Monday, June 23, 2008
|
|
Punishing The Most Successful - And The Rest Of Us
|
|
Posted by:
Michael Medved at
10:53 AM
|
|
Barack Obama remains maddeningly vague about most of his plans as president, but he's displayed surprising candor about his determination to raise tax rates. Lawrence Lindsey, former chair of the National Economic Council, notes that a high income earner would see his federal marginal tax rate soar to 53%, from 38% today. In other words, instead of taking home 62% of what he earns, this taxpayer would now bring home only 47% -- and that's before paying all state and local taxes. A small business man with taxable profit of just $500,000 would see a 25% tax hike under Obama, paying $42,000 more to Uncle Sam. This extra burden would clearly discourage extra work, and lead the most productive people in society to concentrate on tax avoidance rather than wealth creation. By taking away resources from entrepreneurs and giving them to bureaucrats, Obama-nomics would slow job creation, innovation and investment just when it's needed most. And the one time you can be sure a politician will keep his promise is when he says he'll raise taxes.
|
|
I loathe Obama, but let's be clear about what he's proposing. It's my understanding that he wants the old top bracket rate of 39.6%, which doesn't apply to the entire $500K, just, say, the amount over $200K (I'm guessing where that top bracket kicks in).
Then, I guess Medved is adding another 12.4% to account for the increased OASDI portion of the FICA tax that Obama proposes to impose on earners with wages, salaries, and self-employed income exceeding $250K.
So, 39.6% + 12.4% = 52%, right?
Another thing is that Medved is describing a business owner (as opposed to some well-paid person) who will see 6.2% of the increased OASDI portion of the FICA tax withheld from his or her paycheck AND whose business will be required to pay a matching 6.2% of the increased OASDI portion of the FICA tax.
So, these kinds of business owners get the direct hit of the increased FICA tax, while well-paid persons will directly see the increased withholding and their employers will factor in the cost of its share of the increased FICA tax somehow.
It's difficult to generalize because every taxpayer's situation is different. Still, be clear as you can about numbers. |
|
|
Good post. Wonder how long before Kimberly denounces you as a Nazi sympathizer because you are trying to be objective about Obama instead of blindly following him. lol |
|
I thought the same thing as I hit "post." Thanks for the comment, it's not worth prevailing if you can't prevail on the facts.
At this point, I couldn't care less about about the witch you mentioned. She managed to disparage Tim Russert in her comment to the blog entry regarding the rainbow that showed up in DC just as Russert's memorial service was ending. Truly unbelievable.
Someone needs to get her medication adjusted. Anyway, I need to get back to firing the furnaces(!). And you're mysogynistic chauvinist who calls women by bad names.
|
|
Sam, I agree with you that it is hard to generalize every taxpayer's situation. I for one am a complete boob head when it comes to taxes, but I am trying to get better.
I was shocked about the inheitance/death tax. Ridiculous! You pay money on the taxes all your life and they after you are gone, some more. I think that should be bolished all together. |
|
Moi, a mysoginist and chauvanist? Please explain after the furnace is fired.
Perhaps I am misunderstood in my remarks to Comrade Kimberly. I have been attempting therapy on her. Pro bono of course. Admittedly, I have failed. This is just more proof that you get what you pay for. lol
Sue: I know how you feel. It really isn't your fault, because they want it to be as confusing as possible to avoid the taxpayers revolting against such an unfair and oppressive system. If you have to spend lots of time studying and researching you are less likely to get wise.
Best wishes to you both. |
|
I do see what you are saying but the reality is it always comes out worse than they originally propose. I am further against any tax increase until any government be it federal, state, local can prove that the money is actually being spent as they said it would be spent. And how many times do I need to hear a tax is temporary when in reality there is no such thing as temporary when it comes to taxes?
Call me cynical since I am Californian but I have heard this song and dance out of politicians far too many times and it seems people fall for it hook, line, and sinker.
|
|
What a rational thread. I haven't been berated or anything.
JimP: no ill-will intended; I was merely trying to respond "in kind." I probably went over the top. I'm sorry. I applaud your therapy efforts. I'm probably too quick with the drug therapy. She made me so mad last week that I flagged her.
Lolo1: Boy, do I hear you on spending before taxes. Fox had a special a few weekends ago that crucified two Repubs and a PA Dem. I'm sure it's the tip of the ice berg. Here's where news outlets should be reporting--and hounding. For example, Hillary got an earmark for a Woodstock Museum? Let her husband foundation pay for it. Earmarks should require that the member of Congress be subject to a three-hour town meeting with regular Joes and Janes where that earmark can be explained. Screw raising taxes until the clean up some messes.
|
|
|
No apology necessary, but thank you. I have concluded that drugs are the only answer also. It is stunning to see such persistent and hate infused ignorance. |
|
Wow, you must really be a cool customer. To admit that you flagged her, only after she suceeded in making you mad, is worthy of praise. As for me, I flag her every post, along with a few other libs with jello for brains. Not too fair or objective, but then neither are their ridiculous posts. I wish all rational contributors on TH, regardless of affliation, would flag these idiots, so we could get rid of them. Then we could get down to honest discussion.
dce5mc |
|
This take from the rich and give to the poor crap is getting out of hand.
People work hard for their money..most people.
Higher taxes are going to hit small business owners hard.
How about a little ambition America?
I put myself through school and now have a good job. Mommy and daddy didn't pay for it. Mommy and daddy didn't buy me a car. I bought my own car. Nobody gave me a credit card when I went off to college to spend what I want with.
Take your life into your own hands America. The Constitution only guarentees your right to PURSUE happiness. It's up to you to grab ahold of it. |
|
I have never flagged one of Kimberly's posts, even though I disagree with every one of them. I just want her to return to the thread and defend her position, instead of being one of those 'drop an opinion and disappear' type of people. It's bad enough that she's wrong; on top of that, she's a wimp.
She's like that former Vice-President who drops the global warming bomb and then refuses to debate any of his dissenters. Perhaps the fact that ALL of them are more qualified to discuss the topic than he is might be the reason why.
I wonder if THAT parallel carries through to Kimberly as well. |
|
First, I want to say that I agree 100% with the sentiments you expressed. Obama is an unrepentant Socialist and needs to be defeated in November.
But I must point out that the Constitution does not guarantee the right to pursue happiness; the "pursuit of Happiness" phrase is from the Declaration of Independence, which, while it IS a critical founding document and should not be discounted, has no legally binding status. Neither does the preamble to the Constitution, although it may be seen to encapsulate the principles that SHOULD guide the laws made under it:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
-- The problem with liberals like Obama is that they interpret "promote the general Welfare" to mean "PROVIDE the general Welfare"; they conveniently and casually disregard the very next phrase, "and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity". They don't believe in Liberty; they believe in (forced) Equality. |
|
I agree with your sentiments 100%. Liberal have hijacked the story of Robin Hood to coat themselves in vanity and glory while they steal from hardworking Americans.
The story of Robin Hood, however, is actually very very conservative.
In the setting of the story, the "rich" aren't wealthy businessmen or entrepreneurs as they are today. Rather, they were noblemen.
And what are noblemen? Elitist members of government. Rulers who broke the back of the citizenry with their hard taxes and cruel laws. They couldn't produce, but they had the power to regulate. And they regulated the populace into serving nobility, rather than bettering themselves.
Sound familiar? It should...it's the platform under which all liberals operate.
So the story OUGHT to say "He stole from the government, and gave to the citizenry." And that, ladies and gentlemen, makes his a conservative hero fighting against government agents and government abuses of power, rather than some silly Marxist with a bow. |
|
I'd love to see everyone pay 10%. Because 10% of 20,000 is nada after the personal deuctions.But 10% of 2,000,000 is alota more !
Keep it simple always works best and is easier to audit.
What do ya say to that kimberly,huh? What about that?
Sorry but her attitude sometimes is way over the top.She should MOVEON. |
|
I would much rather have my tax increase from 35 50 39.6% then the change in FICA. The change in FICA must clearly be some kind of threat against the rich. In a state like New JErsey where I live the top effective tax bracket at the national/state level would be 60% with property taxes thrown in. At that rate I better start thinking major deductions, but I don;t quite make $250,000 so I must be in the Obama fun camp.
|
|
|
rate would increase to 40% above 100,000.And again at 250,000.On top of the other 5 tax increases he has purposed.Your 401 won't be worth investing into by the time you get to enjoy it. Look either way we lose. Any tax increase at this point with rising prices, our oil supply in danger of decreasing due to lack of drillig and/or demand is more than the market and the public can stand. |
|
|
I agree w/ Maggie, the only fair tax is an equal tax. Someone please explain to me why one person has to pay a higher percentage in taxes than another person. I thought we were all supposed to be treated equally? |
|
|
Mike, as the only "famous" TH personality to ever directly respond to a question I once posed; I was wondering if you ever read our (Joe Shmoe) blogs? |
|
|
What the hell are "original tax brackets," yfbouiuctkcihng? If you don't like the fact that President Bush reduced your income tax, then you certainly are encouraged to voluntarily pay more. You CAN do that, and designate that it be used to reduce the federal deficit -- so go for it! |
|
In a perverse sense I almost wish your messiah/hero Obama makes it to POTUS. I for one, produce food...in Brazil. With or without Obama I am already moving my headquarters offshore because the taxes (not to mention some ridiculously petty/bureaucratic demands by U.S. governments at all levels) are untennable as it is.
Most of the animal protein (meats, milk, eggs etc) are nothing but a transfer from grains such as Corn, soybeans etc. Grains are a high energy crop, in fact crude oil bears the brunt of the cost. Pesticides and many fertilizers originate from oil. Then you have the cost of Diesel fuel to prepare the soil, plant, manage and harvest and we haven't included the cost of processing and distribution, also energy intensive.
If you think food prices are high now, based on crude at $ 65 (last year) wait until next year, food will increase well into 30 or even 40% higher than today. Farm subsidies don't even come close to covering regulation costs, therefore, it's more efficient to produce in Brazil, where there are no subsidies, only taxes. |
|
Everything Obama does is about getting the most money from us he can. Right now he wants our money to fund his campaign. Mostly because he knows he needs more than 85 million to convince us to vote for him.
If elected he'll want our money to try to pay for all his programs. The more he gets, the more he feels he can spread around to "help" everyone. Unfortunately, the average taxpayer won't get back in Obama's "help" the extra money paid in. Not through his promised health care, his thoughts on energy or any other changes he so vaguely speaks of.
|
|
|
Still an idiot? The Bush tax cuts worked just like the Reagan and JFK tax cuts- they increased the incentive to produce and spurred the productive to do just that. Lowering the tax rates gave the investor classes the means to invest, not to just buy stuff, but to place capital where it would grow the economy. The end result was, drum roll, please, an INCREASE in Federal collections AND and INCREASE in the percentage that the rich pay. When 50% of the population pays less than 4% of the taxes, are we not progressive enough? Have you heard of the Laffer curve? The only reason to raise taxes is to punish the hard workers, the risk takers the pioneering Americans. FDR would be proud of you (and so would Uncle Joe Stalin). Fool. |
|
is nuts. Really, truly, nuts.
|
|
|
You are wrong on all accounts as usual. Obama is going to make things especially hard for the middle class. Bush has not for me being the middle class. And btw...the middle class is not the "filthy rich" if you didn't already know... |
|
kim - please take your thoughts, along with any friends that share your views, and move to another country because as bad as it may be in the U.S., it will only get worse under obama.
Sadly, you are either too naive or just too stupid to realize how insane your liberal ideologies are. i'd like to think that you're young and don't know any better, but chances are you're just another middle-aged, divorced, bitter hag who was brought up in a 'democratic' household and is too ignorant to know better.
good luck with the rest of your life,,i truly feel sorry for you. wait a minute..you almost had me because you cannot REALLY think thatway, can you?? joke's on me i suppose. good luck, loser. |
|
Obama is NOT QUALIFIED to protect this country.
He is an American hating racist. I have never seen a person in politics speak so much about race, draw so many lines of distinctions about race and then say..."it is the Republicans who are bringing up race...".
The person who is always discussing race is the person with the problem with race. Obama is very far from MLK.
Obama is a hollow construct by Soros... the other American hating lib.
McCain isn't perfect, but I do not doubt his love for America and his willingness to defend our great country. McCain never brings up race...he never wears his religion on his sleeve...he simply talks about what he is going to do, how he would defend America and his affection for America.
McCain is a far cry from "Obambi".
MCCAIN = COMPETENCE AND SECURITY
OBAMBI = HOLLOW MAN WAITING FOR SOROS DIRECTION |
|
Warren supports Sen. Obama's tax plan because he understands the value of a just and equitable tax policy. The Bushie Republican tax policy hasn't benefited the economy, unless you seem to think the current economy is stellar.
Obama's tax plan -
http://obama.3cdn.net/b7be3b7cd08e587dca_v852mv8ja.pdf
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/18/obama.taxplan/index. html
"His plan means billions in breaks by nixing income taxes for the 7 million senior citizens making less than $50,000 a year, establishing a universal credit for the 10 million homeowners who do not itemize their deductions -- most of whom make less than $50,000 annually -- and providing 150 million Americans with tax cuts of up to $1,000."
"Obama proposes funding the tax cuts by closing corporate loopholes, cracking down on international tax havens and increasing the dividend-and-capital-gains tax for the wealthy,"
The problem with Reprobate Tax talk is the misleading notion that all those with high incomes are generating jobs as entrepreneurs or small business owners. That's not true. The vast majority of those high earners are corporate or professional interests, not mom and pop businesses.
Do you feel bad for MedVed, he gets paid handsomely for spewing his questionable, debatable, misleading toxic misinformation. Of course only Reprobates would want to subsidize this through unfair tax policies. |
|
the reason Buffet supports Obama? Three big reasons:
1. Obama has assembled a solid economic team dominated by the Chicago School of Milton Friedman.
2. Obama has demonstrated that he LISTENS and is not going to be an ideologue. He does not want his legacy to be failure.
3. Nobody trusts McCain. He has never demonstrated that he is being guided by strongly held core principles. He is an opportunist who will sell anyone out, particularly his friends, if it suits his purposes.
The GOP has one more chance to get this right, the convention. Right now, the polls
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-poll25-2008jun25 ,0,5763707.story
and comparative fund raising prowess (Obama raised $4m YESTERDAY ALONE in LA) are pointing to a GOP disaster of biblical proportions in November. How many times does a party have to drive off the same cliff before it figures out that they have a problem? The only explanation is it's an act of suicide. |
|
|
I love how politicians say we need to do this or we need to do that to "fund" tax cuts. They are of the mindset that it's their (the govt's) money. |
|
"Obama has demonstrated that he LISTENS and is not going to be an ideologue. He does not want his legacy to be failure."
-- Every politician is an ideologue, including Senator Socialist. And NO politician wants his/her legacy to be a failure.
"Nobody trusts McCain."
-- That's your best non-sequiter ever. Completely meaningless.
"He has never demonstrated that he is being guided by strongly held core principles."
-- That's why we Arizonans keep reelecting him.
"He is an opportunist who will sell anyone out, particularly his friends, if it suits his purposes."
-- Accusations without examples to support them are like porn on the radio.
"How many times does a party have to drive off the same cliff before it figures out that they have a problem?"
-- Winning 9 of the last 14 presidential elections constitutes a problem? |
|
|
In other words, you disagree. Why don't you just say THAT? You vote Republican no matter what. I'll make a note of it. There! Done! |
|
"In other words, you disagree. Why don't you just say THAT?"
-- 1) 'Cause I don't wanna. 2) Because your opinions are all absolutes . . . a very liberal trait, I must say. 'Obama is "NOT" going to be an ideologue'; the absolute truth is that all politicians have a mix of ideology and pragmatism within their characters; many voters respect that mix, especially since a candidate who appears to be mostly pragmatic may just be a poll watcher who takes whatever position he thinks will get him elected, or worse (like Obama) speaks out of both sides of his mouth in order to offend the fewest number of people.
-- "NOBODY trusts McCain." That's an opinion? Not. That's an entirely unsupportable assertion. I was actually trying to be cool about it, but if you want I'll say "I disagree with your lie" next time.
-- "He has NEVER demonstrated ..."; "will sell ANYONE out"; you might as well be saying that Obama shares ALL of Reverend Wright's controversial views, or that he ONLY became a Christian for the sake of political expediency. In other words your opinions are nothing but; you provide no supporting evidence for your conclusions because it does not exist.
"You vote Republican no matter what. I'll make a note of it."
-- Note this: I'm registered as an independent; always have been. As a political conservative I tend to vote for Republicans, but that is NOT a hard and fast rule, especially in local races. However, you can bank on one thing: I will vote for John McCain, no matter what. |
|
|
|