Obama plans to raise taxes both personal and corp?

[MMI Enterprises 289]

Election thread closed down due to fighting and off topic discussion.

In case any want to contunue the discussion here is some the last speak presented:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Double07

When taxes are increased on the "Big Guys" who actually pays? Take a minute and go look in the mirror. Hello! Increase tax on corporations and they just smile and tack it right on our butts. Kind of like the minimum wage being increased all the stupid time. It's not a living wage and can never be one unless you buckle to full blown socialism!! Same people on minimum wage will be screaming about their hamburger or box of chicken costing them 15 bucks. Who pays for that...Go look in the mirror again! It's that simple.

One post you say the Big Guy pays and then the next post you say the average American will pay....NEWS FLASH...we pay no matter what

Another NEWS FLASH who's paying for all the corp greed and poor management now, $700,000,000,000 bail out the other Billions of dollars already given away already to big corps. We are bailing them all out Joe Six Pack

When is enough, enough, we in the past years under Republican prez all the way back to Reagan up to Bush have given big corps, tax breaks, corp welfare, loop holes, less or no regulations and what has it got us? A lot of pain, bailouts, companies going overseas, less benefits, more corp greed, poor management, lay offs we give corp welfare they still go overseas, stagnant or lower wages, the list goes on and on. We have given them and given to them, they have taken & taken more and more and all we get is the shaft and now we get to bailout all kinds of corps. What more should we give them before we say ENOUGH is ENOUGH

Clamp down on corps, regulate them, tell them if they go overseas they get no tax breaks, better yet tell them if they go they can't sell anything in the USA at all. What you think they will all go, NO. Instead of making $10,000,000,000 of us they only make $9,000,000,000. Poor them I feel sooooo bad for them, I hope they don't go bankrupt, ah that wont happen, we'll just bail them out

I am not against corps, but it has gotten out of hand and this economy and bailout proves that. We are going to PAY & PAY we just got a big tax its called bailout & the deficit. I don't know why you worry so much about big corps when YOU are paying for their mistakes now after they have made huge profits and CEO's have made millions every year. How much of this bailout & deficit are you and your children going to pay 10's of thousands of dollars is your part. Let them pay their part finally

I'm not worried about taxing them a little more, they will find a loop hole and work it out and still charge us. Its all part of business and the game they play

Go Barak Hussien Obama... Lets be for the American people Joe Six Pack and have big corps pay for their own bailout

Jeff that smells of entitlement. All your saying is you want want want with no recognition whatsoever that we the American people own and are the corps. Fine, you can change the regs for corps to keep them more at home and so they don't fail as they been doing but why double tax yourself both personal and corp?

[MMI Enterprises 289]

Another forum I frequent full of investment types was kind enough to provide the following writeup that pretty much clarifies why Obam's tax plan is no good as it pertains to double taxation. There should be enough info to help even Jeff out to understand the double taxation point. :)..j/k Jeff.

Actually in bringing the issue up elsewhere about increased taxation by Obama it seemed it such an old/overworked issue that many just too dang tired to keep explaining thw wrong in it.

Obama’s Tax-Plan Disaster

The candidate’s “soak the rich” tax rates will do widespread economic harm.

Here’s an unusual campaign promise: I pledge to take action as president to drive down stock prices, discourage investment, and deepen the recession. Who has promised this? Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, albeit not in so many words.

With the stock market in crisis mode and the economy in a pronounced slump, would any economist — even the most extreme liberal Keynesian — advocate increasing taxes? Of course not. But contrary to economic commonsense, Obama is proposing to do exactly that by raising tax rates on America’s small businesses and investors.

Specifically, Obama wants to raise taxes on income, capital gains, and dividends for families earning more than $250,000 annually. Under his plan, the top two marginal tax rates will increase from 33 to 36 percent and from 35 to 39.6 percent, while both the capital-gains tax and dividend tax will rise from 15 to 20 percent. According to the plan, the extra revenues generated by these tax increases will be redistributed to lower- and middle-income people through a hodge-podge of refundable tax credits. In the meantime, these “soak the rich” tax rates will do widespread economic harm.

First, Obama’s tax-rate increases on income will fall heavily on small businesses, which create the majority of net new jobs. Here’s why: According to Internal Revenue Service data, half of all business income is taxed at individual rather than corporate tax rates, and about two-thirds of all flow-through business income is earned by small-business owners with annual incomes exceeding $200,000. The bottom line: Up to one-third of all business income is taxed at the two marginal rates Obama wants to raise.

Second, history demonstrates the economic folly of raising capital-gains taxes at any time, and the economic benefit of keeping them permanently low. By influencing the incentives for people to invest, the capital-gains tax directly impacts the demand for — and value of — equities. Similarly, it influences the rate of investment, particularly in new, high-risk ventures.

Between 1969 and 1978 capital-gains tax rates rose from 25 percent to 35 percent. Across the same period stock prices and venture-capital investment declined. A 1978 economic study by economist Michael Evans of Chase Econometrics Associates found that “the sharp declines in the stock market in 1969-1970, and 1977-1978 are due in large part to the Tax Reform Acts of 1968 and 1976.” Initial public stock offerings (IPOs) — an important measure of new venture-capital investment — also declined in this period, from an annual average rate of nearly $2 billion between 1969 and 1972 to an average of $225 million between 1975 and 1978.

When capital-gains tax rates were cut in 1979 and 1982, the results were just as predictable: Equity values rose along with investment commitments to new ventures. Conversely, when capital-gains tax rates were increased from 20 to 28 percent in 1986, the rate of IPOs stagnated.

About a decade later President Bill Clinton signed legislation that chopped the capital-gains tax rate back down to 20 percent. And once again economic growth, investment, jobs, and federal tax receipts all increased. (David Wyss of Standard & Poor’s DRI, an economic consulting firm, has produced a study documenting these incentive effects.)

Yet despite this progress, the current capital-gains tax rate — 15 percent for individuals — is still too high. Many foreign countries tax capital gains at much lower rates, putting the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage. According to the American Council of Capital Formation, the U.S. is currently in the middle of the 30-member OECD pack in terms of taxing capital gains. Fourteen OECD countries do not tax capital gains at all.

Third, Obama’s plan to raise taxes on dividends will negatively impact business investment, the retirement income of seniors, and finally economic growth.

When a corporation issues common stock to finance new job-creating investment, the returns on that investment are taxed twice, once at the corporate level and then again at the individual level when dividends are received by shareholders. This double tax on dividends encourages businesses to rely on debt rather than equity to finance new investment, a strategy that can weaken their financial condition.

The 2003 dividend tax cut from 35 to 15 percent reduced these economic distortions and provided incentives for companies to pay out dividends rather than retain their earnings. As a result, dividend payments were estimated to have increased by 20 percent.

But Obama’s proposed increase in the dividend tax would reverse this healthy trend. It also would disproportionately impact America’s seniors by taking a bigger bite out of their taxable dividends while reducing both the quality of dividend payments and the value of the stocks that produce them.

According to the American Association of Retired Persons, “Of the nearly $150 billion in dividends that were reported on tax returns in 2000, people aged 65 and older received a highly disproportionate share (48 percent).” Near-retirees also received a big share of dividend income (29 percent), as did those so-called “rich” families that make more than $250,000 a year. According to the AARP study, more than one-third (37.3 percent) of dividend income went to retirees with incomes in excess of $200,000.

Simply put, raising taxes on investment is never a good idea. A 2008 study by the Center for Data Analysis found that fully repealing the 2003 capital-gain and dividend tax-rate reductions would reduce employment by 270,000 jobs, cut real GDP by $44 billion, and decrease after-tax personal income by $113 billion in a single year.

On the other hand, by maintaining low tax rates and cutting certain tax rates that remain too high, as John McCain proposes to do, the economy will remain poised for growth. Looking long-term, McCain proposes to lock in the Bush tax rates of 2003 and slash corporate tax rates. For the short-term, he proposes to cut the capital-gains tax in half for a two-year period, from 15 to 7.5 percent, a stimulus measure that would spark an immediate boost in equity values.

To be fair, Obama is not calling for a full repeal of the 2003 tax cuts on income and investment, but the tax hikes he has in mind are toxic enough. His tax plan has even drawn a rebuke from the editors of the New York Times, who wrote that with “the economy tanking … it’s hard to imagine how [Obama] could prudently [raise taxes on the wealthy].” And while Obama has hinted that he would consider delaying his proposed tax increases if the economy is in recession, who really thinks a President Obama and a Democratic Congress will prioritize lower taxes over new spending?

The Times is right and Barack Obama is wrong. Now is precisely the wrong time to hike taxes — especially on entrepreneurs and investors.

[MMI Enterprises 289]

What no opinions from the minions?..

Well let's switch stride here abit then....since other forum I brung the issue is going full swing into other much more logical elaborations and points it seems the topic of taxation has become more defined. Here..I'll direct us towards that new line of thought so apparent elsewhere:

QUOTE (chuam @ Oct 16 2008, 01:55 PM)

From this basic calculator my family and I save about $2000 a year under Obama. Raising taxes?

How about citing some of your sources guys?

Original gist of topic is about whether the end effect of his plan is that of double taxation but I see that it has expanded and it seems natural that the gist of this thread now is more about how taxing the higher midclass to highclass would result in inflation and job loss upon the poorer folk. Joe's taxes will be past down as fallout which could be quikly interprited as a raise to taxes.... but I would still like to know if it equates to an overall increase in tax revenue coming in as that is what a 'raising taxes' should do. Although my view is that it is wrongful socialistic wealth spreading I would like to hear if the trade off is even or is there to be an overall increase of revenue. I mean is that extra few percent the higher classes will pay even trade for what the poorer folk aren't paying directly out their wallet now or under Obama's plan?. Whether or not it is an overall increase, decrease, or even trade it is an increase of dollars out the poorer folks wallet as they will be made to pay for what Joe is loosing whether they like it or not. I will go on believing that 'raising higher earners taxes' equates to a hit on the poorer folk. If not mistaken they pay hardly nil now in actual tax but they are gonna be paying far more directly than the supposed tax savings under Obama via increase costs of goods.

God damn that sounds pretty good way to collect the taxes the little folk should be paying eh?. I sound socialistic ,,haha. Pretty smart dem that thar Obama. Trick them by promissing a lowering of their taxes so they actually pay without getting an irs bill....

Ok here we go, instead of havng any personal taxes we move to an invisable consumption tax by way of heavy tax applied direct to any and all business's gross whether small sole proprietor or corp and we just all at once as business owners pass it down then up to the man.

ps- But ya know what. I find a real problem with burdening Joe and those above him with tax collection duty that our goobermint is charged with..Idiotic I tell ya, Idiotic!!!!!

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

The Times... moonie rag! I don't read it.

Rod!~

Edited October 16, 2008 by Beth n Rod
spelling

[Rick2 42]

Enough with the red ink and smiley faces. Makes it hard to read.

[Scott Stone 604]

Let me make it simple. You have a business. You are fairly successful at your business, pay your taxes, (all of them) have employees working, and have a standard of living that you enjoy. Pretty soon, someone comes along and raises your taxes, and a lot of it has to do with you being successful. It happens often. Problem is, your prime customers, the ones that you are able to get $10k for a restoration, also get their taxes raised. Well, now everyone is getting their taxes raised, you and your customers. In order to compensate for the tax increase, you need to raise your prices. That causes inflation. Your customer, who might or might not be able to raise prices easily, decides that his log home can do without its restoration. You lose the potential to make that money. So your gross income now goes down. Because your gross income went down, you need to lay off an employee. That poor sap now needs to find another job, but, it seems that everyone that employs people, AKA the rich, are all in the same boat. That means that he cannot find a job. You are working harder, because you really need a worker, but are not making enough money to justify a worker, and this unemployment goes up by one person. Henry has the same thing happening to him. He also lays off a worker and has the same results. Now there are two workers laid off. Pretty soon there are 7 or 8 people laid off in the neighborhood. Hmm, well now it is trickle down economics. A common theory is that for every person that is employed, there are approximately 8 other people that support him, or her. Now it is 9. And it goes on and on.

Now back to the guy you were going to do the restoration for, he is also dependent on people beng employed because he works for the manufacture of left handed wing nuts. They are needed by people in your neighborhood. But, now you have 9 new people that do not have a job. That means that your potential customer does not have people buying his product, so even if he did want to overlook the tax increase, he still cannot afford the restoration, because, he is not making any money. And thus, it spirals down.

[MMI Enterprises 289]

Let me make it simple. You have a business. You are fairly successful at your business, pay your taxes, (all of them) have employees working, and have a standard of living that you enjoy. Pretty soon, someone comes along and raises your taxes, and a lot of it has to do with you being successful. It happens often. Problem is, your prime customers, the ones that you are able to get $10k for a restoration, also get their taxes raised. Well, now everyone is getting their taxes raised, you and your customers. In order to compensate for the tax increase, you need to raise your prices. That causes inflation. Your customer, who might or might not be able to raise prices easily, decides that his log home can do without its restoration. You lose the potential to make that money. So your gross income now goes down. Because your gross income went down, you need to lay off an employee. That poor sap now needs to find another job, but, it seems that everyone that employs people, AKA the rich, are all in the same boat. That means that he cannot find a job. You are working harder, because you really need a worker, but are not making enough money to justify a worker, and this unemployment goes up by one person. Henry has the same thing happening to him. He also lays off a worker and has the same results. Now there are two workers laid off. Pretty soon there are 7 or 8 people laid off in the neighborhood. Hmm, well now it is trickle down economics. A common theory is that for every person that is employed, there are approximately 8 other people that support him, or her. Now it is 9. And it goes on and on.

Now back to the guy you were going to do the restoration for, he is also dependent on people beng employed because he works for the manufacture of left handed wing nuts. They are needed by people in your neighborhood. But, now you have 9 new people that do not have a job. That means that your potential customer does not have people buying his product, so even if he did want to overlook the tax increase, he still cannot afford the restoration, because, he is not making any money. And thus, it spirals down.

oh but this scenario never plays out, no chance notta ever...raise them taxes boys and girls.. go ahead pull that trigger!!.

..makes sense Scott. thank you, thank you alot!!:lgbow:

[James 625]

There is a major problem that is missing from all this Tax talk. America has lost it's Manufacturing tax base that provided the highest hourly paid jobs. That paid taxes to Cities and Towns. Everything is made over seas. America has lost 3 million Manufacturing jobs since 2000 mostly to China.

So where is the money going to come from(taxes) if the loss of Strong jobs continue ? Wall Street doesn't care what happens too Joe Six pack. Does Congress care ? Congress is in the back pocket of Wall Street and Special interest. The Ethics and Morality of the in people charge for the last 30 years have been swayed by Greed.

So what happens to Cities and Towns when a Factory shuts down? No taxes are paid! People have no health care! Lower paying service jobs are taken! More people get into Pressure Cleaning!!!! Who cares about those people ? Most of the time a Band Aid approach is done and seeyah later. In Europe Companies are not allowed to just pick up and leave because of the Social and Financial impact on the local economy. Gee , That's to ethical and moral and they get health care too !

One good thing about the Iraq war has been the Manufacturing of Defense goods..

[MMI Enterprises 289]

'Where is the money coming from' is a good question..especially as it applies to yer Obama candidate's plan...

Obama Talks Nonsense on Tax Cuts

Revenues will inevitably be diverted from Social Security

By WILLIAM MCGURN

Now we know: 95% of Americans will get a "tax cut" under Barack Obama after all. Those on the receiving end of a check will include the estimated 44% of Americans who will owe no federal income taxes under his plan.

In most parts of America, getting money back on taxes you haven't paid sounds a lot like welfare. Ah, say the Obama people, you forget: Even those who pay no income taxes pay payroll taxes for Social Security. Under the Obama plan, they say, these Americans would get an income tax credit up to $500 based on what they are paying into Social Security.

Just two little questions: If people are going to get a tax refund based on what they pay into Social Security, then we're not really talking about income tax relief, are we? And if what we're really talking about is payroll tax relief, doesn't that mean billions of dollars in lost revenue for a Social Security trust fund that is already badly underfinanced?

Austan Goolsbee, the University of Chicago economic professor who serves as one of Sen. Obama's top advisers, discussed these issues during a recent appearance on Fox News. There he stated that the answer to the first question is that these Americans are getting an income tax rebate. And the answer to the second is that the money would not actually come out of Social Security.

"You can't just cut the payroll tax because that's what funds Social Security," Mr. Goolsbee told Fox's Shepard Smith. "So if you tried to do that, you would undermine the Social Security Trust Fund."

Now, if you have been following this so far, you have learned that people who pay no income tax will get an income tax refund. You have also learned that this check will represent relief for the payroll taxes these people do pay. And you have been assured that this rebate check won't actually come out of payroll taxes, lest we harm Social Security.

You have to admire the audacity. With one touch of the Obama magic, what otherwise would be described as taking money from Peter to pay Paul is now transformed into Paul's tax relief. Where a tax cut for payroll taxes paid will not in fact come from payroll taxes. And where all these plans come together under the rhetorical umbrella of "Making Work Pay."

Not everyone is persuaded. Andrew Biggs is a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a former Social Security Administration official who has written a great deal about Mr. Obama's plans on his blog (AndrewBiggs.blogspot.com). He notes that to understand the unintended consequences, it helps to remember that while people at the bottom pay a higher percentage of their income in payroll taxes, they are accruing benefits in excess of what they pay in.

"It's interesting that Mr. Obama calls his plan 'Making Work Pay,'" says Mr. Biggs, "because the incentives are just the opposite. By expanding benefits for people whose benefits exceed their taxes, you're increasing their disincentive for work. And you're doing the same at the top of the income scale, where you are raising their taxes so you can distribute the revenue to others."

Even more interesting is what Mr. Obama's "tax cuts" do to Social Security financing. As Mr. Biggs notes, had Mr. Obama proposed to pay for payroll tax relief out of, well, payroll taxes, his plan would never have a chance in Congress. Most members would look at a plan that defunded a trust fund that seniors are counting on for their retirement as political suicide.

And that leads us to the heart of this problem. If the government is going to give tax cuts to 44% of American based on their Social Security taxes -- without actually refunding to them the money they are paying into Social Security -- Mr. Obama will have to get the funds elsewhere. And this is where "general revenues" turns out to be a more agreeable way of saying "Other People's Money."

When asked about his priorities during the second presidential debate, Mr. Obama said that reform of programs like Social Security would have to go on the back burner for two years or so. "We're not going to solve Social Security and Medicare unless we understand the rest of our tax policies," he said.

The senator is right. But you have to read the fine print of his tax cuts to know why.

[RPetry 564]

Just what this country needs, further progressive income redistribution. In 2006, the top 5% of income earners in this country paid 57% of the total federal income tax bill. The constant and consistent rant against income tax cuts for the rich is a sham. The high income earners are the ones driving entrepreneurship, enterprise, and the economy of this country.

And while we are at it, let's just raise the tax burden on all those greedy corporations. Problem is, every citizen winds up paying that bill when they purchase a product or a service, and at the same rate, regardless of income. It cracks me up when progressive liberals champion a very regressive tax.

[Jeff 232]

I'd like to know where the money is coming from for everything Obamas plan, McCains plan, the past couple trillion we are bailing out everything, the billions from the wars, the stimulus checks past and the new one there talking about. Where the HELL is all this money coming from. The DEm & Reps are BOTH to blame, wheres it coming from....TAXES or we will just keep owing China until they call it in. Man we are F'd, there has been so much money borrowed in the past 6-7 years and more going out every day. Don't blame Barak Hussein Obama for it all he isn't even the damn president yet. You all are bitc*ing about Obama, what about the billions & trillions we owe right NOW WTF, what is all the money that we owe NOW just play money??? Why dont you bitc* about all that money...Oh ya, its all Obamas fault somehow right? Silly you all are crying about 2009 and will give 2000-2008 a pass on all the money crazy chit man

[Jeff 232]

Just what this country needs, further progressive income redistribution. In 2006, the top 5% of income earners in this country paid 57% of the total federal income tax bill. The constant and consistent rant against income tax cuts for the rich is a sham. The high income earners are the ones driving entrepreneurship, enterprise, and the economy of this country. They arent driving very well, its somewhat crashinging brother. Must be a drunk driver how it somehow just happened so fast, like no one saw it coming LOL Drunk with greed and you all defend the idiots all the time

And while we are at it, let's just raise the tax burden on all those greedy corporations. Problem is, every citizen winds up paying that bill when they purchase a product or a service, and at the same rate, regardless of income. It cracks me up when progressive liberals champion a very regressive tax.

.................

[RPetry 564]

Jeff,

Actually, the federal deficit compared to the size of the economy, or GDP, is not at unsustainable or unusually high levels. To be expected, WWII was the record, at 109%. Today, the US federal deficit is at about 37% of GDP.

The real killer comes in about 20 years, mostly due to unfunded Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security obligations. See: Image:Debt to GDP Forecast Chart.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[MMI Enterprises 289]

No one here is relating ding dong Obama as being at fault for current economic woes so why ya freaken out on that Jeff?

Jeff it is just like pressure washing..we can deal with the here and now of how much we paying for gas or chems, how many customers we got coming through the door, how much time we are taking to do a job, etc. etc. all the while planning for our next few years of big expendatures, marketing plans, and basically contemplating and working on our future moves OR we can sit around hemmin and hawin about what we only got now with not a shread of plan for the future. I suggest a little book for you to read. It take you 30 minutes or less to read..read Where's my Cheese.

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

No one here is relating ding dong Obama as being at fault for current economic woes so why ya freaken out on that Jeff?

Jeff it is just like pressure washing..we can deal with the here and now of how much we paying for gas or chems, how many customers we got coming through the door, how much time we are taking to do a job, etc. etc. all the while planning for our next few years of big expendatures, marketing plans, and basically contemplating and working on our future moves OR we can sit around hemmin and hawin about what we only got now with not a shread of plan for the future. I suggest a little book for you to read. It take you 30 minutes or less to read..read Where's my Cheese.

I believe the CORRECT title is:Who Moved My Cheese?: An Amazing Way to Deal with Change in Your Work and in Your Life

Amazon.com: Who Moved My Cheese?: An Amazing Way to Deal with Change in Your Work and in Your Life: Spencer Johnson, Kenneth Blanchard: Books

Great little book, and for the record, it is not in the slightest bit political.

Beth

[MMI Enterprises 289]

Thanx Beth...thought the title sounded funny as I was writing. But yea Jeff it not political, is sound advice for both work and personal life and based around the hem and haw analogy mindset. Came out back when big business had to under go restructuring in order to survive. May have been required reading someplaces...I know I first happened upon it while working for none other than Philip Morris...Perhaps some of it needs applied to goobermint.

[RJTravel 32]

I notice all the concern about 'taxes' and how it will affect your own wealth. Personally I don't give a rip how each intends to address this - they can only go so far anyway. Set aside your personal greed for a moment and consider that which is of much greater importance. This Obamanation of Desolation not only advocates pre and post-birth abortion, he is also sympathetic with religious zealots who want to abort YOU. Think about it before you vote for that which may very well change life as we know it for both you and your progeny.

Richard

[MMI Enterprises 289]

HAHA.. I like yer 'desolator' speak without labeling you as fanatic neither! That old dragon/abomination has lots of synonym names and personalities depending on age or dispensations, who wrote it, etc.