|
Post by lakhota on Jun 3, 2011 0:56:39 GMT -5
Underscoring his commitment, Obama noted taxes would be a defining area of contrast with Republicans on the campaign trail. He insisted that he would not compromise again on his position that the tax rates for the top earners be raised to pre-Bush levels. That line in the sand was greeted warmly by attendees, many of whom were disillusioned with the administration's decision to cut a deal with congressional Republicans in December 2010 that allowed all of the Bush tax cuts to continue. The President responded by saying it was vital to have revenues as part of the mix, stressing that a budget can't be balanced on non-defense discretionary spending or the "backs of the most vulnerable." Obama added, according to the member, that, "he would not support extending the Bush tax cuts for the top two percent again no matter what hostages Republicans took." More: www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/02/obama-pledges-no-bush-tax-cut-extension_n_870680.html
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jun 3, 2011 1:06:26 GMT -5
I sincerely hope this is one promise Obama will keep.
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jun 3, 2011 1:26:13 GMT -5
Are Taxes in the U.S. High or Low?Bruce Bartlett has served as an economic adviser in the White House, the Treasury Department and Congress. Historically, the term “tax rate” has meant the average or effective tax rate — that is, taxes as a share of income. The broadest measure of the tax rate is total federal revenues divided by the gross domestic product. 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. Yet if one listens to Republicans, one would think that taxes have never been higher, that an excessive tax burden is the most important constraint holding back economic growth and that a big tax cut is exactly what the economy needs to get growing again. Just last week, House Republicans released a new plan to reduce unemployment. Its principal provision would reduce the top statutory income tax rate on businesses and individuals to 25 percent from 35 percent. No evidence was offered for the Republican argument that cutting taxes for the well-to-do and big corporations would reduce unemployment; it was simply asserted as self-evident. One would not know from the Republican document that corporate taxes are expected to raise just 1.3 percent of G.D.P. in revenue this year, about a third of what it was in the 1950s. The G.O.P. says global competitiveness requires the United States to reduce its corporate tax rate. But the United States actually has the lowest corporate tax burden of any of the member nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Continued below...
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jun 3, 2011 1:26:43 GMT -5
If taxes are low historically and in comparison with our global competitors, how are Republicans able to maintain that taxes are excessively high? They do so by ignoring the effective tax rate and concentrating solely on the statutory tax rate, which is often manipulated to make it appear that rates are much higher than they really are. For example, Stephen Moore of The Wall Street Journal recently asserted that Democrats were trying to raise the top income tax rate to 62 percent from 35 percent. But most of the difference between these two rates is the payroll tax and state taxes that are already in existence. The rest consists largely of assuming tax increases that no one has formally proposed and that would be politically impossible to enact at the present time. Ryan Chittum, in Columbia Journalism Review, responded with a commentary that called the Moore analysis “deeply disingenuous.” Nevertheless, one routinely hears variations of the Moore argument from conservative commentators. By contrast, one almost never hears that total revenues are at their lowest level in two or three generations as a share of G.D.P. or that corporate tax revenues as a share of G.D.P. are the lowest among all major countries. One hears only that the statutory corporate tax rate in the United States is high compared with other countries, which is true but not necessarily relevant. The economic importance of statutory tax rates is blown far out of proportion by Republicans looking for ways to make taxes look high when they are quite low. And they almost never note that the statutory tax rate applies only to the last dollar earned or that the effective tax rate is substantially lower even for the richest taxpayers and largest corporations because of tax exclusions, deductions, credits and the 15 percent top rate on dividends and capital gains. The many adjustments to income permitted by the tax code, plus alternative tax rates on the largest sources of income of the wealthy, explain why the average federal income tax rate on the 400 richest people in America was 18.11 percent in 2008, according to the Internal Revenue Service, down from 26.38 percent when these data were first calculated in 1992. Among the top 400, 7.5 percent had an average tax rate of less than 10 percent, 25 percent paid between 10 and 15 percent, and 28 percent paid between 15 and 20 percent. The truth of the matter is that federal taxes in the United States are very low. There is no reason to believe that reducing them further will do anything to raise growth or reduce unemployment. economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/are-taxes-in-the-u-s-high-or-low/
|
|
cme1201
Junior Associate
Tennis Elbow, Jock Itch, and Athletes Foot, every man has a sports life!
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 13:55:07 GMT -5
Posts: 5,503
|
Post by cme1201 on Jun 3, 2011 6:39:18 GMT -5
I sincerely hope this is one promise Obama will keep. Well he has a great track record for makeing them, not so much for keeping them.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Jun 3, 2011 8:38:05 GMT -5
If taxes are low historically and in comparison with our global competitors, how are Republicans able to maintain that taxes are excessively high? They do so by ignoring the effective tax rate and concentrating solely on the statutory tax rate, which is often manipulated to make it appear that rates are much higher than they really are. Historically low taxes are zero since we have not always had an income tax.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Jun 3, 2011 8:39:15 GMT -5
He's playing politics since election time is coming up. Time to start the "evil rich need to pay their fair share" rhetoric again I guess.
|
|
|
Post by ed1066 on Jun 3, 2011 8:41:47 GMT -5
I sincerely hope this is one promise Obama will keep. Well, I'm sure "hope" worked out great for you last time, so good luck! In the meantime, I'm sure Obama is planning on treating his supporters like a cheap one night stand again, and (as usual) they will likely fall for it again...
|
|
Driftr
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 10, 2011 13:08:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,478
|
Post by Driftr on Jun 3, 2011 8:56:51 GMT -5
I sincerely hope this is one promise Obama will keep. Fool me once, shame on him. Fool me twice, not gonna happen.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 13:21:20 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2011 9:04:27 GMT -5
I sincerely hope this is one promise Obama will keep. So you're finally admitting that Obama keeps very few of his promises? It's about time you actually opened your eyes and saw the light.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 3, 2011 9:12:25 GMT -5
Sealing his fate. It's the Mondale Mistake. I promise to raise your taxes. Bye bye, Barry!
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Jun 3, 2011 9:12:49 GMT -5
The G.O.P. says global competitiveness requires the United States to reduce its corporate tax rate. But the United States actually has the lowest corporate tax burden of any of the member nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
YOu cannot measure burden with percentage. Percentage of tax means nothing. It is the actual amount of dollars paid that matters. I paid the highest amount of taxes shortly after the 2003 tax cuts were implemented. I make significantly more than I earned five years ago, but for 2010, I paid the least amount in taxes since the year I paid the most in actual dollars.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 3, 2011 9:40:05 GMT -5
To promise to raise taxes is a political death wish. Barry is finished, and he is supplying the final nail for his political coffin here.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 3, 2011 9:44:17 GMT -5
I am not getting suckered into another discussion about tax policy. The matter has been settled for some time now, it's only a matter of finding those with the political will to do the will of the people without getting distracted by all the white noise in Washington 'intelligentsia' and in the lame stream Democrat media machine.
The point I'm going to stick with is that this, no matter how you feel about it personally, is political death.
Do you get that, my leftie and middle to the left friends? THE DETAILS DO NOT MATTER. Hell, the merits of the policy do not matter-- the American public hashed this out two to three decades ago, and it's settled science. The debate is over. If Barry promises to raise taxes, he's toast politically.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Jun 3, 2011 9:45:40 GMT -5
Sealing his fate. It's the Mondale Mistake. I promise to raise your taxes. Bye bye, Barry! We will see, this only effects the evil rich This is one reason, that the last time the current rates got extended under Obama it had little effect on the economy, everybody knew it was only temporary , the other reason was of course they had actually been the same rates for several years. We need to drasticlly simplify our tax code, a consumption tax like the FaiTax would be far better than our current code.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 3, 2011 9:49:34 GMT -5
Sealing his fate. It's the Mondale Mistake. I promise to raise your taxes. Bye bye, Barry! We will see, this only effects the evil rich I think we've settled this debate, too. It most certainly does NOT only effect the 'evil rich'. When unemployment spikes above 10% because of the economy and job-killing effects of taxing the productive sector we will see how Barry does politically with this argument. Americans know intuitively that if Barry is successful in raising the cost of doing business on employers, that means more Americans out of work, higher prices for consumer goods and services, a slowing economy, and a declining market-- their pension, and retirement accounts. The fix will be to borrow and spend more money and push taxes up even further. It's a political death spiral-- but it'll never come to that. We're going to be done with Barry in January 2013 and it'll be a few decades, maybe longer before Democrats are EVER trusted to lead again.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 3, 2011 9:56:36 GMT -5
This is my favorite Democrat losing issue by the way. Promising to raise taxes is the single biggest losing issue Barry is married to-- it's worse than the crown jewel of his failed presidency- ObamaCare. It's worse than his disjointed foreign policy, his obstructionist energy policy, his risky big government spending and monetary policy; it's worse than his destructive extremist environmental policies, his thinly veiled anti-Israel sentiments, his blatant disrespect for Great Britian, his embrace of extremists like the Muslim Brotherhood; it's worse than his inability to put two words together without a teleprompter, his obvious incompetence, and stunningly embarassing social faux paux. It's worse than his 70 rounds of golf, his $200 million a day vacations to India, and his burgeoning federal limousine fleet. The promise to raise taxes-- especially in light of all these things, is in fact worse than ALL his other catastrophic failings combined.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 3, 2011 10:35:04 GMT -5
The G.O.P. says global competitiveness requires the United States to reduce its corporate tax rate. But the United States actually has the lowest corporate tax burden of any of the member nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.YOu cannot measure burden with percentage. Percentage of tax means nothing. It is the actual amount of dollars paid that matters. I paid the highest amount of taxes shortly after the 2003 tax cuts were implemented. I make significantly more than I earned five years ago, but for 2010, I paid the least amount in taxes since the year I paid the most in actual dollars. That, and.. www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-09/u-s-falls-to-fourth-in-world-economic-forum-index-switzerland-comes-top.htmlThe U.S. slipped to fourth in the annual rankings of the world’s most-competitive economies amid a record budget deficit, while Switzerland retained the top spot, the World Economic Forum said. and... Welcome to Obamaville.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 3, 2011 10:36:03 GMT -5
If taxes are low historically and in comparison with our global competitors, how are Republicans able to maintain that taxes are excessively high? They do so by ignoring the effective tax rate and concentrating solely on the statutory tax rate, which is often manipulated to make it appear that rates are much higher than they really are. Historically low taxes are zero since we have not always had an income tax.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 3, 2011 10:39:38 GMT -5
I sincerely hope this is one promise Obama will keep. Well he has a great track record for makeing them, not so much for keeping them. Democrats got SLAUGHTERED because of ObamaCare in 2010; therefore I will make a PREDICTION: A VETO-proof bi-partisan majority will vote to extend the tax cuts- just exactly as the Pelosi-led Democrat House voted to extend them back in December. 80-some-odd Democrats just voted NOT to raise the debt-ceiling and that INCLUDES Nancy Pelosi. This is a sign that if for no other reason than politics-- at least SOME Democrats have a healthy self-preservation instinct. This issue is a loser, and it will be the final straw for Obama.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Jun 3, 2011 10:46:51 GMT -5
We will see, this only effects the evil rich I think we've settled this debate, too. It most certainly does NOT only effect the 'evil rich'. When unemployment spikes above 10% because of the economy and job-killing effects of taxing the productive sector we will see how Barry does politically with this argument. Americans know intuitively that if Barry is successful in raising the cost of doing business on employers, that means more Americans out of work, higher prices for consumer goods and services, a slowing economy, and a declining market-- their pension, and retirement accounts. The fix will be to borrow and spend more money and push taxes up even further. It's a political death spiral-- but it'll never come to that. We're going to be done with Barry in January 2013 and it'll be a few decades, maybe longer before Democrats are EVER trusted to lead again. Of course it doesn't only effect the evil rich, we also know that in absolute dollars the rich did not get the most money, but this is a Class warfare argument and if 50% don't pay Federal Income tax it will take far too long to explain how raising the tax rate on the rich will effect them. If the dems can get a large turn out, Obama could get reelected. He will still be the incumbent which has a lot of advantages, plus he can raise a boat load of money.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 13:21:20 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2011 10:48:23 GMT -5
I sincerely hope this is one promise Obama will keep. This kind of said it all. Even the liberals are starting to notice Obama's lack of follow through. "Here comes the orator with his flood of words and one drop of wisdom". Ben Franklin said this I think, how true today.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Jun 3, 2011 10:53:25 GMT -5
The one hope is that , I think Obama used the argument to not raise the taxes on anybody was because of the economic situation, saying that raising taxes on anybody would be the wrong thing to do, he is going to have to explain why it was wrong to raise them last time but is ok now.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 3, 2011 11:19:21 GMT -5
The one hope is that , I think Obama used the argument to not raise the taxes on anybody was because of the economic situation, saying that raising taxes on anybody would be the wrong thing to do, he is going to have to explain why it was wrong to raise them last time but is ok now. Yep. EVERYONE knows that GROWTH is the key to everything and that to get growth you lower taxes, reduce and roll back regulation-- and generally get government out of the way.
|
|
reasonfreedom
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 8:50:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,722
|
Post by reasonfreedom on Jun 3, 2011 11:41:25 GMT -5
The one hope is that , I think Obama used the argument to not raise the taxes on anybody was because of the economic situation, saying that raising taxes on anybody would be the wrong thing to do, he is going to have to explain why it was wrong to raise them last time but is ok now. Actually if you get a pay stub and compare it to last year(at the same wage of course) you will find out that they raised federal tax income when they dropped the social security 2%. I think Obama needs to worry more about the spending since the national debt has increased 5 trillion since he has been in office which is more than the 8 years Bush was in office( pathetic for the both of them I say).
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Jun 3, 2011 12:11:07 GMT -5
The one hope is that , I think Obama used the argument to not raise the taxes on anybody was because of the economic situation, saying that raising taxes on anybody would be the wrong thing to do, he is going to have to explain why it was wrong to raise them last time but is ok now. Actually if you get a pay stub and compare it to last year(at the same wage of course) you will find out that they raised federal tax income when they dropped the social security 2%. I think Obama needs to worry more about the spending since the national debt has increased 5 trillion since he has been in office which is more than the 8 years Bush was in office( pathetic for the both of them I say). I didn't know they raised taxes, I'll have to examine my paystub. But there is little question spending is the issue, not revenue. The loss of revenue we are experiencing is do to the financial turn down not because of low tax rates
|
|
|
Post by Mkitty is pro kitty on Jun 3, 2011 12:23:55 GMT -5
Naw, it's going to be an eight year thing. And do tell us of that wonderful Republican candidate, you know, uh... um... Obama started his duties as president in 2009 <--- see how that's a 9, not an 8? I know they almost look the same, but they're not, honest. Welcome to Stupidville. And hello who? Don't cling to that desperate fantasy too much now, it's not good for your mental health. *** The Obameter Scorecard * Promise Kept 135 * Compromise 40 * Promise Broken 42 * Stalled 70 * In the Works 219 * Not yet rated 2 www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/ Just like you have a great track record of making things up, not so much for backing them up. So when will you open your eyes and see your statements are nothing more than empty, rubber stamped, unsubstantiated, partisian flatulence? Maybe you should pay more attention to your own shortcomings instead of applauding people for what you perceive as overcoming theirs, all atop your high-horse. Well we sure notice when you're making shit up. We keep pointing out how we "don't think that way," but Conservatives haven't seemed to notice and keep doing the strawman routines. His approval rating is going up, even as shooting Bin Laden becomes a distant memory. So you can't tell the difference between a 1% or a 100% burden? Um, okay. If the Republicans can get a decent candidate, they might have a chance. LOL, talk about an elephant in the room. Sometimes what you don't talk about is more important. All that's been growing is CEO's wallets. You assume they're sugar daddies, and when they get a tax cut, they're going to hire more people "just because." Even when corporations get record profits, they lay people off, and since money is money, why should a tax break make any difference? Oh that's right, you live in a fantasy world where people aren't greedy, and they would gladly cut their profit margin by not polluting. That whole bill was a political stunt to grandstand to the tea partiers. And Democrats knew it was a trap, so they split the vote so Republicans couldn't point fingers at them as a whole. Or you can look it up and be sure instead of just "thinking." Conservatives sure like to say things like "I think" and "maybe." Next time any of you have a meeting with your boss, tell him "uh, I think ..." and see how that goes. That's rich compared to Republicans and the Ryan plan. Not only did they marry into making senior citizens pay a lot more while giving the rich more tax breaks break, they screwed the pooch, and the honeymoon pictures of them actually voting for it are on record for everyone to see. Yeah, screwing seniors is such an election winner. Did I mention it concerns senior citizens? Do yourself a favor and look at both sides of the equation. Oh, and please be a bit more honest and say it's about taxing the wealthy, not everyone.
|
|
reasonfreedom
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 8:50:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,722
|
Post by reasonfreedom on Jun 3, 2011 12:27:49 GMT -5
Actually if you get a pay stub and compare it to last year(at the same wage of course) you will find out that they raised federal tax income when they dropped the social security 2%. I think Obama needs to worry more about the spending since the national debt has increased 5 trillion since he has been in office which is more than the 8 years Bush was in office( pathetic for the both of them I say). I didn't know they raised taxes, I'll have to examine my paystub. But there is little question spending is the issue, not revenue. The loss of revenue we are experiencing is do to the financial turn down not because of low tax rates Yeah, I think it is like 1.12% not as much as the 2% decrease in social security but I think we pay more in federal. On top of that I read an article that the social security decrease will end up coming back up in a different form of taxation(wish I could really find that article again). Unemployment is really killing the whole revenue picture, hence why GDP has gone down. IMO I think they will have to cut spending and raise taxes dramatically in order to erase this debt, along with fixing Medicare, SS and the tax code. It is like having this huge ball of yarn that keeps getting knotted up every time you mess with it, yet you only have an hour to untangle it. The smart people will cry at the loss of having one long nice string and instead start to cutting away with the scissors.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jun 3, 2011 13:29:26 GMT -5
We're going to be done with Barry in January 2013 and it'll be a few decades, maybe longer before Democrats are EVER trusted to lead again. If the disaster Bush shows us anything, it is that Americans have a bad memory. From a budget surplus and humming economy to a near depression and crushing debt in 8 years- the fact republicans get elected at all amazes me. You really think republicans can be trusted to lead? Look at history- they are the ones running up most of the debt. There will not be a republican president elected in 2012, and you might as well forget about 2016 as well unless you change your strategy of screwing hard working Americans, the poor,sick and elderly to give even more love to the elite. But go ahead- keep pushing to the right- if anything it saves the country from being run by conservatives. BTW anyone who uses the term 'lame stream media' is quite lame IMO.
|
|
reasonfreedom
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 8:50:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,722
|
Post by reasonfreedom on Jun 3, 2011 13:42:32 GMT -5
We're going to be done with Barry in January 2013 and it'll be a few decades, maybe longer before Democrats are EVER trusted to lead again. If the disaster Bush shows us anything, it is that Americans have a bad memory. From a budget surplus and humming economy to a near depression and crushing debt in 8 years- the fact republicans get elected at all amazes me. You really think republicans can be trusted to lead? Look at history- they are the ones running up most of the debt. There will not be a republican president elected in 2012, and you might as well forget about 2016 as well unless you change your strategy of screwing hard working Americans, the poor,sick and elderly to give even more love to the elite. But go ahead- keep pushing to the right- if anything it saves the country from being run by conservatives. BTW anyone who uses the term 'lame stream media' is quite lame IMO. Obama already topped bush for debt records and Clinton had huge amounts of revenue from the internet boom. If anybody else were president at the same time as Clinton, i couldn't see them doing much worse as far as the debt goes. I agree that republicans have been just as irresponsible though.
|
|