It should be made clear that the increase in taxes is only on whatever income you make that's OVER $250K. Not the whole thing.

Godfather it seems you'd like McCain's tax policy better, yet you'd rather Obama win.

 

 

My voting for Obama has little to do with his tax policy. I'm not voting for one or the other because they toss me an extra 400 bucks. Maybe were all other things equal, or if we were in a really boring, stable period in history.

Godfather it seems you'd like McCain's tax policy better, yet you'd rather Obama win.

 

 

My voting for Obama has little to do with his tax policy. I'm not voting for one or the other because they toss me an extra 400 bucks. Maybe were all other things equal, or if we were in a really boring, stable period in history.

 

I really don't like either tax plan at all, but I guess I'd prefer McCain only because he doesn't advocate raising anyone's taxes. I'd rather Obama win though because I have some small faith that maybe in 2012 the republicans nominate someone who is actually a conservative and goes back to what the party actually believes in and also because I think maybe, just maybe when people see that things are still bad (if not worse) under an Obama presidency combined with his democratic congress...we won't be able to make any excuses anymore and maybe that leads to some real change in the way the masses currently view politics.

First of all, please don't turn this into a McCain vs. Obama argument, as I have mentioned many times I am not voting for either, in fact at this point I am rooting for an Obama win for a myriad of other reasons. But I have a question for the Obama faithful (you know who you are) regarding his tax plan: I assume none of you make over $250,000 a year, if you do even better..so let's make this a hypothetical question. Let's say you make exactly $250,000 a year, you're not rich, but you live comfortably. Would you rather A. be taxed an additional ten % a year or B. Give an extra $25,000 a year to charity? or maybe C. Start a small business with that $25,000 as seed money.

 

If you choose A, does that mean you trust the government will spend your money better than you could? Would you honestly have no qualms about giving that extra $25,000 when you already get taxed a high rate (let's say 20%) and yet you see that the government (republicans and democrats) has put us in a huge hole? Maybe it's not a question of would you rather, but instead a question of would you be comfortable giving the government that extra money when you obviously know how to make money and the government only seems to know to print money and create debt.

 

I know it seems like a baiting question, but I'd love some honest answers. I think a lot of people who support this plan think just this is just play money and it doesn't matter if some people are going to get taxed more as it isn't one of them...but if it was...how would you feel about that?

 

You make $250K and own a small business or you make $250K as an employee? It's a relevant question because his tax plan treats those two scenarios differently.

First of all, please don't turn this into a McCain vs. Obama argument, as I have mentioned many times I am not voting for either, in fact at this point I am rooting for an Obama win for a myriad of other reasons. But I have a question for the Obama faithful (you know who you are) regarding his tax plan: I assume none of you make over $250,000 a year, if you do even better..so let's make this a hypothetical question. Let's say you make exactly $250,000 a year, you're not rich, but you live comfortably. Would you rather A. be taxed an additional ten % a year or B. Give an extra $25,000 a year to charity? or maybe C. Start a small business with that $25,000 as seed money.

 

If you choose A, does that mean you trust the government will spend your money better than you could? Would you honestly have no qualms about giving that extra $25,000 when you already get taxed a high rate (let's say 20%) and yet you see that the government (republicans and democrats) has put us in a huge hole? Maybe it's not a question of would you rather, but instead a question of would you be comfortable giving the government that extra money when you obviously know how to make money and the government only seems to know to print money and create debt.

 

I know it seems like a baiting question, but I'd love some honest answers. I think a lot of people who support this plan think just this is just play money and it doesn't matter if some people are going to get taxed more as it isn't one of them...but if it was...how would you feel about that?

 

You make $250K and own a small business or you make $250K as an employee? It's a relevant question because his tax plan treats those two scenarios differently.

 

For the sake of this argument let's say you are an employee.

It should be made clear that the increase in taxes is only on whatever income you make that's OVER $250K. Not the whole thing.

 

Except that isn't the case. Also, Obama has proposed 3 distinct payroll taxes that total anywhere from 9%-15% depending upon who you ask and when you ask it. I happen to think that anyone expects an all-Democrat government not to drastically increase taxes is plain stupid.

First of all, please don't turn this into a McCain vs. Obama argument, as I have mentioned many times I am not voting for either, in fact at this point I am rooting for an Obama win for a myriad of other reasons. But I have a question for the Obama faithful (you know who you are) regarding his tax plan: I assume none of you make over $250,000 a year, if you do even better..so let's make this a hypothetical question. Let's say you make exactly $250,000 a year, you're not rich, but you live comfortably. Would you rather A. be taxed an additional ten % a year or B. Give an extra $25,000 a year to charity? or maybe C. Start a small business with that $25,000 as seed money.

 

If you choose A, does that mean you trust the government will spend your money better than you could? Would you honestly have no qualms about giving that extra $25,000 when you already get taxed a high rate (let's say 20%) and yet you see that the government (republicans and democrats) has put us in a huge hole? Maybe it's not a question of would you rather, but instead a question of would you be comfortable giving the government that extra money when you obviously know how to make money and the government only seems to know to print money and create debt.

 

I know it seems like a baiting question, but I'd love some honest answers. I think a lot of people who support this plan think just this is just play money and it doesn't matter if some people are going to get taxed more as it isn't one of them...but if it was...how would you feel about that?

 

You make $250K and own a small business or you make $250K as an employee? It's a relevant question because his tax plan treats those two scenarios differently.

 

For the sake of this argument let's say you are an employee.

 

Wouldn't make a difference to me because I genuinely believe the policies that Obama promotes are better for the country, even if it means I pay more in taxes. I don't see things just from my own narrow perspective and interests.

First of all, please don't turn this into a McCain vs. Obama argument, as I have mentioned many times I am not voting for either, in fact at this point I am rooting for an Obama win for a myriad of other reasons. But I have a question for the Obama faithful (you know who you are) regarding his tax plan: I assume none of you make over $250,000 a year, if you do even better..so let's make this a hypothetical question. Let's say you make exactly $250,000 a year, you're not rich, but you live comfortably. Would you rather A. be taxed an additional ten % a year or B. Give an extra $25,000 a year to charity? or maybe C. Start a small business with that $25,000 as seed money.

 

If you choose A, does that mean you trust the government will spend your money better than you could? Would you honestly have no qualms about giving that extra $25,000 when you already get taxed a high rate (let's say 20%) and yet you see that the government (republicans and democrats) has put us in a huge hole? Maybe it's not a question of would you rather, but instead a question of would you be comfortable giving the government that extra money when you obviously know how to make money and the government only seems to know to print money and create debt.

 

I know it seems like a baiting question, but I'd love some honest answers. I think a lot of people who support this plan think just this is just play money and it doesn't matter if some people are going to get taxed more as it isn't one of them...but if it was...how would you feel about that?

 

You make $250K and own a small business or you make $250K as an employee? It's a relevant question because his tax plan treats those two scenarios differently.

 

For the sake of this argument let's say you are an employee.

 

Wouldn't make a difference to me because I genuinely believe the policies that Obama promotes are better for the country, even if it means I pay more in taxes. I don't see things just from my own narrow perspective and interests.

 

 

Thanks for actually answering the question. I know you said you don't see things from your own perspective, but do you feel this way because you personally don't think you could do more good with the extra X amount of dollars, or because you don't trust others who make that salary with the extra X dollars (don't trust that they would spend it doing good for the economy or maybe charity?) and would rather Obama and the government have it?

 

I know it sounds like baiting, but I just have a hard time understanding why people would support this plan if they put themselves in the bracket that is being taxed more.

First of all, please don't turn this into a McCain vs. Obama argument, as I have mentioned many times I am not voting for either, in fact at this point I am rooting for an Obama win for a myriad of other reasons. But I have a question for the Obama faithful (you know who you are) regarding his tax plan: I assume none of you make over $250,000 a year, if you do even better..so let's make this a hypothetical question. Let's say you make exactly $250,000 a year, you're not rich, but you live comfortably. Would you rather A. be taxed an additional ten % a year or B. Give an extra $25,000 a year to charity? or maybe C. Start a small business with that $25,000 as seed money.

 

If you choose A, does that mean you trust the government will spend your money better than you could? Would you honestly have no qualms about giving that extra $25,000 when you already get taxed a high rate (let's say 20%) and yet you see that the government (republicans and democrats) has put us in a huge hole? Maybe it's not a question of would you rather, but instead a question of would you be comfortable giving the government that extra money when you obviously know how to make money and the government only seems to know to print money and create debt.

 

I know it seems like a baiting question, but I'd love some honest answers. I think a lot of people who support this plan think just this is just play money and it doesn't matter if some people are going to get taxed more as it isn't one of them...but if it was...how would you feel about that?

 

You make $250K and own a small business or you make $250K as an employee? It's a relevant question because his tax plan treats those two scenarios differently.

 

For the sake of this argument let's say you are an employee.

 

Wouldn't make a difference to me because I genuinely believe the policies that Obama promotes are better for the country, even if it means I pay more in taxes. I don't see things just from my own narrow perspective and interests.

 

 

Thanks for actually answering the question. I know you said you don't see things from your own perspective, but do you feel this way because you personally don't think you could do more good with the extra X amount of dollars, or because you don't trust others who make that salary with the extra X dollars (don't trust that they would spend it doing good for the economy or maybe charity?) and would rather Obama and the government have it?

 

I know it sounds like baiting, but I just have a hard time understanding why people would support this plan if they put themselves in the bracket that is being taxed more.

 

I think the government ought to provide a certain foundation which should lead to permanent and stable economic growth and social development - in other words, education, infrastructure, etc. That requires money - it ain't free, and neither prinmemo nor Godfather is going to give their money for the development of roads and bridges around the country and the building of public schools for our children (or funding of universities). In other words, this can only be done if the government collects taxes - otherwise it is too chaotic. Now, having said that, there is the question of how much you tax people. I think that people that are doing well (making a lot of money and already have substantial assets) should pay a higher proportion of their incomes than poorer people because poorer people use a very large percentage of their income on essentials (food, housing, etc.). In other words, we (the top 10 percent of income earners) have a lot more disposible income than someone making $25K. As a result, we can bear a little more of the burden than someone making next to nothing.

 

To me, it's about being practical. You need X amount of money to do these important things and you need to collect that money from workers and companies. The question is what kind of tax structure you're going to have. I favor the one I just outlined.

 

Now, having said that, I would like lower taxes for everyone - who doesn't? And this doesn't mean I don't get upset when the government spends our money inefficiently. But those are different questions - you can have a tax scheme like the one I favor and spend the money well. Ideally, that's how it would be.

 

Now, for the reasons I just mentioned, I don't think the question of "who do you think can spend your money better" is relevant here if you agree that the government must provide certain things (like infrastructure, education, etc.). Your question is only relevant when the government starts spending money on things it shouldn't - in other words, discretionary spending on things that won't make much of a difference to our economy or social development. In that case, i agree with you - give me my money and stop trying to hook up your friends or supporters or whatever. But that constitutes such a small percentage of our budget that think it's a question that is overblown.

 

So, the answer to your question is that I think I should pay a higher percentage of my income in taxes than the vast majority of Americans because I make a lot more.

I think the government ought to provide a certain foundation which should lead to permanent and stable economic growth and social development - in other words, education, infrastructure, etc. That requires money - it ain't free, and neither prinmemo nor Godfather is going to give their money for the development of roads and bridges around the country and the building of public schools for our children (or funding of universities). In other words, this can only be done if the government collects taxes - otherwise it is too chaotic. Now, having said that, there is the question of how much you tax people. I think that people that are doing well (making a lot of money and already have substantial assets) should pay a higher proportion of their incomes than poorer people because poorer people use a very large percentage of their income on essentials (food, housing, etc.). In other words, we (the top 10 percent of income earners) have a lot more disposible income than someone making $25K. As a result, we can bear a little more of the burden than someone making next to nothing.

 

To me, it's about being practical. You need X amount of money to do these important things and you need to collect that money from workers and companies. The question is what kind of tax structure you're going to have. I favor the one I just outlined.

 

Now, having said that, I would like lower taxes for everyone - who doesn't? And this doesn't mean I don't get upset when the government spends our money inefficiently. But those are different questions - you can have a tax scheme like the one I favor and spend the money well. Ideally, that's how it would be.

 

Now, for the reasons I just mentioned, I don't think the question of "who do you think can spend your money better" is relevant here if you agree that the government must provide certain things (like infrastructure, education, etc.). Your question is only relevant when the government starts spending money on things it shouldn't - in other words, discretionary spending on things that won't make much of a difference to our economy or social development. In that case, i agree with you - give me my money and stop trying to hook up your friends or supporters or whatever. But that constitutes such a small percentage of our budget that think it's a question that is overblown.

 

So, the answer to your question is that I think I should pay a higher percentage of my income in taxes than the vast majority of Americans because I make a lot more.

 

 

 

See the problem I have with that is you are almost making it sound like this is an argument vs. No taxes and higher taxes. Going off a previous post by FM, the infamous $250k+ tax bracket is already paying 35% of their total income to the government; under Obama's plan, he would increase that by 4% so an increase of about $10,000 in real money.

 

Now the question boils down to: if you are in the bracket, would you honestly be ok paying that EXTRA money to a government (remember the democrats have control of congress, so you can't just blame Bush) that has us in a trillion dollar debt, is fighting wars all over the country that the people don't want us to be in, bailing out the bankers (Obama voted for the bailout, remember) and inflating the dollar? I just can't fathom someone in that bracket (who is obviously good at things like creating wealth and smart with money) being ok giving MORE money to the government that has so badly screwed things up and put us in this debt.

 

It's not that the 'rich' are getting off easy right now and paying a low amount, they are certainly paying enough to fund the things you list as necessary that the government should provide the people.

I think the government ought to provide a certain foundation which should lead to permanent and stable economic growth and social development - in other words, education, infrastructure, etc. That requires money - it ain't free, and neither prinmemo nor Godfather is going to give their money for the development of roads and bridges around the country and the building of public schools for our children (or funding of universities). In other words, this can only be done if the government collects taxes - otherwise it is too chaotic. Now, having said that, there is the question of how much you tax people. I think that people that are doing well (making a lot of money and already have substantial assets) should pay a higher proportion of their incomes than poorer people because poorer people use a very large percentage of their income on essentials (food, housing, etc.). In other words, we (the top 10 percent of income earners) have a lot more disposible income than someone making $25K. As a result, we can bear a little more of the burden than someone making next to nothing.

 

To me, it's about being practical. You need X amount of money to do these important things and you need to collect that money from workers and companies. The question is what kind of tax structure you're going to have. I favor the one I just outlined.

 

Now, having said that, I would like lower taxes for everyone - who doesn't? And this doesn't mean I don't get upset when the government spends our money inefficiently. But those are different questions - you can have a tax scheme like the one I favor and spend the money well. Ideally, that's how it would be.

 

Now, for the reasons I just mentioned, I don't think the question of "who do you think can spend your money better" is relevant here if you agree that the government must provide certain things (like infrastructure, education, etc.). Your question is only relevant when the government starts spending money on things it shouldn't - in other words, discretionary spending on things that won't make much of a difference to our economy or social development. In that case, i agree with you - give me my money and stop trying to hook up your friends or supporters or whatever. But that constitutes such a small percentage of our budget that think it's a question that is overblown.

 

So, the answer to your question is that I think I should pay a higher percentage of my income in taxes than the vast majority of Americans because I make a lot more.

 

 

 

See the problem I have with that is you are almost making it sound like this is an argument vs. No taxes and higher taxes. Going off a previous post by FM, the infamous $250k+ tax bracket is already paying 35% of their total income to the government; under Obama's plan, he would increase that by 4% so an increase of about $10,000 in real money.

 

Now the question boils down to: if you are in the bracket, would you honestly be ok paying that EXTRA money to a government (remember the democrats have control of congress, so you can't just blame Bush) that has us in a trillion dollar debt, is fighting wars all over the country that the people don't want us to be in, bailing out the bankers (Obama voted for the bailout, remember) and inflating the dollar? I just can't fathom someone in that bracket (who is obviously good at things like creating wealth and smart with money) being ok giving MORE money to the government that has so badly screwed things up and put us in this debt.

 

It's not that the 'rich' are getting off easy right now and paying a low amount, they are certainly paying enough to fund the things you list as necessary that the government should provide the people.

 

I am okay with it and I know a lot of other people that are, too. I don't disagree with you that it's a high rate - but we have little choice now. We need to get a grip on spending but at the same time make important investments (alternative energy, education, etc.), so someone will have to pay those taxes, and I think that scheme is fine.

 

I understand your concern - if Bush were proposing these tax increases then I would hesitate (anything Bush proposes you gotta take a deep look at). At this point, Obama's government should be given the benefit of the doubt. If he doesn't do anything to merit any confidence in the first two years in office, then I would re-evaluate my statements above. Until then, I am okay with it.

 

Does that make sense?

Come on. They're not ACTUALLY paying 35% of their income in taxes, not if they know how to do their taxes properly. There are tons of loopholes that (especially) corporations use to keep their money out of the hands of the US government. These people aren't stupid. They know how to keep their taxes as low as possible by gaming the system. They'll be perfectly fine.

I am okay with it and I know a lot of other people that are, too. I don't disagree with you that it's a high rate - but we have little choice now. We need to get a grip on spending but at the same time make important investments (alternative energy, education, etc.), so someone will have to pay those taxes, and I think that scheme is fine.

 

 

If you're in the bracket and you're ok with it, I am in no place to say otherwise. I would just rather see a president as you say cut back the spending and let those that have done a better job with making money keep it. You say someone has to pay those taxes, but again..I'd say that we (the entire US public) are already paying those taxes, as the rates are high enough to take care of the necessitates. It's comparable IMO to a spoiled teenager getting a great allowance but who is living way beyond their means and highly in debt, yet they are asking for more allowance from their better off parents.

 

I understand your concern - if Bush were proposing these tax increases then I would hesitate (anything Bush proposes you gotta take a deep look at). At this point, Obama's government should be given the benefit of the doubt. If he doesn't do anything to merit any confidence in the first two years in office, then I would re-evaluate my statements above. Until then, I am okay with it.

 

 

Bush is an idiot who has done just about nothing right, I think everyone can agree with that, but just because it is NOT Bush asking for the money doesn't lessen my concern. This is part of the reason I am hoping for an Obama victory, it's too easy (now and if McCain is elected) to use the BUSH SUCKS excuse as the solution to everything.

 

I'm also not sure what Obama has done with money or even his training in economics that would inspire faith in his ability with it? But if you have the answer to that I am open to hearing it. I'm not sure if you maybe support it, but I personally find it troubling that Obama's first major vote on an economic issue is a vote in favor of the bailout package. Did you have no qualms about his decision to support that package?

 

I guess going back to the spoiled teenager theory - I'd feel more comfortable letting them prove they are responsible with the money they already have first before being ok to hand them over more, no matter how well off I was.

 

I'd also ask if you think one of the problems we are facing right now is the government lacking money?

I am okay with it and I know a lot of other people that are, too. I don't disagree with you that it's a high rate - but we have little choice now. We need to get a grip on spending but at the same time make important investments (alternative energy, education, etc.), so someone will have to pay those taxes, and I think that scheme is fine.

 

 

If you're in the bracket and you're ok with it, I am in no place to say otherwise. I would just rather see a president as you say cut back the spending and let those that have done a better job with making money keep it. You say someone has to pay those taxes, but again..I'd say that we (the entire US public) are already paying those taxes, as the rates are high enough to take care of the necessitates. It's comparable IMO to a spoiled teenager getting a great allowance but who is living way beyond their means and highly in debt, yet they are asking for more allowance from their better off parents.

 

I understand your concern - if Bush were proposing these tax increases then I would hesitate (anything Bush proposes you gotta take a deep look at). At this point, Obama's government should be given the benefit of the doubt. If he doesn't do anything to merit any confidence in the first two years in office, then I would re-evaluate my statements above. Until then, I am okay with it.

 

 

Bush is an idiot who has done just about nothing right, I think everyone can agree with that, but just because it is NOT Bush asking for the money doesn't lessen my concern. This is part of the reason I am hoping for an Obama victory, it's too easy (now and if McCain is elected) to use the BUSH SUCKS excuse as the solution to everything.

 

I'm also not sure what Obama has done with money or even his training in economics that would inspire faith in his ability with it? But if you have the answer to that I am open to hearing it. I'm not sure if you maybe support it, but I personally find it troubling that Obama's first major vote on an economic issue is a vote in favor of the bailout package. Did you have no qualms about his decision to support that package?

 

I guess going back to the spoiled teenager theory - I'd feel more comfortable letting them prove they are responsible with the money they already have first before being ok to hand them over more, no matter how well off I was.

 

I'd also ask if you think one of the problems we are facing right now is the government lacking money?

 

I'm in agreement with basically everything you said. Of course, we need to spend our money more wisely, and that would enable the government to be efficient while using less of our hard earned income to do so. I have no disagreement with you there. And I understand your analogy - it makes sense.

 

About Obama, I think it's more his intellect and his willingness to engage in vibrant and open discussions with multiple knowledgeable parties to try to resolve issues that gives me confidence. I think he's genuinely is open to different ideas and is willing to engage in thoughtful dialogue. That's really the main thing for me - it shows that he's not too rigid and that he's practical. I guess this is short for "temperament".

 

I hope I am right, but if I am wrong then I will be the first to admit it.

To Penguino:

 

Don't call me a liar. You and I have different beliefs on the role of government and therefore will likely disagree on a lot of things, but that doesn't make my arguments disingenuous.

It's for you to decide. Don't avoid the issue by getting melodramatic on me.

 

Tell me, precisely, what are the roles of the federal government (if any) outside of the ones you've outlined above?

 

I'll more fully respond another time. I've worked 15 hour days for over a week straight and frankly don't feel like doing this now.

Bush is an idiot who has done just about nothing right, I think everyone can agree with that, but just because it is NOT Bush asking for the money doesn't lessen my concern. This is part of the reason I am hoping for an Obama victory, it's too easy (now and if McCain is elected) to use the BUSH SUCKS excuse as the solution to everything.

One of the main problems with this country (rather, the ignorant voters) is that people tend to believe that the president is to preside over the entire economy.

 

This election should be about an actual change in philosophy. Obviously, it's almost entirely about George W. Bush, or else the people wouldn't be trying to forge policy differences between Obama and McCain.

 

Concur on all that. Obama has done an excellent job of making this campaign about him vs. Bush. The Democrats could have put just about anyone on their ticket and won this thing.

 

As for your first point, it's like Walter Williams said: "In general, presidents and congressmen have very limited power to do good for the economy and awesome power to do bad. The best good thing that politicians can do for the economy is to stop doing bad."

Come on. They're not ACTUALLY paying 35% of their income in taxes, not if they know how to do their taxes properly. There are tons of loopholes that (especially) corporations use to keep their money out of the hands of the US government. These people aren't stupid. They know how to keep their taxes as low as possible by gaming the system. They'll be perfectly fine.

Come on, Big Bad Exxon paid 41% in income taxes the last three years.

I think the government ought to provide a certain foundation which should lead to permanent and stable economic growth and social development - in other words, education, infrastructure, etc. That requires money - it ain't free, and neither prinmemo nor Godfather is going to give their money for the development of roads and bridges around the country and the building of public schools for our children (or funding of universities). In other words, this can only be done if the government collects taxes - otherwise it is too chaotic. Now, having said that, there is the question of how much you tax people. I think that people that are doing well (making a lot of money and already have substantial assets) should pay a higher proportion of their incomes than poorer people because poorer people use a very large percentage of their income on essentials (food, housing, etc.). In other words, we (the top 10 percent of income earners) have a lot more disposible income than someone making $25K. As a result, we can bear a little more of the burden than someone making next to nothing.

Don't you think Obama's top rate of 50% (*) on small business owners would lead to a reduction in investment and risk taking which equals fewer jobs?

 

(*) includes payroll tax.

I think the government ought to provide a certain foundation which should lead to permanent and stable economic growth and social development - in other words, education, infrastructure, etc. That requires money - it ain't free, and neither prinmemo nor Godfather is going to give their money for the development of roads and bridges around the country and the building of public schools for our children (or funding of universities). In other words, this can only be done if the government collects taxes - otherwise it is too chaotic. Now, having said that, there is the question of how much you tax people. I think that people that are doing well (making a lot of money and already have substantial assets) should pay a higher proportion of their incomes than poorer people because poorer people use a very large percentage of their income on essentials (food, housing, etc.). In other words, we (the top 10 percent of income earners) have a lot more disposible income than someone making $25K. As a result, we can bear a little more of the burden than someone making next to nothing.

Don't you think Obama's top rate of 50% (*) on small business owners would lead to a reduction in investment and risk taking which equals fewer jobs?

 

(*) includes payroll tax.

 

1) Define small business.

2) Clarify whether you mean it will be 50% after some level of profit.

 

I'll give you my answer once you clarify those two points.

I'm jumping in very late but I wanted to mention a few things.

 

The constitution gives Congress the power to tax, so there are always going to be federal taxes. The problem is that we discuss ability to pay by income and not by actual wealth. A single person living in Wisconisn that eanr 250K is "richer" than a guy in NYC that makes 250K and is the single parent of 3 kids. These types of arbitrary income based numbers show why the current tax system is flawed. In addition to federal income tax, you also pay state income taxes in most places. So how much of that 250K do you keep after taxes and really how much do you keep after you pay your rent and for the cost of keeping your kids healthy and the like.

I think the government ought to provide a certain foundation which should lead to permanent and stable economic growth and social development - in other words, education, infrastructure, etc. That requires money - it ain't free, and neither prinmemo nor Godfather is going to give their money for the development of roads and bridges around the country and the building of public schools for our children (or funding of universities). In other words, this can only be done if the government collects taxes - otherwise it is too chaotic. Now, having said that, there is the question of how much you tax people. I think that people that are doing well (making a lot of money and already have substantial assets) should pay a higher proportion of their incomes than poorer people because poorer people use a very large percentage of their income on essentials (food, housing, etc.). In other words, we (the top 10 percent of income earners) have a lot more disposible income than someone making $25K. As a result, we can bear a little more of the burden than someone making next to nothing.

Don't you think Obama's top rate of 50% (*) on small business owners would lead to a reduction in investment and risk taking which equals fewer jobs?

 

(*) includes payroll tax.

 

1) Define small business.

2) Clarify whether you mean it will be 50% after some level of profit.

 

I'll give you my answer once you clarify those two points.

By small business owner I mean a sole proprietor or a partner of a partnership.

 

The 50% rate is the top rate which I understand is income over $250k.

 

I should have left the "small" out of the question because I think the tax increase would impact the behavior of the "small" and the "not so small" business owner in similar ways.

I know the OP is seeking the opinions of democrats voting for Obama, and I'm not one...

 

Here is why I don't like the Obama plan (main points):

1) We are in a global economy, and the US must compete at the global level. Raising taxes on corporations will not make us more competitive.

2) Most med/large corporations reinvest their income and put it back into the economy. Most corporations today don't pay dividends. You take more of their income and that factor diminishes.

3) Raising Capital taxes is no a matter of 'fairness', you are investing with taxed dollars and there is a lot of risk (loosing capital). The risk-reward scenario must be reasonable to attract domestic and foreign capital. Especially with a down economy. raising cap gains taxes is probably the worst thing that can be done at this time.

4) Making the gov bigger is not the answer, we must make it smaller and not rely on economic booms to bring surpluses.

5) The Gov is a wasteful monster, I rather see the private sector investment than giving the Gov more money to spent.

tl;dr but I have a question for you all. I dont know much about Obama's tax plan, but lets say someone owns a small business. lets say also this business brings in exactly $250,000 a year. now out of that $250,000 lets say $150,000 goes towards keeping the business operational, utility payments, payroll, etc... that leaves $100,000 for the owner as profit. now, under Obama's tax plan, will the taxes get raised on the business owner for having their business make over $250,000? or will the owner only get taxed for the $100,000 he/she brought in as profit?

The tax is on the profits so the $100,000 in your example.