correct which is why there are other ways listed, and the door left open to close loop holes and lower the corporate rates as long as the end number ends up being the same.
I am hoping we head that way. I would actually prefer a consumption tax like the VAT tax in Europe, but I doubt that will happen
Yes, nobody knows what it will look like in the end. But Obama has said he will not place the burden on the middle and lower tax brackets anymore. Here's a video where they talk about the lowering the corporate tax rate and cutting out loopholes. <object width="420" height="245" id="msnbc4bce81" classid="clsid27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=10,0,0,0"><param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" /><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=44576594&width=420&height=245" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed name="msnbc4bce81" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=44576594&width=420&height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 420px;">Visit msnbc.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com">breaking news</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">world news</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">news about the economy</a></p>
Most Millionaires pay a higher earned income tax bracket to begin with but if raising that a bit helps the country, by all means do it. My issue is investment tax that Obama will like to increase as part of the whole package when computing how millionaires may pay lower total taxes... Not all rich get mega income from investment like Buffet. Many retirees work all their lives and use CD's or other investments to creat capital gain to fund a retirement - you and I probably do as well thru certain divisions in 401k or what not- what little is there has to provide for 20 years - and these are the people that shouldn't get the short end of the stick.
But if you are clearing a $1 million dollars off of CD's and your 401K, why should you only pay 15% when a working senior pays 30%? I just don't see how this is giving them the short end of the stick. Honestly, I think this whole thing is more politics than anything else, Obama is (smartly) picking this as a populist tax hike that makes it hard for Republicans to vote against.
Tax on millionaires makes a good talking point, but it does very little to actually reduce the deficit. This is all about getting re-elected. But by all means, raise Buffet's tax rate to 50%.
I agree. What will reduce the deficit is to fire teachers and make sure to tax those living in poverty. It actually helps the US economy to continue subsidizing big corporations with billions of dollars to ensure their stockholders make money. Because we all know when the Stock market goes up, our deficit goes down.
Sure, it's a good talking point, it's also good policy and has sound rationale underlying it. Your retort is more of a true talking point - any measure, taken in isolation, be it spending cut of NPR or firing a few cops or teachers, or whatever, will have little overall impact on the deficit. This is known and accepted - so you bringing it up doesn't really seem to advance any purpose or your case against it. It just kind of makes you seem out of ideas, so you cite this truism in order to distract, though I see you've got some rolleyes going now too. Most serious observers tend to agree that, if deficit reduction is a priority (and make no mistake, it really should not be in the short term), taxes in some form are going to have to go up.
Adjusting the tax rate is one of the steps needed to reduce the deficit spending. What is silly is to isolate one of the needed steps and to act like since that one step alone doesn't fix the problem we shouldn't do that step.
Raising tax rate on Buffet is something I do agree with, but to use it as one of the main talking points on deficit reduction is misleading. Its great for firing up Obama's support base, but do the average people know its going to take a lot more than raising tax on the millionaires to actually make any significant progress on deficit. Look, Obama is a smart guy, he knows to really reduce the deficit, spending will have to be cut and effective tax rates have to go up, and not just for millionaires. But that's not what he is talking about these days, its much easier to jump on the Buffet example and the 200k households makes more than 1m. That's why I said its about getting re-elected. http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-rich-taxed-less-secretaries-070642868.html Oh and repubs use de-funding NPR as a talking point for spending cuts is also pretty silly.
Reforming the tax code, and increasing revenues is an important part of deficit reduction. It won't fix it by itself, but both spending cuts and tax reform which increases revenue is what is needed to fix the deficit.
The rich pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the average man does. So the answer is to make them pay even more?
No, they don't, this is a lie. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece If you include non-federal taxes, which are the majority of the taxes that the middle and lower classes pay, the effective tax rate on the ultra-rich is far lower than the rate paid by your average policeman or firefighter. The gap is a lot narrower for high income earners (as opposed to the ultra-rich whose taxes are mostly in the form of LTCG and dividend taxes) compared to the middle and lower classes, but every single tax in this country save the income tax is regressive. I know the only way to make your point is to focus entirely on income taxes or federal taxes, but when you look at the whole picture, your point becomes as dull as a butter knife.
I wish the President had taken this stance when the Bush Tax Cuts were about to expire. It was a missed opportunity and he's been counter-punching the Republicans ever since.
Sure would have been easy to extend tax cuts on everyone and returning to pre bush on those making 250k+ with a new braket for those making 1mil +. Many here were advocating it.
come on now, don't be stupid http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/fact-check-the-richtheir-secretaries-and-taxes/
