brookiecookie87
Should 98% of America lose tax cuts because the GOP/Top2%?
November 11, 2012 at 4:45 PM

Obama To Boehner: Higher Taxes On The Wealthy Or The Bush Tax Cuts Expire

132192

President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner have each made cursory appeals to cooperation in the wake of Tuesday’s election. But they’re still making incompatible demands about the tax code. And on Friday, President Obama made clear that if Republicans reject the policy goal he campaigned on, all of the Bush tax cuts will expire.

“If we’re serious about reducing the deficit we have to combine spending cuts with revenue, and that means asking the wealthy to pay a little more in taxes,” Obama said in public remarks at the White House. “Right now if Congress fails to come to an agreement on an overall deficit reduction package by the end of the year, everybody’s taxes will automatically go up on January 1.”

In both 2008 and 2012, Obama campaigned on the goal of allowing the Bush tax cuts that exclusively benefit top earners to expire. That would increase the top marginal tax rate from 35 percent to 39.6 percent next year. But Boehner and other Republicans want tax rates off the table and GOP aides suggest higher tax rates can’t pass the Republican House.

In his first post-election press conference, a couple of hours before the President’s statement, Boehner also indicated his willingness to compromise — though he reiterated Republican opposition to raising tax rates. “On Wednesday, I outlined a responsible path forward to avert the fiscal cliff without raising tax rates,” Boehner said.

“There is no mandate for raising tax rates on the American people,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said in a Wednesday statement. “There is a mandate for avoiding the fiscal cliff and finding real solutions so we can make life work for people again.”

Obama did leave modest room for negotiations. “I’m not going to ask students and seniors and middle class families to pay down the entire deficit while people like me making over $250,000 aren’t asked to pay a dime more in taxes,” he said.

Boehner could meet Obama’s demand without raising tax rates by limiting tax expenditure benefits for high income people. But for now, Boehner has only suggested that revenues from this sort of base broadening should be used to lower tax rates. Obama, by contrast, is asking the House to pass a Senate bill that would isolate the Bush tax cuts for top earners and allow them to expire.

“The Senate has already passed a bill doing exactly this, so all we need is action from the House,” Obama said. “And I’ve got the pen, ready to sign the bill right away.”

In an official statement, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, echoed the President. “The Senate passed a bill to cut taxes for Americans making less than $250,000, and the House should pass it immediately.”

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney was even more blunt. “He will veto any bill extending Bush era tax cuts for the top two percent of wage earners in this country.”

That leaves the onus on Boehner to either pass that bill, or find an equivalent way to take the same amount of new revenue from high income earners. So far, he and other GOP leaders seem unwilling.

“”The increased tax rates that would be allowed under the Senate-passed bill are part of the fiscal cliff that economists are warning us to avoid,” Boehner said in response to the Presidents remarks. “Those increased tax rates will destroy jobs in America by hurting small businesses across the country.”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was more strident. “[T]here is no consensus on raising tax rates, which would undermine the jobs and growth we all believe are important to our economy,” McConnell said. “While I appreciate and share the President’s desire to put the election behind us, the fact is we still have yet to hear an actual plan from the President for addressing the great economic challenges we face. What’s needed now is a realistic and specific proposal from the President that can actually pass the Congress.”

They’ve left themselves some wiggle room. But if they don’t squeeze themselves through it, Obama said, everyone’s taxes go up at the end of the year.


Replies

  • silver007
    November 14, 2012 at 8:33 AM

    My goodness, I would never feed the middle class into a wood chipper

    Who would mow my lawn, clean the pool and spa, cater my Chris-Hanukkah party, change the oil in my luxury SUV,  teach my kids to play tennis and speak Mandarin, groom my dogs, carry my bags at the airport, and plunge the toilets in my 6 bathrooms ?

    Quoting GLWerth:

    They know that the President is a decent human being who wouldn't let them shoot the hostage.

    Any one of them would gladly feed middle class people into a wood chipper if they thought it would fatten their wallets and those of their extraordinarily wealthy backers.

    Quoting brookiecookie87:

    I keep hearing Conservatives/Republicans saying that Democrats/President Obama are trying to destroy the Middle Class.

    But President Obama is trying to extend the Tax Cuts for 98% of America. But the GOP/Republicans are refusing to let them get the extension unless the top 2% gets the extension too.

    I just don't understand how a Political Party can claim they are for the Middle Class and then turn around and hold them hostage by saying, "Give us Tax Extensions or else we won't pass the extention for the middle class".


     


  • brookiecookie87
    November 14, 2012 at 8:51 AM

    Because that is not how taxes work.

    For example: (http://www.tax-brackets.org/federaltaxtable)



    Tax Bracket (Head of Household) Marginal Tax Rate


    $0+ 10%


    $12,400+ 15%


    $47,350+ 25%


    $122,300+ 28%


    $198,050+ 33%


    $388,350+ 35%

    If you make 300,000 according to the chart above:

    0-12,400 of it is taxed at 10% for $1240
    12,400-47,350 of it is taxed at 15% for $5,242.5
    47,350-122,300 of it is taxed at 25% for $18,737.5
    122,300-198,050 of it is taxed at 28% for $21,210
    198,350-300,000 of it is taxed at 33% for $33,544.5

    That's for a total of: $79,974.5.
    Using your math from earlier 33% of 300,000 would be: $99,000
    That is off by by more than $19,000

    So to bring it home. Let's say we raise the tax bracket by 4%.

    Using your math it's 300,000 x .37= 111,000 which is an increase of $12,000
    But if you use the math the way it actual is applied it is much different. It's:

    300,000-198,350= 101,650 x .37 = $37,610.5 which is an increase of $4,066

    Hope I helped you understand Taxes a little more. If you have more questions I will be glad to answer them if I can.

    Quoting silver007:

    How do you figure that raising the federal tax rate from 35% of that family's AGI to 39.6% of their AGI iso a $1500 tax increase?

    A family making $300K AGI owes $105,000 federal tax at 35%

    At 39.6% obama rate, they will owe $118,000 federal tax on $300K 

    Surely obama is right and lots of families have an extra $13000 laying around so they might as well pay it in tax

    He admits taking that much more of their income  won't do diddly to reduce the deficit , but it's "fair"

    disclaimer: My 5th grader did this math

    Quoting stacymomof2:

    And lets not forget, that with this tax increase, someone making 300grand a year will be paying about $1500 more in taxes.  Not $9000 more.  $1500 more.  And that's if their accountant can't find a way to deduct or invest another $50 grand.  



  • silver007
    November 14, 2012 at 8:59 AM

    First of all, what federal budget? We havent had one in 3 years The last budget obama sent to Harry Reid was voted down by 98 senators. Instead of a budget, obama operates on a big stash of money (up to the debt ceiling) and depends on Congress to pay the bills when they are presented. That ain't no budget! That is writing checks on your account  without ever balancing it, and expecting your allowance to be raised when you run out of money.

    Second of all, yes, the top 2% includes mostly working famiiies and businesses.  Most of the 2% works for their income. You don't think so? You must be thinking the 2% are all Kennedys Gates and Buffets living on trust funds and sheltered investments... which are actually not taxed as earned income, so moot. That is why Warren Buffet takes a "salary" of $100,000.... he's middle class.

    Third the way government increases money in "the system" is to print it or take it from someone who actually produces something.  The government produces nothing and increases nothing except the amount of paper money (and paper regulations) floating around, our money which gets it's only true value from the markets trusting or believing in the continued future increasing  productivity of earners and investors from who it is taken

    Thinking govt can increase money in " the system" (which I am thinking you confuse with wealth creation)  is believing that if govt dips water from the deep end of the swimming pool and pours it into the shallow end of the pool, the govt will create more water in the pool.

    Open swim everyone!

    Quoting brookiecookie87:

    Perhaps you do not understand what we are currently talking about.

    Do you believe when we are talking about the Top 2% of Americans that would get the tax increase we are talking about working families and small businesses?

    And when I said system i wasn't talking about the Economic system. I was talking about Federal Money and it's budget.

    Quoting silver007:

    You need to go back to economics 101 if you think taking  income from working families and small businesses and putting it in the hands of the federal govt (which produces NOTHING) "increases money in the system"

    What "system"?

     LOL!

    obamas CBO projects tax increases of about $500 BILLON next year, and 1.3 TRILLION in the next 3 years. That isn't coming from "the rich" unless they plan to exterminate them. Maybe that's not funny.

    Meanwhile the debt ceiling (another misnomer)  is going to $18 TRILLON by inauguration day and $20 TRILLON before 2016. Buckle your seat belt

    Quoting brookiecookie87:

    Letting the 3% Tax Cut expire for the Top 2% of America would see the highest results that a 3% could bring.



    Look at that chart. The people in the Top 2% of America hold a LOT of the wealth in our country and them losing the Tax Cut would supply our country with a LOT more money.

    And if we are not going to do anything unless it completely removes our deficits then we will never do anything to start making progress on it.

    A 3% Tax Increase is not going to make people in the Top 2% of America "suffer" by any means.

    That's more Republican rhetoric.

    Quoting silver007:

    Are you referring to the "Bush Tax Cuts for the rich"?

    For 10 years the democrats have claimed most of the beenfit went to the rich and the Bush tax code destroyed the wonderful Bill Clinton economy.

    So why not get rid of all of them?

    Raising taxes on just 2% of the population isn't going to do diddly to reduce the deficit.

    If obama confiscated ALL the income from ALL the" rich people" it wouldn't run the govt for a month.

    But hey it sure would be good to watch those "rich" selfish SOB's suffer, wouldn't it? They have extra money. Send it to obama. Buy more stuff for more people

     

     

     


  • brookiecookie87
    November 14, 2012 at 9:14 AM

    This post makes me wonder if you know how taxes really work and chose to use a false example anyways.

    Even a bad budget is still a budget.

    And I don't know if you are aware of how much money goes into war, or two wars-Especially unneeded, unwarranted wars of Choice like we have been in.

    President Obama has trimmed the military budget (Where the GOP were campaigning to increase it by 2 Trillion well at the same time reducing or keeping taxes the 'same') and President Obama plans to increase those taxes (at the top).

    One seems like a great way to start balancing a budget and the other seems like a way to continue down a path of spending. And you have to remember a HUGE chunk of the money President Obama spent was to fix our economy during what appeared to be a major recession that could have turned into a Depression if it wasn't stopped. President Obama stopped it.

    I think you saying that working families and small business are all part of the top 2% of America shows how delusional you are. Or your willingness to out right lie. 

    When people say working families or small business they are not talking about families of CEO's, Bankers, or businesses that have 200+ Employee's.

    And now you are using a strawman tactic. I never said the Top 2% were made of people in the .001% (The UBER UBER rich). I -NEVER- said that.

    And I already clarified what I meant in the last post (I understand why you would choose to ignore it though because it destroys the point you are trying to make). I was talking about Federal Money

    Quoting silver007:

    First of all, what federal budget? We havent had one in 3 years The last budget obama sent to Harry Reid was voted down by 98 senators. Instead of a budget, obama operates on a big stash of money (up to the debt ceiling) and depends on Congress to pay the bills when they are presented. That ain't no budget! That is writing checks on your account  without ever balancing it, and expecting your allowance to be raised when you run out of money.

    Second of all, yes, the top 2% includes mostly working famiiies and businesses.  Most of the 2% works for their income. You don't think so? You must be thinking the 2% are all Kennedys Gates and Buffets living on trust funds and sheltered investments... which are actually not taxed as earned income, so moot. That is why Warren Buffet takes a "salary" of $100,000.... he's middle class.

    Third the way government increases money in "the system" is to print it or take it from someone who actually produces something.  The government produces nothing and increases nothing except the amount of paper money (and paper regulations) floating around, our money which gets it's only true value from the markets trusting or believing in the continued future increasing  productivity of earners and investors from who it is taken

    Thinking govt can increase money in " the system" (which I am thinking you confuse with wealth creation)  is believing that if govt dips water from the deep end of the swimming pool and pours it into the shallow end of the pool, the govt will create more water in the pool.

    Open swim everyone!

    Quoting brookiecookie87:

    Perhaps you do not understand what we are currently talking about.

    Do you believe when we are talking about the Top 2% of Americans that would get the tax increase we are talking about working families and small businesses?

    And when I said system i wasn't talking about the Economic system. I was talking about Federal Money and it's budget.

    Quoting silver007:

    You need to go back to economics 101 if you think taking  income from working families and small businesses and putting it in the hands of the federal govt (which produces NOTHING) "increases money in the system"

    What "system"?

     LOL!

    obamas CBO projects tax increases of about $500 BILLON next year, and 1.3 TRILLION in the next 3 years. That isn't coming from "the rich" unless they plan to exterminate them. Maybe that's not funny.

    Meanwhile the debt ceiling (another misnomer)  is going to $18 TRILLON by inauguration day and $20 TRILLON before 2016. Buckle your seat belt

    Quoting brookiecookie87:

    Letting the 3% Tax Cut expire for the Top 2% of America would see the highest results that a 3% could bring.



    Look at that chart. The people in the Top 2% of America hold a LOT of the wealth in our country and them losing the Tax Cut would supply our country with a LOT more money.

    And if we are not going to do anything unless it completely removes our deficits then we will never do anything to start making progress on it.

    A 3% Tax Increase is not going to make people in the Top 2% of America "suffer" by any means.

    That's more Republican rhetoric.

    Quoting silver007:

    Are you referring to the "Bush Tax Cuts for the rich"?

    For 10 years the democrats have claimed most of the beenfit went to the rich and the Bush tax code destroyed the wonderful Bill Clinton economy.

    So why not get rid of all of them?

    Raising taxes on just 2% of the population isn't going to do diddly to reduce the deficit.

    If obama confiscated ALL the income from ALL the" rich people" it wouldn't run the govt for a month.

    But hey it sure would be good to watch those "rich" selfish SOB's suffer, wouldn't it? They have extra money. Send it to obama. Buy more stuff for more people






  • silver007
    November 14, 2012 at 9:24 AM

    thanks for the  lesson,  My 5th grader will have to go back to the drawing board.

    But to do so he will need a tax table structured on the new "obama tax increase for the rich", not the "Bush tax cuts for the rich", and that includes the AMT creep and the effect of all the expiring Bush tax code provisions and return to caps on deductions and outright elimination of many of them

    Individuals and businesses making $250K+AGI expect to be a lot poorer by 2014, so the impact of their preparations to be more frugal are projected to be devastating to our economy, which is why the "Bush tax cuts for the rich" actually became the "obama tax cuts for the rich" when he extended them before elections in 2010.

    One small local anecdote, my husbands eye doctor told him his lasik business is off 90% over the past 3 years as people forego a "luxury" procedure, so the doc is retiring (going Galt so to speak)

    But now with no more elections, the o can afford to hang tough and indulge his ideology of "fairness" over economic arguments about the effect of a hopelessly indebted bloated corrupt govt taking an additional $1.6 TRILLION out of the hands of wealth producers over the next 10 years

    Quoting brookiecookie87:

    Because that is not how taxes work.

    For example: (http://www.tax-brackets.org/federaltaxtable)



    Tax Bracket (Head of Household) Marginal Tax Rate


    $0+ 10%


    $12,400+ 15%


    $47,350+ 25%


    $122,300+ 28%


    $198,050+ 33%


    $388,350+ 35%

    If you make 300,000 according to the chart above:

    0-12,400 of it is taxed at 10% for $1240
    12,400-47,350 of it is taxed at 15% for $5,242.5
    47,350-122,300 of it is taxed at 25% for $18,737.5
    122,300-198,050 of it is taxed at 28% for $21,210
    198,350-300,000 of it is taxed at 33% for $33,544.5

    That's for a total of: $79,974.5.
    Using your math from earlier 33% of 300,000 would be: $99,000
    That is off by by more than $19,000

    So to bring it home. Let's say we raise the tax bracket by 4%.

    Using your math it's 300,000 x .37= 111,000 which is an increase of $12,000
    But if you use the math the way it actual is applied it is much different. It's:

    300,000-198,350= 101,650 x .37 = $37,610.5 which is an increase of $4,066

    Hope I helped you understand Taxes a little more. If you have more questions I will be glad to answer them if I can.

    Quoting silver007:

    How do you figure that raising the federal tax rate from 35% of that family's AGI to 39.6% of their AGI iso a $1500 tax increase?

    A family making $300K AGI owes $105,000 federal tax at 35%

    At 39.6% obama rate, they will owe $118,000 federal tax on $300K 

    Surely obama is right and lots of families have an extra $13000 laying around so they might as well pay it in tax

    He admits taking that much more of their income  won't do diddly to reduce the deficit , but it's "fair"

    disclaimer: My 5th grader did this math

    Quoting stacymomof2:

    And lets not forget, that with this tax increase, someone making 300grand a year will be paying about $1500 more in taxes.  Not $9000 more.  $1500 more.  And that's if their accountant can't find a way to deduct or invest another $50 grand.  

     

     


  • SuperChicken
    November 14, 2012 at 9:30 AM

    I'm late to this party and don't know if it's been mentioned, but the super wealthy who have inherited their money and who don't actually work, don't have earned income to be taxed at all.    And their investment "income" is taxed at a much lower rate so increasing the income tax rate for those earning over $250,000 won't really touch the superrich much at all.   Wealth is not taxed.  

  • brookiecookie87
    November 14, 2012 at 9:40 AM

    Oh-Was it your 5th grader that taught you how taxes work? Because his math is right. It was the method that he was taught to get the correct answer that was wrong.

    I was just using the current tax rates because the numbers are there and clearly you did not understand how taxes work. I haven't seen any chart/tax bracket system that takes into account the changes that might come.

    Most likely because the details of what will happen are not there yet.

    But Stacysmomof2 was just pointing out:

    Quote:


    Quoting stacymomof2:

    And lets not forget, that with this tax increase, someone making 300grand a year will be paying about $1500 more in taxes.  Not $9000 more.  $1500 more.  And that's if their accountant can't find a way to deduct or invest another $50 grand. 

    Which was the point of the Post you replied to and my point.

    Quoting silver007:

    thanks for the  lesson,  My 5th grader will have to go back to the drawing board.

    But to do so he will need a tax table structured on the new "obama tax increase for the rich", not the "Bush tax cuts for the rich", and that includes the AMT creep and the effect of all the expiring Bush tax code provisions and return to caps on deductions and outright elimination of many of them

    Individuals and businesses making $250K+AGI expect to be a lot poorer by 2014, so the impact of their preparations to be more frugal are projected to be devastating to our economy, which is why the "Bush tax cuts for the rich" actually became the "obama tax cuts for the rich" when he extended them before elections in 2010.

    One small local anecdote, my husbands eye doctor told him his lasik business is off 90% over the past 3 years as people forego a "luxury" procedure, so the doc is retiring (going Galt so to speak)

    But now with no more elections, the o can afford to hang tough and indulge his ideology of "fairness" over economic arguments about the effect of a hopelessly indebted bloated corrupt govt taking an additional $1.6 TRILLION out of the hands of wealth producers over the next 10 years

    Quoting brookiecookie87:

    Because that is not how taxes work.

    For example: (http://www.tax-brackets.org/federaltaxtable)



    Tax Bracket (Head of Household) Marginal Tax Rate


    $0+ 10%


    $12,400+ 15%


    $47,350+ 25%


    $122,300+ 28%


    $198,050+ 33%


    $388,350+ 35%

    If you make 300,000 according to the chart above:

    0-12,400 of it is taxed at 10% for $1240
    12,400-47,350 of it is taxed at 15% for $5,242.5
    47,350-122,300 of it is taxed at 25% for $18,737.5
    122,300-198,050 of it is taxed at 28% for $21,210
    198,350-300,000 of it is taxed at 33% for $33,544.5

    That's for a total of: $79,974.5.
    Using your math from earlier 33% of 300,000 would be: $99,000
    That is off by by more than $19,000

    So to bring it home. Let's say we raise the tax bracket by 4%.

    Using your math it's 300,000 x .37= 111,000 which is an increase of $12,000
    But if you use the math the way it actual is applied it is much different. It's:

    300,000-198,350= 101,650 x .37 = $37,610.5 which is an increase of $4,066

    Hope I helped you understand Taxes a little more. If you have more questions I will be glad to answer them if I can.

    Quoting silver007:

    How do you figure that raising the federal tax rate from 35% of that family's AGI to 39.6% of their AGI iso a $1500 tax increase?

    A family making $300K AGI owes $105,000 federal tax at 35%

    At 39.6% obama rate, they will owe $118,000 federal tax on $300K 

    Surely obama is right and lots of families have an extra $13000 laying around so they might as well pay it in tax

    He admits taking that much more of their income  won't do diddly to reduce the deficit , but it's "fair"

    disclaimer: My 5th grader did this math

    Quoting stacymomof2:

    And lets not forget, that with this tax increase, someone making 300grand a year will be paying about $1500 more in taxes.  Not $9000 more.  $1500 more.  And that's if their accountant can't find a way to deduct or invest another $50 grand. 





  • BoysManDog
    November 14, 2012 at 10:59 AM

     

    If the so-called "Bush Tax Cuts" are bad for the rich, why are they not bad for everyone?  After all, Clinton is touted as the best president ever, and tax rates under him were universally higher.  Why not revert to those rates? 

    The left today do not want people to pay their "fair share."  They want one segment of the population to pay most other peoples' share, and this model is unsustainable. 

  • brookiecookie87
    November 14, 2012 at 11:09 AM

    You must have gotten your signals Crossed (Or listening to News that is too far biased).

    No one has said that Bush Tax Cuts are bad for the rich. Or bad for anyone. However the rich in our country are doing exceedingly well.

    For example:



    The poor, and middle class are hurting. So it doesn't make sense to raise taxes on them. The top 2% are doing well. So if taxes are going to be raised it should be raised on them. If everyone from the bottom to top were doing well and could afford to be taxed more-Than yeah we should increase the tax on everyone. However that is not the way it is

    I don't know if you know this. But the Top % of America owns most of the money. And as such their taxes SHOULD make up most of the taxes. However they keep finding ways to pay lower than people in the lowest brackets. Companies/Corporations keep finding ways to pay 0-5%.

    If they were paying their fair share this wouldn't be as much of a problem.

    Quoting BoysManDog:


    If the so-called "Bush Tax Cuts" are bad for the rich, why are they not bad for everyone?  After all, Clinton is touted as the best president ever, and tax rates under him were universally higher.  Why not revert to those rates? 

    The left today do not want people to pay their "fair share."  They want one segment of the population to pay most other peoples' share, and this model is unsustainable. 


  • BoysManDog
    November 14, 2012 at 11:48 AM

     

    AGAIN, the left today do not want people to pay their "fair share."  If they did, then everyone would be responsible for paying income tax.  They are not, and when you have 50% of the population with no skin in the game, and many of those who actually collect money from the other 50%, that model is not sustainable no matter how much more you think the "rich" should pay.  Top 10 Percent of Earners Paid 71 Percent of Federal Income Taxes

    Quoting brookiecookie87:

    You must have gotten your signals Crossed (Or listening to News that is too far biased).

    No one has said that Bush Tax Cuts are bad for the rich. Or bad for anyone. However the rich in our country are doing exceedingly well.