The Democrats have it wrong

And suitable for taxing.

Being he is talking about payroll tax, that isn't taxable income, that is gross income.

Change we can believe in.....

 

Still nada.

The claim about Obama defining the rich as those making more than $200/250k appears to be yet another example of conservative propaganda being swallowed wholesale, kind of like the "Obama promised unemployment wouldn't go above 8%" fib we've seen *sooo* many times here.

 

Get serious. When Obama opposed extending the tax cuts for the "wealthy" he clearly established the criteria as being $200k/$250K. If those weren't the wealthy then why did he draw the line in the sand there? If the "wealthy" were those earning annual net incomes of $1 milllion, for example, then why didn't he extend the tax cuts for everyone making less than $1 million? If Obama considered those making $100K/yr as being wealthy then why did he want the tax cuts to be extended for them.

What I see is "liberal" nitpicking of words over actions. Clearly Obama drew his line in the sand as to what he consider to be the "wealthy" in his statements in 2010.

 

Could you please cite a source for Obama's actual statement?

I know you claim that, but your claims as to what Obama said haven't always been accurate.

Then we will have an actual statement to discuss, instead of a hypothetical about what he might have said.

Thanks.

 

"The Tax Foundation (www.taxfoundation.org) complied data from 2009 IRS statistics. In 2009, those earning over $200k per year, around 5 percent, "paid 50 percent" of all federal income taxes collected while 58.6 million tax filers or 42 percent "paid no" income taxes in 2009. In fact, tens of millions of filers received tens of billions of cash "refunds" even if they paid no taxes by using the child credit, Obama's making work pay program, the earned income tax credit, the refundable education credits and the first time homebuyers program."

My recollection is that Obama believes the 'wealthier Americans' are those earning over $200K individual or $250K family.

Does it really make any difference how much anyone earns? Everyone is already paying taxes except the deadbeats!

There is only so much money in the system and why anyone believes more of this finite money should be distributed to government, without a clearly defined mission for the USA, is unfathomable to me.

Why would any sane person give the government more money, from any source, when the government has no limits or constraints in how much and where they spend?

It is simple stupidity to raise taxes, or give the federal government another penny! The government as it operates today is broken. The government cannot be fixed because the collective we are incapable of defining the absolute role of government. Until we define what government needs to do, how can we possibly know how much needs to be spent...hence the amount of tax income?

Arguing about who earns what, who is wealthy, who should pay more, who doesn't pay anything, reduce this, increase that, etc. etc. etc. is all political BS with no roots in anything dealing with reality...

 

That's my recollection also, that he referred to them as "wealthier Americans."

 

Most reasonable people would agree with that, which is why the Tea Party is so flummoxed by this.

 

So President established the line between those with and without wealth at an income of $200K for an individual or $250K for a family.

As I've also noted income doesn't actually correlate to wealth as a person with a $50K/yr income could have more accumulates assets and fewer debts than someone with even a million dollars in annual income. Wealth, by definition, is related to the difference between assets and liabilities and has no direct relationship to income.

 

No, The tea party isn't as concerned with "the rich" as government spending, and what it has done to the economy.

As always, government has shifted the question. Both parites just want their voters back (so they can collect their "contributions").

The left believes those earning over $200K owe the country their money so the government can continue to thrive. How effect has the government been at improving our schools (they did level the playing field, now the best schools are just a bit better than the worst), at ending poverty (46M are getting food stamps?), and they have united the country (the only group without special status is middle aged white males).

Oh, yeah - I want the government to have even more money.....

 

Would agree assets to liabilities determines someones wealth but President Obama made a line at 250k because those have the most potential to be wealthy.

Higher taxes on those making 250k a year would force them to make more responsible decisions with their earnings and decrease their future liabilities and overall debt in the longer term. Their disposable income would be reduced thus making them re-evaluate their spending behaviour, most voters in the middle class do not have the same potential for excess earnings as the few in this class does.

Also this type of taxing by democrats influences more responsible behaviour such as an increase in capital gains taxes for shorter term investors because those are riskier investments that have more potential to damage the financial markets...

 

Well...in order to know who is 'wealthier' we must first start with the definition of 'wealthier'. This is where it becomes very subjective. Obama says $200K, someone earning near minimum wage will say $75K, millionaires and billionaires will have a different definition.

So...the use of the word 'wealthier' is nothing more than a political soundbite, meant to divide the masses, all in the name of soliciting votes and political support. It is 100% unproductive in terms of bettering society.

We already have a progressive tax system in which those with higher earnings pay more than those with lower earnings pay less and nothing...AND...this worked perfectly in the USA until recently...WHEN...our government began it's out-of-control spending spree! If the current tax system worked just fine for the last 20 years, then today we don't have a tax problem...we have a spending problem! Yes tax receipts are down a 'little' but they are not down by trillion$ per year to cause the deficit spending we see!

In constant 2005 dollars, here are the tax receipts;

2003 $1.901 trillion
2004 $1.949 trillion
2005 $2.154 trillion
2006 $2.324 trillion
2007 $2.414 trillion
2008 $2.287 trillion
2009 $1.898 trillion
2010 $1.919 trillion

Between the highest and lowest tax receipts above the maximum spread is about $500 billion. Yet in 2009 the deficit (in constant 2005 dollars) was $1.274 trillion! In 2010 it was $1.147 trillion! 2011 is estimated to be $1.439 trillion!

The USA, and it's citizens, have a very serious spending problem...

 

This is an argument of semantics. Government taxes income, not wealth. If it taxed wealth, the wealth would evenutally disappear.

 

No, it would just be spread about more.

 

No, it would disappear. The concept is to pay on income and then you can keep what is left over. If the left over were taxed repeatedly year after year, it would eventually disappear regardless of who owns it

 

I'm not 100% sure on this, but I believe government taxes the movement of money. Whenever money transfers from one place to another...tax the thing.

If this is true, then we can deduct that money will not be transferred unless the transaction creates an income that offsets the potential taxation.

So whether money is moving in stock transactions, or in banks, or in derivatives, or at the post office, all of this money is creating more than it's original value...

 

Actually higher income individuals, and I'm not referring to someone that only earns $250K/yr, have numerous options to reduce their net income. For example a very wealthy individual that is the chairman of the board of a large corporation could very well afford to own a private jet but instead would have the corporation purchase a private jet for their use instead. The jet is 100% deductable for the corporation as a ligitimate business expense. All we'd really see is either more money being moved off shore for foreign investments or a change in accounting practices related to the individual that result in a lower net income.

Short term capital investments aren't necessarily more risky and when referring to stock trading most of it doesn't effect the economy at all. New IPO's do as they provide capital for actual companies but most trading on the stock exchange is merely reflective of a change in ownership of the corporation and has virtually nothing to do with the profit/loss statement of the corporation.

Of note increasing the tax rate based upon how long ownership of a stock is would negatively effect millions of average American's 401K and Roth IRA accounts, the real foundation for retirement in American, where the individuals also have the option of changing their investment portfolios whenever they choose.

 

In economic terms someone is earning money when it changes hands, gifts excepted. It is not the same thing as creating money but it is basically a fair statement.

 

He established no such thing.

So how could you support or defend a definition of "rich" or "wealthy" based on income?

 

Oh yeah - you want the government to run up more debt?

I can't speak for all the left, but I believe those earning over $200k should pay more taxes as part of a compromise to reduce the deficits.

 

Obama has said no such thing.

Right wing propaganda fabrication.

Some of us think increasing revenues as part of a plan to reduce the deficit is good for the country.

But I recognize we are a minority of the Pass the Buck generation.

So how does revenues falling $500 billion help the deficit problem?

 

This is in the context of the Bush era tax cuts where the Obama propaganda machine established that the Bush era tax cuts should not be extended for the "wealthy" and that related to the $200K/$250K criteria. He did want to extend those tax cuts for those not considered as being wealthy once again based upon the $200K/$250K criteria.

This creates a question of logic. If those earning $200K/$250K are NOT the wealthy then why did Obama proposed allowing the tax cuts to expire for them if he only wanted to "tax the wealthy" in his proposal? Once again, if his criteria was those making $1 million/yr as being the "wealthy" then why didn't he establishe $1 million and above as being "tax cuts for the wealthy" as opposed to the $200K/$250K criteria?

I can't establish a definition of rich or wealthy based upon income. I merely pointed out that others do use income but it is a bogus criteria. This is one reason I oppose income taxes.

 

It wasn't the drop in revenues that caused the deficit problem. It was the failure of Congress to reduce spending based upon lower revenues that caused the deficit problem. Revenues do not create deficits, spending creates deficits.

 

We've established that Obama never claimed the "wealthy" were those making above those amounts.

Why do you keep promoting an argument you know is false?

Where did Obama ever say he only wanted to "tax the wealthy"?

You claim I'm "nitpicking" word, but you continue to use words that Obama did not use, and then use they to argue the percent of tax the "wealthy" pay as defined by Obama.

Obama never defined the "rich" or "wealthy" as those making above $200k.

So why do you do it?

 

A drop in revenues of $500 billion does not affect a deficit?

You have a radically different concept of what a deficit is than I do.

 

How about this news story as an example:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/08/us/politics/08obama.html

This article has been linked before and clearly the criteria being established was that those earning over the $200K/$250K amount were to be considered the "wealthy" and that the Bush era tax cuts would not be extended for them. As noted if Obama wanted to establish $1M/yr as the income for the wealthy he could have done that but instead he established the line of demarcation at $200K/$250K

This isn't "right-wing" or "Republican" propaganda as Obama really did make statements that established the $200K/$250K criteria in distinguishing between the wealth and the rest of America.

I merely piont to the fallacy of the argument that income determines wealth. Personally I don't use income as a criteria for wealth at all. If I were to establish a criteria for wealth I would probably identify it as something over $10 million more in personal assets in excess of liabilities. That is of course a personal opinion but I do consider that an average person probably requires between $5-10 million in assets for retirement purposes.

This once again points to a reason why I oppose taxes based upon income. It is one thing for a person to consistantly earn over $100K/yr for their entire lifetime and to make quality investments with that income that results in a large accumulation of assets and another thing for someone earning $100K/yr starting at age 50 that has a lot of debt to begin with. The net assets at retirement, when it really matters, would be substantially different.