagging behind. In the past week alone, Obama has announced new proposals on paid sick leave, free community college tuition and expanded broadband access. And while he might have trouble pushing those through the GOP-controlled Congress, Obama could still end up defining key issues for the elections in 2016.

“The battle for the next American agenda is already on,” said Donald A. Baer, chief executive of Burson-Marsteller and formerly chief speechwriter for President Bill Clinton. “There’s this effort to define a new growth and share agenda — growth but not only growth alone, and sharing the growth but not just sharing the wealth.” He said Obama’s college and broadband access are examples of proposals that could add to growth and give poor and middle-class people the tools to increase their share in it.

But Obama has to balance his rhetoric — between optimism and caution — by talking up the strong recovery while acknowledging that wage growth remains weak.

“There’s always been a tension between things are in fact getting better and people are not feeling great,” said Wade Randlett, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur and major Democratic donor. “One is economic fact, and the other is polling, which always catches up over time.”

Now the president is so comfortable with the idea of talking up the economic recovery that his advisers have branded it — “America’s resurgence” — and made it a regular talking point in Obama’s stump speeches and weekly radio addresses. And it is likely to be a centerpiece of the State of the Union address.

In bragging about performance, Obama administration officials point to factors including the best streak of job growth since the 1990s, a recovery in the housing market and healthier balance sheets for households, companies and the federal government. And they have contrasted that performance with the anemic economies of Europe and Japan as evidence that the United States has regained its global economic dominance in what Obama has called a “breakthrough year for America.”

But wages have been a stubborn reminder of the recovery’s shortcomings. In November, average hourly private-sector nominal wages inched up 6 cents, but in December, they fell 5 cents. After adjusting for inflation, wages for the entire year crawled up 0.7 percent, a modest amount in an economic recovery. It is a point that has been featured prominently in comments by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who has emerged as a leader of the Democratic Party’s liberal wing.

“I’m feeling better about the economy, but I don’t think we have in place a set of policies that will assure that this recovery will be either sustained or fully inclusive,” said Lawrence H. Summers, a former top adviser to Obama, former Treasury secretary and now a professor at Harvard University. “That’s why I think more needs to be done.”

The White House typically aims its messages directly at the middle class, but, partly in response to Warren, Obama administration officials are more comfortable talking about how some of its proposals benefit poorer Americans.

“We’re on offense on minimum wage and the environment,” Randlett said. “That’s the kind you only do when you have the leash of good economics.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-likely-to-make-economic-recovery-a-centerpiece-of-state-of-the-union-address/2015/01/17/22ecec32-9cd6-11e4-a7ee-526210d665b4_story.html

 

[The General]

None of this sounds very extreme. I'm sure a bunch of people will make this out like he is Mao.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

None of this sounds very extreme. I'm sure a bunch of people will make this out like he is Mao.

I'm curious about something though. I think we're all pretty happy about the stock market these days, right? Is he proposing hiking our capital gains taxes up from 20 to 28%, or is that just for certain people of certain incomes?

Even if for the highest earners, isn't that going to put a damper on the stock market?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

 

[matuski]

None of this sounds very extreme. I'm sure a bunch of people will make this out like he is Mao.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Good discussion on Obama and taxes in this thread: Tax Bills Lowest Since 1950

Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950A drop in income can trigger big tax breaks and sharply lower rates, sometimes falling to zero.

By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAYAmid complaints about high taxes and calls for a smaller government, Americans paid their lowest level of taxes last year since Harry Truman's presidency, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data found.

Some conservative political movements such as the "Tea Party" have criticized federal spending as being out of control. While spending is up, taxes have fallen to exceptionally low levels.

Federal, state and local income taxes consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports. That rate is far below the historic average of 12% for the last half-century. The overall tax burden hit bottom in December at 8.8.% of income before rising slightly in the first three months of 2010.

This was from 2011 about tax rates in 2009.

Is this still true?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This is from 2012, cool graphics from NYT:

How the Tax Burden Has ChangedMost Americans paid less in taxes in 2010 than people with the same inflation-adjusted incomes paid in 1980, because of cuts in federal income taxes. At lower income levels, however, much of the savings was offset by increases in federal payroll taxes, state sales taxes and local property taxes. About half of households making less than $25,000 saved nothing at all.

Average tax rates were lower for every income group in 2010 compared with 1980, but rates fluctuated during the intervening decades. Savings from federal income tax cuts in 1981 and 1986, under President Ronald Reagan, eroded as other taxes increased. New federal cuts in 2001 and 2003, under President George W. Bush, again reduced the total tax burden. Tax revenues rose in 2010 as the economy recovered from the recession.

What’s driven the changes? Federal income tax rates have declined …

Federal income tax rates fell in the 1980s after decades of relative stability. The cuts were partly reversed in 1993 under President Bill Clinton, before rates fell again in the early 2000s. For households earning less than $25,000, the tax rate in recent years has been negative because the expansion of government payments like the earned income tax credit exceeded the amount of taxes paid.

… while payroll taxes have risen for all — but not as much for the affluent.

Payroll taxes finance Social Security and provide some financing for Medicare. The Medicare tax applies to all earnings at the same rate. But the Social Security tax applies only to earnings below a threshold, which stood at $106,800 in 2010. And neither tax applies to investment income. As a result, upper-income households pay a smaller share of income in payroll taxes.

State and local taxes have risen, most of all for the lowest income groups.
Share of income paid in property, sales and state income taxes.

State and local governments impose the same property and sales tax rates on everyone without regard to income. Even after the housing crash, the rise in housing prices since 1980 has outpaced income growth for most households, increasing the burden of property taxes. And lower-income households spend a larger share of income than other households, incurring sales taxes.

And corporate taxes — ultimately paid by people — have declined.

Economists agree that taxes on business are passed on to investors, reducing profits, and to workers, reducing wages. Upper-income households bear the brunt of these taxes, and corporate tax collections have fallen sharply.

Affluent households are earning more — and paying a larger share of taxes.

The number of high-income households, and their average income, has increased rapidly. Even in the wake of the recession, more than a million taxpayers made at least $350,000 in 2010, and that group accounted for 15 percent of the nation’s income. As a result, while those households paid a smaller share of their income in taxes than they did in 1980, they paid a larger share of the total tax bill.

But the distribution of the tax burden has become less progressive.

In a progressive system, upper-income households pay a larger share of taxes than their share of income, while the opposite is true for lower-income households. Over the last three decades, taxation in the United States became less progressive.

Households earning more than $350,000 paid 20 percent of the nation’s taxes in 2010, 1.37 times their share of total income, while in 1980, those households paid taxes equaling 1.56 times their share of income. The change was larger before the recession, which reduced investment income, as in past recessions.

Again, check out the graphics. Related article here, from Nov. 2012:

Tax Burden for Most Americans Is Lower Than in the 1980s

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/us/most-americans-face-lower-tax-burden-than-in-the-80s.html

So the stock market is booming, gas prices are plummeting, and taxes are down, all under Obama.

Does anyone have a problem with this?

 

[Jack White]

This is from 2012, cool graphics from NYT:

How the Tax Burden Has ChangedMost Americans paid less in taxes in 2010 than people with the same inflation-adjusted incomes paid in 1980, because of cuts in federal income taxes. At lower income levels, however, much of the savings was offset by increases in federal payroll taxes, state sales taxes and local property taxes. About half of households making less than $25,000 saved nothing at all.

Average tax rates were lower for every income group in 2010 compared with 1980, but rates fluctuated during the intervening decades. Savings from federal income tax cuts in 1981 and 1986, under President Ronald Reagan, eroded as other taxes increased. New federal cuts in 2001 and 2003, under President George W. Bush, again reduced the total tax burden. Tax revenues rose in 2010 as the economy recovered from the recession.

What’s driven the changes? Federal income tax rates have declined …

Federal income tax rates fell in the 1980s after decades of relative stability. The cuts were partly reversed in 1993 under President Bill Clinton, before rates fell again in the early 2000s. For households earning less than $25,000, the tax rate in recent years has been negative because the expansion of government payments like the earned income tax credit exceeded the amount of taxes paid.

… while payroll taxes have risen for all — but not as much for the affluent.

Payroll taxes finance Social Security and provide some financing for Medicare. The Medicare tax applies to all earnings at the same rate. But the Social Security tax applies only to earnings below a threshold, which stood at $106,800 in 2010. And neither tax applies to investment income. As a result, upper-income households pay a smaller share of income in payroll taxes.

State and local taxes have risen, most of all for the lowest income groups.
Share of income paid in property, sales and state income taxes.

State and local governments impose the same property and sales tax rates on everyone without regard to income. Even after the housing crash, the rise in housing prices since 1980 has outpaced income growth for most households, increasing the burden of property taxes. And lower-income households spend a larger share of income than other households, incurring sales taxes.

And corporate taxes — ultimately paid by people — have declined.

Economists agree that taxes on business are passed on to investors, reducing profits, and to workers, reducing wages. Upper-income households bear the brunt of these taxes, and corporate tax collections have fallen sharply.

Affluent households are earning more — and paying a larger share of taxes.

The number of high-income households, and their average income, has increased rapidly. Even in the wake of the recession, more than a million taxpayers made at least $350,000 in 2010, and that group accounted for 15 percent of the nation’s income. As a result, while those households paid a smaller share of their income in taxes than they did in 1980, they paid a larger share of the total tax bill.

But the distribution of the tax burden has become less progressive.

In a progressive system, upper-income households pay a larger share of taxes than their share of income, while the opposite is true for lower-income households. Over the last three decades, taxation in the United States became less progressive.

Households earning more than $350,000 paid 20 percent of the nation’s taxes in 2010, 1.37 times their share of total income, while in 1980, those households paid taxes equaling 1.56 times their share of income. The change was larger before the recession, which reduced investment income, as in past recessions.

Again, check out the graphics. Related article here, from Nov. 2012:

Tax Burden for Most Americans Is Lower Than in the 1980s

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/us/most-americans-face-lower-tax-burden-than-in-the-80s.html

So the stock market is booming, gas prices are plummeting, and taxes are down, all under Obama.

Does anyone have a problem with this?

Are you arguing that Obama should get the credit for these things?

 

[The General]

None of this sounds very extreme. I'm sure a bunch of people will make this out like he is Mao.

I'm curious about something though. I think we're all pretty happy about the stock market these days, right? Is he proposing hiking our capital gains taxes up from 20 to 28%, or is that just for certain people of certain incomes?

Even if for the highest earners, isn't that going to put a damper on the stock market?

I'm no expert so could easily be wrong but doesn't it say the proposal is set for income past 500,000 and it's the rate that we had under Reagan.

Who knows with the stock market I don't believe anyone who says they know what that thing is going to do.

People with money are putting it somewhere though. To me this -- from the article -- is what needs to be addressed somehow: Officials said that the relatively low capital gains tax rate with a top rate of 20  percent has enabled the 400 highest-earning taxpayers — with $139 million or more of income — to pay an average rate of 17 percent when the top income tax rate is 35 percent.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This is from 2012, cool graphics from NYT:

How the Tax Burden Has ChangedMost Americans paid less in taxes in 2010 than people with the same inflation-adjusted incomes paid in 1980, because of cuts in federal income taxes. At lower income levels, however, much of the savings was offset by increases in federal payroll taxes, state sales taxes and local property taxes. About half of households making less than $25,000 saved nothing at all.

Average tax rates were lower for every income group in 2010 compared with 1980, but rates fluctuated during the intervening decades. Savings from federal income tax cuts in 1981 and 1986, under President Ronald Reagan, eroded as other taxes increased. New federal cuts in 2001 and 2003, under President George W. Bush, again reduced the total tax burden. Tax revenues rose in 2010 as the economy recovered from the recession.

What’s driven the changes? Federal income tax rates have declined …

Federal income tax rates fell in the 1980s after decades of relative stability. The cuts were partly reversed in 1993 under President Bill Clinton, before rates fell again in the early 2000s. For households earning less than $25,000, the tax rate in recent years has been negative because the expansion of government payments like the earned income tax credit exceeded the amount of taxes paid.

… while payroll taxes have risen for all — but not as much for the affluent.

Payroll taxes finance Social Security and provide some financing for Medicare. The Medicare tax applies to all earnings at the same rate. But the Social Security tax applies only to earnings below a threshold, which stood at $106,800 in 2010. And neither tax applies to investment income. As a result, upper-income households pay a smaller share of income in payroll taxes.

State and local taxes have risen, most of all for the lowest income groups.
Share of income paid in property, sales and state income taxes.

State and local governments impose the same property and sales tax rates on everyone without regard to income. Even after the housing crash, the rise in housing prices since 1980 has outpaced income growth for most households, increasing the burden of property taxes. And lower-income households spend a larger share of income than other households, incurring sales taxes.

And corporate taxes — ultimately paid by people — have declined.

Economists agree that taxes on business are passed on to investors, reducing profits, and to workers, reducing wages. Upper-income households bear the brunt of these taxes, and corporate tax collections have fallen sharply.

Affluent households are earning more — and paying a larger share of taxes.

The number of high-income households, and their average income, has increased rapidly. Even in the wake of the recession, more than a million taxpayers made at least $350,000 in 2010, and that group accounted for 15 percent of the nation’s income. As a result, while those households paid a smaller share of their income in taxes than they did in 1980, they paid a larger share of the total tax bill.

But the distribution of the tax burden has become less progressive.

In a progressive system, upper-income households pay a larger share of taxes than their share of income, while the opposite is true for lower-income households. Over the last three decades, taxation in the United States became less progressive.

Households earning more than $350,000 paid 20 percent of the nation’s taxes in 2010, 1.37 times their share of total income, while in 1980, those households paid taxes equaling 1.56 times their share of income. The change was larger before the recession, which reduced investment income, as in past recessions.

Again, check out the graphics. Related article here, from Nov. 2012:

Tax Burden for Most Americans Is Lower Than in the 1980s

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/us/most-americans-face-lower-tax-burden-than-in-the-80s.html

So the stock market is booming, gas prices are plummeting, and taxes are down, all under Obama.

Does anyone have a problem with this?

Are you arguing that Obama should get the credit for these things?

He could, it's under his watch.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

None of this sounds very extreme. I'm sure a bunch of people will make this out like he is Mao.

I'm curious about something though. I think we're all pretty happy about the stock market these days, right? Is he proposing hiking our capital gains taxes up from 20 to 28%, or is that just for certain people of certain incomes?

Even if for the highest earners, isn't that going to put a damper on the stock market?

I'm no expert so could easily be wrong but doesn't it say the proposal is set for income past 500,000 and it's the rate that we had under Reagan.

Who knows with the stock market I don't believe anyone who says they know what that thing is going to do.

People with money are putting it somewhere though. To me this -- from the article -- is what needs to be addressed somehow: Officials said that the relatively low capital gains tax rate with a top rate of 20  percent has enabled the 400 highest-earning taxpayers — with $139 million or more of income — to pay an average rate of 17 percent when the top income tax rate is 35 percent.

Ok thanks, that's what I was looking for, how they would define the top earners. With everything going so well in the market I'd say don't go messing with it.

ETA - I would add that the top 400 apparently pay $16 billion in taxes, which sounds like a lot to me.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/47704712#.

 

[tommyGunZ]

None of this sounds very extreme. I'm sure a bunch of people will make this out like he is Mao.

I'm curious about something though. I think we're all pretty happy about the stock market these days, right? Is he proposing hiking our capital gains taxes up from 20 to 28%, or is that just for certain people of certain incomes?

Even if for the highest earners, isn't that going to put a damper on the stock market?

I'm no expert so could easily be wrong but doesn't it say the proposal is set for income past 500,000 and it's the rate that we had under Reagan.

Who knows with the stock market I don't believe anyone who says they know what that thing is going to do.

People with money are putting it somewhere though. To me this -- from the article -- is what needs to be addressed somehow: Officials said that the relatively low capital gains tax rate with a top rate of 20  percent has enabled the 400 highest-earning taxpayers — with $139 million or more of income — to pay an average rate of 17 percent when the top income tax rate is 35 percent.

Ok thanks, that's what I was looking for, how they would define the top earners. With everything going so well in the market I'd say don't go messing with it.

ETA - I would add that the top 400 apparently pay $16 billion in taxes, which sounds like a lot to me.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/47704712#.

What is their income and overall wealth?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

None of this sounds very extreme. I'm sure a bunch of people will make this out like he is Mao.

I'm curious about something though. I think we're all pretty happy about the stock market these days, right? Is he proposing hiking our capital gains taxes up from 20 to 28%, or is that just for certain people of certain incomes?

Even if for the highest earners, isn't that going to put a damper on the stock market?

I'm no expert so could easily be wrong but doesn't it say the proposal is set for income past 500,000 and it's the rate that we had under Reagan.

Who knows with the stock market I don't believe anyone who says they know what that thing is going to do.

People with money are putting it somewhere though. To me this -- from the article -- is what needs to be addressed somehow: Officials said that the relatively low capital gains tax rate with a top rate of 20  percent has enabled the 400 highest-earning taxpayers — with $139 million or more of income — to pay an average rate of 17 percent when the top income tax rate is 35 percent.

Ok thanks, that's what I was looking for, how they would define the top earners. With everything going so well in the market I'd say don't go messing with it.

ETA - I would add that the top 400 apparently pay $16 billion in taxes, which sounds like a lot to me.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/47704712#.

What is their income and overall wealth?

They earned a combined $80 billion in 2009 – about 80 percent of the total income for half of the American population.

To get into the exclusive “400 Club” you needed $202 million in 2009. The club has become a tad less exclusive: you needed $344 million in annual income to get in in 2007.

 

[tommyGunZ]

None of this sounds very extreme. I'm sure a bunch of people will make this out like he is Mao.

I'm curious about something though. I think we're all pretty happy about the stock market these days, right? Is he proposing hiking our capital gains taxes up from 20 to 28%, or is that just for certain people of certain incomes?

Even if for the highest earners, isn't that going to put a damper on the stock market?

I'm no expert so could easily be wrong but doesn't it say the proposal is set for income past 500,000 and it's the rate that we had under Reagan.

Who knows with the stock market I don't believe anyone who says they know what that thing is going to do.

People with money are putting it somewhere though. To me this -- from the article -- is what needs to be addressed somehow: Officials said that the relatively low capital gains tax rate with a top rate of 20  percent has enabled the 400 highest-earning taxpayers — with $139 million or more of income — to pay an average rate of 17 percent when the top income tax rate is 35 percent.

Ok thanks, that's what I was looking for, how they would define the top earners. With everything going so well in the market I'd say don't go messing with it.

ETA - I would add that the top 400 apparently pay $16 billion in taxes, which sounds like a lot to me.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/47704712#.

What is their income and overall wealth?

They earned a combined $80 billion in 2009 – about 80 percent of the total income for half of the American population.

To get into the exclusive “400 Club” you needed $202 million in 2009. The club has become a tad less exclusive: you needed $344 million in annual income to get in in 2007.

That's 20%. I pay a higher rate.

 

[Bonfire]

Its not taxes....its revenue...therefore its a good thing and I like it!

 

[Jackstraw]

This is from 2012, cool graphics from NYT:

How the Tax Burden Has ChangedMost Americans paid less in taxes in 2010 than people with the same inflation-adjusted incomes paid in 1980, because of cuts in federal income taxes. At lower income levels, however, much of the savings was offset by increases in federal payroll taxes, state sales taxes and local property taxes. About half of households making less than $25,000 saved nothing at all.

Average tax rates were lower for every income group in 2010 compared with 1980, but rates fluctuated during the intervening decades. Savings from federal income tax cuts in 1981 and 1986, under President Ronald Reagan, eroded as other taxes increased. New federal cuts in 2001 and 2003, under President George W. Bush, again reduced the total tax burden. Tax revenues rose in 2010 as the economy recovered from the recession.

What’s driven the changes? Federal income tax rates have declined …

Federal income tax rates fell in the 1980s after decades of relative stability. The cuts were partly reversed in 1993 under President Bill Clinton, before rates fell again in the early 2000s. For households earning less than $25,000, the tax rate in recent years has been negative because the expansion of government payments like the earned income tax credit exceeded the amount of taxes paid.

… while payroll taxes have risen for all — but not as much for the affluent.

Payroll taxes finance Social Security and provide some financing for Medicare. The Medicare tax applies to all earnings at the same rate. But the Social Security tax applies only to earnings below a threshold, which stood at $106,800 in 2010. And neither tax applies to investment income. As a result, upper-income households pay a smaller share of income in payroll taxes.

State and local taxes have risen, most of all for the lowest income groups.
Share of income paid in property, sales and state income taxes.

State and local governments impose the same property and sales tax rates on everyone without regard to income. Even after the housing crash, the rise in housing prices since 1980 has outpaced income growth for most households, increasing the burden of property taxes. And lower-income households spend a larger share of income than other households, incurring sales taxes.

And corporate taxes — ultimately paid by people — have declined.

Economists agree that taxes on business are passed on to investors, reducing profits, and to workers, reducing wages. Upper-income households bear the brunt of these taxes, and corporate tax collections have fallen sharply.

Affluent households are earning more — and paying a larger share of taxes.

The number of high-income households, and their average income, has increased rapidly. Even in the wake of the recession, more than a million taxpayers made at least $350,000 in 2010, and that group accounted for 15 percent of the nation’s income. As a result, while those households paid a smaller share of their income in taxes than they did in 1980, they paid a larger share of the total tax bill.

But the distribution of the tax burden has become less progressive.

In a progressive system, upper-income households pay a larger share of taxes than their share of income, while the opposite is true for lower-income households. Over the last three decades, taxation in the United States became less progressive.

Households earning more than $350,000 paid 20 percent of the nation’s taxes in 2010, 1.37 times their share of total income, while in 1980, those households paid taxes equaling 1.56 times their share of income. The change was larger before the recession, which reduced investment income, as in past recessions.

Again, check out the graphics. Related article here, from Nov. 2012:

Tax Burden for Most Americans Is Lower Than in the 1980s

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/us/most-americans-face-lower-tax-burden-than-in-the-80s.html

So the stock market is booming, gas prices are plummeting, and taxes are down, all under Obama.

Does anyone have a problem with this?

Child poverty up. Wages are stagnant for a generation. Benefits down. Workers paying more out of pocket for benefits. Wealth inequality is as bad as its been since the oil barron days.

Whole swaths of the American population aren't seeing any benefit whatsoever.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

None of this sounds very extreme. I'm sure a bunch of people will make this out like he is Mao.

I'm curious about something though. I think we're all pretty happy about the stock market these days, right? Is he proposing hiking our capital gains taxes up from 20 to 28%, or is that just for certain people of certain incomes?

Even if for the highest earners, isn't that going to put a damper on the stock market?

I'm no expert so could easily be wrong but doesn't it say the proposal is set for income past 500,000 and it's the rate that we had under Reagan.

Who knows with the stock market I don't believe anyone who says they know what that thing is going to do.

People with money are putting it somewhere though. To me this -- from the article -- is what needs to be addressed somehow: Officials said that the relatively low capital gains tax rate with a top rate of 20  percent has enabled the 400 highest-earning taxpayers — with $139 million or more of income — to pay an average rate of 17 percent when the top income tax rate is 35 percent.

Ok thanks, that's what I was looking for, how they would define the top earners. With everything going so well in the market I'd say don't go messing with it.

ETA - I would add that the top 400 apparently pay $16 billion in taxes, which sounds like a lot to me.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/47704712#.

What is their income and overall wealth?

They earned a combined $80 billion in 2009 – about 80 percent of the total income for half of the American population.

To get into the exclusive “400 Club” you needed $202 million in 2009. The club has become a tad less exclusive: you needed $344 million in annual income to get in in 2007.

That's 20%. I pay a higher rate.

I agree. It never makes sense how we agree on a top rate and then some pay less. How does that happen, loopholes and deductions?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This is from 2012, cool graphics from NYT:

How the Tax Burden Has ChangedMost Americans paid less in taxes in 2010 than people with the same inflation-adjusted incomes paid in 1980, because of cuts in federal income taxes. At lower income levels, however, much of the savings was offset by increases in federal payroll taxes, state sales taxes and local property taxes. About half of households making less than $25,000 saved nothing at all.

Average tax rates were lower for every income group in 2010 compared with 1980, but rates fluctuated during the intervening decades. Savings from federal income tax cuts in 1981 and 1986, under President Ronald Reagan, eroded as other taxes increased. New federal cuts in 2001 and 2003, under President George W. Bush, again reduced the total tax burden. Tax revenues rose in 2010 as the economy recovered from the recession.

What’s driven the changes? Federal income tax rates have declined …

Federal income tax rates fell in the 1980s after decades of relative stability. The cuts were partly reversed in 1993 under President Bill Clinton, before rates fell again in the early 2000s. For households earning less than $25,000, the tax rate in recent years has been negative because the expansion of government payments like the earned income tax credit exceeded the amount of taxes paid.

… while payroll taxes have risen for all — but not as much for the affluent.

Payroll taxes finance Social Security and provide some financing for Medicare. The Medicare tax applies to all earnings at the same rate. But the Social Security tax applies only to earnings below a threshold, which stood at $106,800 in 2010. And neither tax applies to investment income. As a result, upper-income households pay a smaller share of income in payroll taxes.

State and local taxes have risen, most of all for the lowest income groups.
Share of income paid in property, sales and state income taxes.

State and local governments impose the same property and sales tax rates on everyone without regard to income. Even after the housing crash, the rise in housing prices since 1980 has outpaced income growth for most households, increasing the burden of property taxes. And lower-income households spend a larger share of income than other households, incurring sales taxes.

And corporate taxes — ultimately paid by people — have declined.

Economists agree that taxes on business are passed on to investors, reducing profits, and to workers, reducing wages. Upper-income households bear the brunt of these taxes, and corporate tax collections have fallen sharply.

Affluent households are earning more — and paying a larger share of taxes.

The number of high-income households, and their average income, has increased rapidly. Even in the wake of the recession, more than a million taxpayers made at least $350,000 in 2010, and that group accounted for 15 percent of the nation’s income. As a result, while those households paid a smaller share of their income in taxes than they did in 1980, they paid a larger share of the total tax bill.

But the distribution of the tax burden has become less progressive.

In a progressive system, upper-income households pay a larger share of taxes than their share of income, while the opposite is true for lower-income households. Over the last three decades, taxation in the United States became less progressive.

Households earning more than $350,000 paid 20 percent of the nation’s taxes in 2010, 1.37 times their share of total income, while in 1980, those households paid taxes equaling 1.56 times their share of income. The change was larger before the recession, which reduced investment income, as in past recessions.

Again, check out the graphics. Related article here, from Nov. 2012:

Tax Burden for Most Americans Is Lower Than in the 1980s

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/us/most-americans-face-lower-tax-burden-than-in-the-80s.html

So the stock market is booming, gas prices are plummeting, and taxes are down, all under Obama.

Does anyone have a problem with this?

Child poverty up. Wages are stagnant for a generation. Benefits down. Workers paying more out of pocket for benefits. Wealth inequality is as bad as its been since the oil barron days.

Whole swaths of the American population aren't seeing any benefit whatsoever.

I agree, but our budget is essentially unlimited, we're not bound by taxes at all. If we want to spend on those things we can.

 

[tommyGunZ]

None of this sounds very extreme. I'm sure a bunch of people will make this out like he is Mao.

I'm curious about something though. I think we're all pretty happy about the stock market these days, right? Is he proposing hiking our capital gains taxes up from 20 to 28%, or is that just for certain people of certain incomes?

Even if for the highest earners, isn't that going to put a damper on the stock market?

I'm no expert so could easily be wrong but doesn't it say the proposal is set for income past 500,000 and it's the rate that we had under Reagan.

Who knows with the stock market I don't believe anyone who says they know what that thing is going to do.

People with money are putting it somewhere though. To me this -- from the article -- is what needs to be addressed somehow: Officials said that the relatively low capital gains tax rate with a top rate of 20  percent has enabled the 400 highest-earning taxpayers — with $139 million or more of income — to pay an average rate of 17 percent when the top income tax rate is 35 percent.

Ok thanks, that's what I was looking for, how they would define the top earners. With everything going so well in the market I'd say don't go messing with it.

ETA - I would add that the top 400 apparently pay $16 billion in taxes, which sounds like a lot to me.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/47704712#.

What is their income and overall wealth?

They earned a combined $80 billion in 2009 – about 80 percent of the total income for half of the American population.

To get into the exclusive “400 Club” you needed $202 million in 2009. The club has become a tad less exclusive: you needed $344 million in annual income to get in in 2007.

That's 20%. I pay a higher rate.

I agree. It never makes sense how we agree on a top rate and then some pay less. How does that happen, loopholes and deductions?

Loopholes, deductions, and completely outdated tax brackets. Multiple studies by economists have suggested that when you get into the top 1%, we could make the top marginal rate far higher without changing behavior. Essentially, those earning say $2M+ per year wouldn't work any less if we moved their marginal rate at $2m+ to 60-70%.

It makes NO sense that our top bracket Is ~460k.

 

[tommyGunZ]

This is from 2012, cool graphics from NYT:

How the Tax Burden Has Changed

Most Americans paid less in taxes in 2010 than people with the same inflation-adjusted incomes paid in 1980, because of cuts in federal income taxes. At lower income levels, however, much of the savings was offset by increases in federal payroll taxes, state sales taxes and local property taxes. About half of households making less than $25,000 saved nothing at all.

Average tax rates were lower for every income group in 2010 compared with 1980, but rates fluctuated during the intervening decades. Savings from federal income tax cuts in 1981 and 1986, under President Ronald Reagan, eroded as other taxes increased. New federal cuts in 2001 and 2003, under President George W. Bush, again reduced the total tax burden. Tax revenues rose in 2010 as the economy recovered from the recession.

What’s driven the changes? Federal income tax rates have declined …

Federal income tax rates fell in the 1980s after decades of relative stability. The cuts were partly reversed in 1993 under President Bill Clinton, before rates fell again in the early 2000s. For households earning less than $25,000, the tax rate in recent years has been negative because the expansion of government payments like the earned income tax credit exceeded the amount of taxes paid.

… while payroll taxes have risen for all — but not as much for the affluent.

Payroll taxes finance Social Security and provide some financing for Medicare. The Medicare tax applies to all earnings at the same rate. But the Social Security tax applies only to earnings below a threshold, which stood at $106,800 in 2010. And neither tax applies to investment income. As a result, upper-income households pay a smaller share of income in payroll taxes.

State and local taxes have risen, most of all for the lowest income groups.

Share of income paid in property, sales and state income taxes.

State and local governments impose the same property and sales tax rates on everyone without regard to income. Even after the housing crash, the rise in housing prices since 1980 has outpaced income growth for most households, increasing the burden of property taxes. And lower-income households spend a larger share of income than other households, incurring sales taxes.

And corporate taxes — ultimately paid by people — have declined.

Economists agree that taxes on business are passed on to investors, reducing profits, and to workers, reducing wages. Upper-income households bear the brunt of these taxes, and corporate tax collections have fallen sharply.

Affluent households are earning more — and paying a larger share of taxes.

The number of high-income households, and their average income, has increased rapidly. Even in the wake of the recession, more than a million taxpayers made at least $350,000 in 2010, and that group accounted for 15 percent of the nation’s income. As a result, while those households paid a smaller share of their income in taxes than they did in 1980, they paid a larger share of the total tax bill.

But the distribution of the tax burden has become less progressive.

In a progressive system, upper-income households pay a larger share of taxes than their share of income, while the opposite is true for lower-income households. Over the last three decades, taxation in the United States became less progressive.

Households earning more than $350,000 paid 20 percent of the nation’s taxes in 2010, 1.37 times their share of total income, while in 1980, those households paid taxes equaling 1.56 times their share of income. The change was larger before the recession, which reduced investment income, as in past recessions.

Again, check out the graphics. Related article here, from Nov. 2012:

Tax Burden for Most Americans Is Lower Than in the 1980s

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/us/most-americans-face-lower-tax-burden-than-in-the-80s.html

So the stock market is booming, gas prices are plummeting, and taxes are down, all under Obama.

Does anyone have a problem with this?

Child poverty up. Wages are stagnant for a generation. Benefits down. Workers paying more out of pocket for benefits. Wealth inequality is as bad as its been since the oil barron days.Whole swaths of the American population aren't seeing any benefit whatsoever.

I agree, but our budget is essentially unlimited, we're not bound by taxes at all. If we want to spend on those things we can.

We can't when the political will isn't there. And we have a party whose platform consists of scaring the American public into believing that we are bankrupt.

 

[RCon]

It makes NO sense that our top bracket Is ~460k.

I agree with this. There are massive lifestyle, working habit, and wealth differences between $250K/year, $500K/year, $1M/year, and multi-million per year earnings, especially when you factor in cost of living by location, children, etc. Sure, to someone in the bottom brackets, $250K a year sounds "rich", but in a location like NYC with multiple kids and college loans, $250K or even $400K isn't remotely close to "set for life" rich.