President Holds Firm on Tax Hikes... Looks The Fiscal Cliff Will Be a BACK BREAKER!

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   


Everyone hold on to their pants. I don't think Obama understands the ramifications of not solving this "Fiscal Cliff" issue...




President Obama, claiming his election "majority" was a vindication of his fiscal policy, held firm Friday to his intention to include tax hikes for America's top earners in any negotiations with Congress to pull the nation back from the so-called "fiscal cliff." The president, in his first remarks from Washington since winning a second term, urged officials to "get to work" on the issue as he invited congressional leaders to the White House next week. He said he's open to "compromise," but did not appear to budge on what has been a central disagreement over the last two years -- whether to extend the Bush-era tax rates for everyone, or to let them lapse for households making more than $250,000. "I refuse to accept any approach that isn't balanced," Obama said Friday, without explicitly mentioning the Bush tax rates. "This was a central question during the election ... and on Tuesday night, we found out that a majority of Americans agree with my approach." "Our job now is to get a majority in Congress to reflect the will of the American people." Read more: www.foxnews.com...


If this isn't solved, I see many businesses pulling back and letting go of employees. Me being a potential candidate. This is super serious... we don't need another recession!
edit on 11/9/12 by davcwebb because: (no reason given)


edit on 11/9/12 by davcwebb because: (no reason given)
edit on 11/9/12 by davcwebb because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   
recession?! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA


No, this isn't a recession, it is a full on depression.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Don't think we've ever left the recession status, we certainly don't need a depression.

The layoffs have already begun within my family. I've spent a lengthy amount of time yesterday on the phone with financial advisors and made necessary preparations to my investments portfolio to brace for the forthcoming negative impacts as best I can.
Time will tell, things can go a number of ways.
edit on 9-11-2012 by Lonewulph because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   
He is intent on Tax hikes on the upper income 'Wealthyist' earners sure sounds great to the Sheeple.
just to help hide the middle class tax increases that will come in both 2013=14 as the ACA and other wealth-redistribution programs gear up...as a result of mandatory healthcare insurance coverage imposed on small businesses & individuals..
'

the man will play with the figures to show his 20-25% increase on the high earners income taxes (supposedly) outweighs the 'modest' increases of the upper and middle income wage earners..... and he sure hopes that explaination will fly with the Sheeple....

the masses will have only a tiny tax increase,compared to the ultra rich the CIC will explain to the people:
(when he SWORE) that the middle class would not get any tax increase at all----

but Øbama will protest that 'he' is hammering the rich with even more severe tax increases So....
we should all shut our mouths and accept the leaders dirction
edit on 9-11-2012 by St Udio because: stuff
edit on 9-11-2012 by St Udio because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   
I think that the top income earners need to be paying more. They should be paying the same percentage of their income that I do.

I pay a little over 22% of my gross annual income in federal taxes/programs. We don't have a State income tax or a city sales tax here. That 22% is just what the Federal Gov. takes from me. I think it's only fair that a billionaire pay a similar percentage.

And yes, I have my taxes done professionally -- and don't harp on how I could file a better return. I've looked and asked. I don't have any kids, I am not married, I don't own a business. I may get a charitable donation deduction from the Salvation Army for old clothes, but that's about it.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   
I think bumping them from 35% to 39.6% isn't enough if anything. That's just the marginal top tax rate, not the effective top tax rate. Between tax breaks, write off, etc. few are probably paying anywhere close to that top rate. If we an effective top tax rate of 40% that would be a good start.

Congress needs to realize that there's no way the rich aren't seeing pre-bush jr. tax rates. They should try and compromise to see what the best deal they can get is. If we do hit the financial cliff and sink back into a recession, people will blame congress.

As for the people who say we are still in a recession or depression. You need to get out more. The difference between now and 09 is night and day.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by MystikMushroom
 


and what of the people who live in a high tax state, such as NY. I'm paying a higher rate than you on my family income and I'm tagged with an additional 11.5% for the state and city. All told, roughly half goes out the _

I would be thrilled if I paid 22% federal, as would the majority of the highest earners becuase, as it stands, they're in brackets over 30% and as high as 35%. With the Bush cut expiration, those rates will jump as high as 39.6%

So, for a dual income family in NYC, earning $400,000, 51.1% goes to income tax and 7.65% of the first $100k (roughly) goes to Social Security and Medicare.


I will pay federal taxes in the 20's with pleasure and I'll even let them spend my hard earned money on pointless programs and wastefull congressional salaries.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by grimreaper797
 


if they raise one bracket, they should raise them all. why should the top tiers suffer the burden alone?



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Crakeur
 


I'm okay with raising rates across the board, so long as the rates raised on the rich are significantly raised higher than the low earners of the country.

10% to 12%
15% to 17%
25% to 27%
28% to 31%
33% to 37%
35% to 47%

I have no problem with raising the rates a little on lower classes a percentage point or two. But the bulk of tax raises need to come on those making in the top 10%, specifically the top 1%.


edit: and to be honest, I'm talking about millionaires. Families making 400,000 are not really the target group to raise it on. I'm sure they are paying a fair share in taxes. I'm talking about people making 1 million dollars or more. This group could be paying 50% plus of their income when all is said and done and still be making more than most families in 'well off' neighborhoods of the country BEFORE they get hit with taxes. So yeah. The millionaires of this country can afford to foot the bill.
edit on 9-11-2012 by grimreaper797 because: edit to add



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by davcwebb
 


Taxes will go up. That's as obvious as the lines for Obama-phones.

But we also get to have higher costs to everything!

YAY!

Because only those mean, greedy, rich will get taxed, but they'll get to pass those along with the prices of goods and services.

(Because it's the rich that own the companies that provide those goods and services)

YAY!

AWESOME!




posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by grimreaper797
 


that's nonsense. if you want to raise the top bracket 12%, raise the bottom bracket 12%. let them feel the burn as well.


The way to correct the tax issue is not to raise the top bracket up but to create more brackets. People making $400,000 should not pay the same rate as people making $4,000,000.


much like people making $40,000 shouldn't pay the same rate as someone making $400,000.


This attitude of taking from the top bracket doesn't take into consideration the fact that the top bracket stretches from $388,500 (appx) on up.

And what of the married folks who make the same as a single guy. Shouldn't married people get with dual incomes have brackets that differ from single income households?

There are so many ways to fix this that don't include simply raising the top bracket to punish those that are making more than you are and it can be done in a manner that would create a far more equitable approach to all incomes.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur

and what of the people who live in a high tax state, such as NY. I'm paying a higher rate than you on my family income and I'm tagged with an additional 11.5% for the state and city. All told, roughly half goes out the _

So, for a dual income family in NYC, earning $400,000, 51.1% goes to income tax and 7.65% of the first $100k (roughly) goes to Social Security and Medicare.



May I suggest Texas or Florida?

Last one out of NY or California, please turn off the lights.
edit on 9-11-2012 by solidguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   
I want to ask, why is it that the US has a record number of millionaires in the post meltdown of 2008-2009 (3.1 million millionaires in 2010, the previous peak was 3 million, pre meltdown) and yet they are paying so little in taxes?

blogs.wsj.com...


According to the annual World Wealth Report from Merill Lynch and Capgemini, the U.S. had 3.1 million millionaires in 2010, up from 2.86 million in 2009. The latest figure tops the pre-crisis peak of three million.

Merrill and Capgemini define millionaires as individuals with $1 million or more in investible assets, not including primary home, collectibles, consumables and consumer durables.

The wealth held by these millionaires also hit a record. North American millionaires had a combined wealth of $11.6 trillion, up from $10.7 trillion in 2009.


Millionaire is somebody who has 1 million in investing assests AFTER their home and consumable products.

3.1 million people is roughly the top 1% of the country. The top 1 percent is the group that we need to be taxing more. Sure, I think over 250,000 could afford a little more, but I really just care about that top 1% paying more.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   
I think in my "No Mr. Romney, Rich People Do Not Create Jobs" discussion we toyed with the idea of a combination of a VAT or "Consumption Tax" with a very low flat tax.

Basically, throw out all the current tax rates-- install a VAT-like consuption tax, and put a flat 15% across the board income tax. I'm not sure that would be enough.

I'm all about sollutions and not bickering about the cause of the problem!



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Crakeur
 


Yes I agree, anybody in the top 1% of the country should be paying more, significantly more than a family making 400,000 a year. I also think that a single person making 400,000 should be paying more than a family making 400,000 (though, I thought this was already the case? I wouldn't know, I'm a poor single person, always have been haha)

I also don't think that goes far enough. And no, I don't think raising rate equally across the board is equal.

Let's say a guy is making 50,000 a year (average worker pay). Let's take a guy making 500,000 a year. 50,000 a year is taxed at 25%. That takes him down to 37500. 500,000 is at 35%, so that takes him down to 325,000. But lets raise the rates 10% across the board. 500,000 goes down to 275,000. He's gone from the top 2% of earners in the country before the federal taxes down to, well he's still in the top 2 percent (before state and local taxes obviously). The guy making 50,000 went down to 32,500.

Now, that might seem fair to you, but the value of a dollar increases as the amount of dollars you have decreases. The value of an extra 10,000 dollars isn't all that much for the guy at 275,000 dollars. An increase in earnings of about 3.6 percent. But the extra 10,000 dollars for the guy at 32,500? An increase of almost 31% of his income. So clearly, as you make less money, the value of each dollar increases. As you make more the value of each individual dollar decreases. An extra 10,000 dollars to a millionaire is a drop in the bucket, it wouldn't even effect their spending habits or budgeting process. But that 10,000 dollars to that average worker is a HUGE boost in income. So if the value of the dollar is not equal, how can we say raising rates the same percentage is equal?

edit on 9-11-2012 by grimreaper797 because: clarified vague wording.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by grimreaper797
 


how do you know what they, collectively, paid in taxes?



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Crakeur
 


Because the majority of people that make over 1 million dollars do it through investments, dividends, etc. and not through wages. Take Mitt Romney for example. Made roughly 20 million in 2011, he'll pay roughly 15% to the IRS. That's why these marginal top bracket tax rates aren't accurate. I want them paying 40% on their INCOME, not their wages earned. There's a dramatic different. It's a problem.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by grimreaper797
 


It might help to know the brackets which you are looking to change.

2012 for single filers
$0 - $8,700 10%
$8,700- $35,350 $870 + 15% of everything over $8,700
$35,350 - $85,650 $4,687.5 + 25% of everything over $35,350
$85,650 -$178,650 $17,442.5 + 28% of everything over $85,650
$178,650 - $388,350 $43,482.5 + 33% of everything over $178,650
$388,650 - $112,683.5 + 35% of everything over $388,650


the brackets are slighty different for married filers except for the top tier which starts at $388,650 but has an insultingly low discount on the initial amount of tax ($105,062 instead of $112,684)

it's asinine to think that someone in the top tier above should be paying the same tax rates as a guy making $1,000,000 or more. they need to add more brackets, more tax rates.

they need to scale it higher from the bottom on up although anyone making under $15k shouldn't pay taxes.

(note that the amounts above are all based on taxable income, not gross income)



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797

Because the majority of people that make over 1 million dollars do it through investments, dividends, etc. and not through wages.


you need to provide me with some back-up for these kinds of claims





top topics
 
3

log in

join