POWELL FOR OBAMA: IT'S NOT ABOUT RACE

TJ, about the fiscal thing? As the current tax sheets read, on the single bracket, anyone who makes more than $164,500 a year is being taxed 33%. What exactly is a "little bit more" and whats his new % for people making 250k+? Now, someone making that kind of money has probably worked hard or really went out on a limb somewhere to be in that situation, (school loans, buying a business or equiptment to start a business) or its a possition that has been handed down from a family member or longtime worker. My point is, these people are the ones that make GREAT and give hope to younger generations to try to acheive in something. A little bump in taxes would be close to 50% tax. How in the world do you think thats fair? By increasing taxes on these people you take the drive out of people to grow. They, like me will do anything possible to stay under that line. If that means not hiring more people, then so be it. Just as long as Im not giving more of MY HARD EARNED money to the government that uses it for things that are destroying our country from the inside out. Im a small business owner and make nowhere near these numbers, and after seeing the sheets I dont want to. Maybe its different for me because I have to write a check every three months to them instead of having it taken out of paycheck and never seeing it, I dont know. But I dont think you have the right to look at someone as a yearly value instead of a hard working person who might have put everything he owned on the line, like I did, to be in the position to make that kind of money. I do respect and thank you for your service and I just ask that you figure your income gross and your percentage plus 10%(OBAMA factor) and see how much you would have to write a check for every three months for taxes. I call it (REAL TAXES) cause it is your money, and you probably worked hard for it too.
 
Raising taxes can only raise revenues. Spending money does cause for deficits.

Im not arguing for raising taxes, Im arguing that if you tax me $1,000 YOU now have MY $1,000.
 
yes, but you're not looking at the bigger picture. there's an old saying, "If you want less of something, tax it."

Tax increases impact people. They make different decisions, different choices. Raising taxes can & often does cause a reduction in economic activity, leading to a net result of less total revenues collected. Lower tax rates have the opposite effect. We collect more total revenues at the lower rates due to increased activity.

It has happened every time we've done it.
 
Quote:
Raising taxes can only raise revenues. Spending money does cause for deficits.

Im not arguing for raising taxes, Im arguing that if you tax me $1,000 YOU now have MY $1,000.



And what does it do to help the economy? Wouldn't you rather distribute that "wealth" where you saw fit? Instead of some government entitlement program?
 
The oner of my dive shop has flat out stated that if her business taxes increase, she'll simply close it down. Out of business.

No retail sales. No new divers being trained, with the gear they buy. People who work there will no longer have those jobs. Their accountant will lose a client, which means part of his income & the subsequent taxes & activity resulting of his spending that money.

Pretty easy to do the math on that. Whatever taxes are generated as a result of that business, federal, state & local, will drop to zero.

Zero is one helluva lot less than they pay now.
 
specializedcc here's what I have from his website, I hope it can answer your questions.

Ordinary Income: The top two income tax brackets would return to their 1990’s levels of 36% and
39.6%. All other tax brackets would remain as they are today. Obama would also restore the 1990’s
levels for the personal exemption and itemized deduction phaseouts (known as PEP and Pease).
Obama would work with the Treasury Department to adjust the thresholds of these rates slightly to
ensure that no married couple making less than $250,000 (or single making less than $200,000) was
affected by these changes.

Capital Gains: Families with incomes below $250,000 will continue to pay the capital gains rates
that they pay today. For those in the top two income tax brackets – likewise adjusted to affect only
families over $250,000 – Obama will create a new top capital gains rate of 20 percent. Obama’s 20%
rate is equal is the lowest rate that existed in the 1990s and the rate that President Bush proposed in
2001. It is almost a third lower than the rate that President Reagan signed into law in 1986.

Dividends: The top dividends rate for people making over $250,000 would be set at 20 percent.
Dividends will not return to being taxed at ordinary income tax rates. Obama’s 20 percent rate on
dividends will be 39 percent lower than the rate President Bush proposed in 2001, and would be
lower than all but 5 of the last 92 years we have been taxing dividends.
 
cjdavis, breathe my friend breathe. I am not supporting it in that post. I am at odds with Stu on the issue that tax increases can only raise revenues. Facts are facts I can only agree that the sky is blue whether I like it or not.

Now here we go again. Having to explain myself. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif As Americans do you agree we like to spend money? I do. When should we take care of our debt? Next year, maybe 2010? How about your kids? I bet they'd love to have your debt. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

When you go into debt and have a bad credit rating what happens to your interest rate? Have you ever been in so deep that you never touch the principle all you do is just chip away at the interest?

 
TJ,

The problems that democrats have around taxes is two-fold. First they NEVER do what they SAY they will DO. Take Stu's example of Clinton's busted promise in 16 days after taking office. Second, they operate on THEORY instead of FACT. In a perfect world, you could raise a businessman's taxes on his 500K income and he would just write the check and be done. However, in practical reality, he will simply raise the cost of his goods he sells and pass the tax along to those below him. As the old saying goes, Sh!t runs down-hill. Wealthy people don't just bend over and grab their ankles and pay up when Uncle Sam says so. They find a way to pass it on.

All of this compounded by the fact that it is just WRONG to take from earners and give it to those who did nothing for it. "From each according to his Ability, To each according to his Need" Sound familiar??? The top 10% of tax payers pay 70% of all revenue. The bottom 40% pay NO federal income tax. How much do you want? Punish achievment and you will kill the golden goose.
 
Tax rates under Kennedy were lowere, revenues increased.

Tax rates under reagan were lowered. In 1980 we took in $500 billion in revenues, in 1988 we took in about $980 billion, just shy of double. In less than 8 years, as it took a couple for him to get congress to lower them.

Bush 41 signed a tax increase for 3 industries. Luxury cars, luxury boats & aircraft. Revenues from those industries shriveled. Some of the manufacturers went out of business to to lack of sales.

Bush 43 lowered tax rates, revenues skyrocketed why the GDP did as well. He got the capital gains rate lowered massively, the capital gains revenues collected in the years since then have sky rocketed.

facts are facts. we have historical data to examine.
 
TJ,

Each time taxes have been substancially cut, under Kennedy, Reagan, GW Bush, revenues have grown wildly. Lower taxes spur growth in the economy and you take a little smaller share of a much bigger pie. Lowering tax rates grows the economy and INCREASES revenue. It is FACT.
 
it seems counter-intuitive, but under bush's lower tax rates, high earners have actually ended up paying a higher percentage of the total revenues collected. why? because lower rates have allowed the to do more, earn more, grow their business. So they pay more, even though it's at a lower rate.
 
You guys are having fun with me, we're 4 minutes into the 5 round and Im winded, this isnt fair. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smiliesmack.gif

Totch you make a very valid point. Im milk product A and I just recieved a tax increase along with milk product B. Milk product A decides he's not going to take it and pass it on. Milk product B bends over.

You the consumer are walking down the isle in the dairy section and have a choice. Milk product A dont sell very good.

My dad is in a business and for a short time I saw the polictical business dealings. His rates had to match his competitors or we didnt have a job the next day. Free market is a good system. History shows that under these republican tax reducing plans the country spends more.

Plus the size of the pie never changes in size in your equation.
 
Taxes exist for a purpose. As a nominally free citizen of the nation, I do tend to fight to retain what bits of our rights, heritage & freedoms remain.

Taxes IMO should be levied to fund the necessary functions of govt. We can argue about what those are, but I'll stick with what's defined in the constitution when it comes to the federal govt.

So we pay taxes for federal lands & roads, to pay for federal offices & the people it takes to staff them, national defense, etc.

taxes should not be used to control or manipulate people.

Obama flat out admitted that his desire to raise taxes was for the express purpose of spreading the wealth around. I don't find that purpose in our constitution. I do find it in the writings of karl marx.

Whether that makes obama a marxist is in the eyes of the beholder. But he isn't saying we need to raise taxes to pay for the military, interstate highways or anything else. He's saying "I want to lower the taxes of most people & raise them on the other 5% for the express purpose of spreading the wealth around."

I call bullsqueeze on that. I don't want the govt doing that. I have a different idea on how you spread the wealth around. You get up off your butt & go do something productive to earn it. Learn something. A skill, a trade, how investing works, what ever.

Don't just sit there waiting for the govt to steal it from another & give it to you. Get up every day & hit it running like someone lit the fuse on your tampon, go out & create value that people will pay for.
 
We agree on something finally Stu. (For the most part)

Except I do feel companies like Walmart, Exxon/Mobil should see a higher tax rate. After all they are the ones capitalizing on the tax immunity of doing business overseas. Walmart selling primarily foreign goods cheaper than can be produced here with a gentler tax rate.

Those are the ones Obama is set out to target and he has said it time and time again. Some look at it as taxing the rich and spreading it around. I simply dont see it that way. He's not going to come out and say "look out Walmart and Exxon/Mobil" in a political campaign.
 
I have more news for you:

He's targeting small businesses, not walmart. Small business are responisble for created over 80% of the jobs in this country. Raising taxes on those people will kill jobs.
 
It's really simple.


When taxes are raised the company has a choice to do one of the following things depending on the burden.

1. Close
2. Pass the rate on to the customer.
3. Reduce quality
4. Reduce Staff
5. Take away benefits.
6. Reduce support
7. Reduce development
8. Reduce advertising which leads to 1 and 4.

Etc Etc etc.

The opposite, which is reducing tax and government burden has the opposite effect on all of these things.


Quote:
History shows that under these republican tax reducing plans the country spends more.




You're right. Because the public gets more return on it. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
 
Yes I do. But take Walmart for example, one we can all relate to. Deals in primarily foreign products and can manage to absorb tax increases while maintianing to keep prices low. No, Sam Walton doesnt open up his wallet and pay all federal taxes incured, we do. but he along with investors can remain in business by sending your and my money overseas to sweat shops making stuffed halloween decorations.

What do you propose, get rid of business taxes altogether and simply stack it on wage taxes since consumers are paying all company taxes anyway?

I may not shop at Dillards, therefore I dont want to pay their taxes, Ill be abliged if I did shop there though. The system we have is as fair as its going to get. Shop at Walmart, pay Walmart's taxes.
 
Back
Top