Obama Voters: What Should The Prez Do About Econ?

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

A 100% tax rate on all those that make $10 million or more would only generate $240 billion. Of course you can't take 100% of their money, so we're talking a very small amount of money. So whats the point of raising taxes on the rich if its futile?

You call it futility, but I call it principled and balanced. We are one nation.

Originally Posted by trialedbyfire

I don't believe that taking more money from people who are well off is the solution to America's problems, I just don't.

A person making $300,000.00 should at the bare minimum pay the same tax rate as someone making $50,000.00 It is my understanding that under the current tax code, the very wealthy pay less taxes percentage wise than those who earn much less and to me, that doesn't seem right either.

I would like to see the entire tax code revised, simplified, and made sensible. Right now, if a person makes enough money they can weasel their way out of paying any taxes-- the average American doesn't have that ability.

Originally Posted by trialedbyfire

That will never happen under Obama.

It already has. Pay raises for government employees have been frozen for quite sometime and this Administration cut taxes on small businesses over 12 times over the last 4 years-- but that economy building fact is never recognized by the GOP.

Originally Posted by trialedbyfire

This is where we agree and differ at the same time. I believe in having a strong, large, technologically advanced, well maintained military. However I would agree that there are waists but would rather see that money reallocated back to the military for the purpose of maintaining a healthy and strong military then just simply cut for the budgets sake.

The waste from OIF totalled in the billions! Billions of Federal dollars spent without proper records to track the spending. The GSA and the way that DOD contracts are awarded are prime examples of government spending gone wild! Increase efficiency in this area, and our country will no doubt see billions of dollars of savings in the long run and millions in the immediate future.

Originally Posted by trialedbyfire

As for Afghanistan, believe it or not I'm against keeping the troops there and would support immediate withdrawal (that's the Paulite in me). Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-war I supported the decision to go in and wipe out any threat to us and I strongly believe in preemptive strike, but nation building is not my thing.

We abandoned Afghanistan in the 1980's and we are paying the price for that terrible decision by the Reagan Administration. We don't need to repeat the same mistakes over and over. It is better that we leave them better than we found them, plus it's the good thing, the right thing, to do.

Originally Posted by trialedbyfire

Because in the long run cutting their pay does nothing to help the economy and only serves as a class-warfare distraction and the idea throws support behind the theory that all rich people are bad and that people who work for their money should be punished for having money. And yes congressmen and other federal employees work and serve their nation. Every single one of them/us. Being a congressman is a stressful job and sometimes dangerous. People assassinate congressmen and public officials. People attack them. Their sole living is earned by their service to the federal government which is a high constitutional order and a stressful service. I serve my nation in a different capacity and I chose to serve my nation in that capacity understanding the benefits, pros, cons, draw-backs and in-betweens. We all work for our living and have a right to what we earn. Those who do not work... well you've read the Bible... that's kinda my attitude toward that.

I can't justify what those bureacrats get paid and definitely can't justify the costs of their LIFETIME entitlements after serving just one term in the House or Senate.

I can't justify their unscathed escape from these tough times while the people they are representing are at risk of going without the care and necessities they need while they vote to balance the budget on the backs of the sick, the elderly, and the poor.

Our elected officials tell the poor, "Ask what you can do for your country and not what your country can do for you," while they line their pockets with cash, medical benefits, and everything else that the "politically powerful" can get away with.

You want to defend that and I would like to balance that.

[scotty]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

It already has. Pay raises for government employees have been frozen for quite sometime and this Administration cut taxes on small businesses over 12 times over the last 4 years-- but that economy building fact is never recognized by the GOP.

No, they didn't cut taxes on small businesses. They gave tax incentives. These incentives were so small and dilluted it takes hiring a tax person just to find and define them. More money I have to spend.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

The waste from OIF totalled in the billions! Billions of Federal dollars spent without proper records to track the spending. The GSA and the way that DOD contracts are awarded are prime examples of government spending gone wild! Increase efficiency in this area, and our country will no doubt see billions of dollars of savings in the long run and millions in the immediate future.

I agree, but his response is another failure to administrate. Increase efficiency is the key. His answer is simply to cut everything. Rather than control the child's spending, he takes away his allowance altogether.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

We abandoned Afghanistan in the 1980's and we are paying the price for that terrible decision by the Reagan Administration. We don't need to repeat the same mistakes over and over. It is better that we leave them better than we found them, plus it's the good thing, the right thing, to do.

Do you truley believe had we stayed to help Afghanistan they would be our friends today? We left them during the Reagan years for the same reasons we are having problems there now. The country is split with tribes, many leaders, all with different beliefs on running their territories. Afghan then is like Syria now, we had no idea who to support or who was in charge. . . . . On a side note, your support for defense cuts will only leave our soldiers there more vulnerable.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

I can't justify their unscathed escape from these tough times while the people they are representing are at risk of going without the care and necessities they need while they vote to balance the budget on the backs of the sick, the elderly, and the poor.

Our elected officials tell the poor, "Ask what you can do for your country and not what your country can do for you," while they line their pockets with cash, medical benefits, and everything else that the "politically powerful" can get away with.

You want to defend that and I would like to balance that.

Your last paragraph is like saying you want to overturn Roe vs Wade. It will never happen, and if you believe Obama wants this, then you have been drinkin the kool-aid.

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

You call it futility, but I call it principled and balanced. We are one nation.

J, the whole "paying their fare share" idea is flawed from the outset for many reasons. First, the wealthy pay more than their fair share of taxes. The stats are well known. To demand more of them and act as if they are selfish and greedy and heartless is disingenuous.

Second, you have a federal government that commits itself to way too much, and by virtue of those commitments, obligates some Americans to pay for them as a result. It's neither principled, nor balanced. You would never let someone to run up a huge bill in your name, leaving you with the obligation to pay it. That's criminal. And what the federal government has done and is doing is legalized theft.

Third, to characterize the issue as both a revenue problem and a spending problem is flat wrong. We have a spending problem, the government gets plenty of revenue, trillions of dollars a year. Our federal government is obligated ton the tune of $70 trillion dollars as it stands. It's impossible, and someone with guts needs to be a leader and say so and do what needs to be done.

A person making $300,000.00 should at the bare minimum pay the same tax rate as someone making $50,000.00 It is my understanding that under the current tax code, the very wealthy pay less taxes percentage wise than those who earn much less and to me, that doesn't seem right either.

A person making $300K pays a higher rate than $50K if that income is earned income. If that person makes that amount with investment income, that money has already been taxed at the corporate level at 35%. Why should the Feds get to tax it again at the higher rate? If they get 12-15% rate on money already taxed at the high rate---they're still making out like bandits. Besides taxing investment income at a higher rate will discourage investing which is the mother's milk for our industries, companies, inventors, innovators and job creators. It would be foolish to raise those rates.

[Jermyn Davidson]

It is also well known that the people who are the wealthiest often don't pay any Federal taxes as they hire tax cheating lawyers to get them out of paying even what they would owe now.

The whole taxing scheme is broken and when it is fixed, then there would be more funds coming in from more people who should be paying their dues.

However, we must agree to disagree if you believe that our government doesn't have an income and a spending problem.

Our current fiscal woes can be addressed by adequately addressing both income and spending. The income can be addressed by fixing the tax code and making the tax code equilaterally sensible. A secretary should not be paying a higher tax rate as a person making $250,000.00. It's just not sensible.

[Seascapes]

Let the Bush tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans end as planned... keep the tax cuts to the ones making $250,000.00 and less. Raise the Social Security cap so people will have to pay into it longer... Stop the outsourcing of America's jobs .... Leave Medicare alone... Stop the abuse of Medicaid... Kick all the republicans out of congress in 2014... especially the teaparty ones...

[Cindy]

[scotty]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

However, we must agree to disagree if you believe that our government doesn't have an income and a spending problem.

Our current fiscal woes can be addressed by adequately addressing both income and spending. The income can be addressed by fixing the tax code and making the tax code equilaterally sensible. A secretary should not be paying a higher tax rate as a person making $250,000.00. It's just not sensible.

I would like to see a flat tax rate. However, his tax hikes on the $250,000 crowd is going to hurt. These are small business owners, you know, the ones that create the most jobs? This is where he gets it wrong. You can create tax revenue two ways, raise taxes, or lower taxes. The first option is a job killer, which lowers revenue. The second option promotes business growth, which creates jobs, which creates revenue. Its just that simple.

Raising these taxes is going to lose jobs, where do you think these people are going to go? They will go on the unemployment list, costing the government more money and less revenue. Now you have to raise taxes again to pay for them. Its a never ending cycle in the wrong direction.

Originally Posted by Seascapes

Let the Bush tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans end as planned... keep the tax cuts to the ones making $250,000.00 and less. Raise the Social Security cap so people will have to pay into it longer... Stop the outsourcing of America's jobs .... Leave Medicare alone... Stop the abuse of Medicaid... Kick all the republicans out of congress in 2014... especially the teaparty ones...

I keep hoping one day you will actually have some valuable input into these discussions. While I lack the faith in that happening, I do hope.

[StillStanding]

I'm a Republican, but I think it's unfair for a millionaire to pay a lower effective tax rate than someone making $50,000 because he has a lot of income from investments.

Here is a compromise that I could live with:
INCOME:

Set a floor minimum effective tax rate of 17% for those who make $500,000 or more per year.

Remove all tax loopholes for those who make over $500,000 per year.

No change in tax rates for the middle class.

SPENDING:
Get rid of Obamacare

Stop sending money to our enemies. A country must declare it is a friend of the US before we send them a dime!

Make it more profitable for those on Welfare rolls to get a job than lay around and do nothing! Have the government subsidize businesses who hire anyone on welfare rolls. No free phones, unless you have a job.

Stop all wars unless it is a direct threat to our national security!

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

It is also well known that the people who are the wealthiest often don't pay any Federal taxes as they hire tax cheating lawyers to get them out of paying even what they would owe now.

The whole taxing scheme is broken and when it is fixed, then there would be more funds coming in from more people who should be paying their dues.

However, we must agree to disagree if you believe that our government doesn't have an income and a spending problem.

Our current fiscal woes can be addressed by adequately addressing both income and spending. The income can be addressed by fixing the tax code and making the tax code equilaterally sensible. A secretary should not be paying a higher tax rate as a person making $250,000.00. It's just not sensible.

If 70% of all taxes are paid by the top 20%, and the Feds rake in TRILLIONS in tax revenue every year, how can you say there is a revenue problem? It's amazing how deluted Americans have become. We look at taxes so differently than our Founding Fathers. We act as if the money we possess is given to us by the government and we owe it to them to give back as much as they demand. It's so counter to the way our country was built. And the beast gets hungrier and hungrier as time passes.

The IRS has it written into it's code that is the obligation of every American to legally pay as little taxes as possible. The wealthy aren't "tax cheating" if they are able to find ways to lower their overall tax bill.

J, you fall for the oldest Dem ploy in the book. If they repeat something enough times, they create the perception. They know if they create the perception and the MSM continues to repeat it over and over and the liberal pundits say it again and again without being challenged, many, many people will believe it. The truth is, there is no revenue problem with the Feds, the rich are not the problem in the US, and if our tax system is broken its not broken because the IRS doesn't confiscate enough money from private citizens and corporations, it's broken in that it's too complicated, overreaching and punitive.

The rest that I want to say is said best in this US News article from 2011:

In politics, perception often counts more than reality. First, for argument sake, let's classify "the rich" as those in the top 1 percent of income earners. For 2009, the most recent data available, to be included in the top 1 percent you had to report Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) of just under $344,000.

That same year, the top 1 percent paid 37 percent of federal income taxes. The top 10 percent (this would include a public school teacher and a police officer each making $56,000 a year who are married and filing a joint tax return) paid 70 percent, and those in the top half paid almost 98 percent of all federal income taxes. That means the bottom half paid about 2 percent. In fact, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, 47 percent of households pay no federal income taxes. Does it seem fair that the top 1 percent pays only 37 percent? Or does the fact that the top 1 percent pays over one third of all federal income taxes seem unfair to the rich?

Perhaps fair means that the top 1 percent should pay an equal share in taxes as they have in income. The top 1 percent reported 17 percent of income, well below the 37 percent share of federal income taxes paid. The top 10 percent reported 43 percent, and the top half reported about 87 percent of AGI. So by this measure of fairness, the rich might be paying too much.

We've all heard Warren Buffet say the rich pay a lower average tax rate than their secretaries. Hence, true fairness would mean the rich pay more of their income in taxes. Again, according to the IRS, the top 1 percent had an average tax rate of 24 percent; the top 10 percent 18 percent; and the top half of taxpayers had an average tax rate of 12.5 percent.

OK, but what about millionaires? Surely they can't be paying their fair share? Well, according to the IRS, this group accounts for just over 9 percent of the total income reported, but pays over 20 percent of all federal income taxes.

Bottom line: The claim that the rich do not pay their fair share, and pay less in taxes than those at lower income levels, is completely inaccurate. In politics, perception often counts more than reality. As the late Democratic Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously stated: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by StillStanding

I'm a Republican, but I think it's unfair for a millionaire to pay a lower effective tax rate than someone making $50,000 because he has a lot of income from investments.

Here is a compromise that I could live with:
INCOME:

Set a floor minimum effective tax rate of 17% for those who make $500,000 or more per year.

Remove all tax loopholes for those who make over $500,000 per year.

No change in tax rates for the middle class.

SPENDING:
Get rid of Obamacare

Stop sending money to our enemies. A country must declare it is a friend of the US before we send them a dime!

Make it more profitable for those on Welfare rolls to get a job than lay around and do nothing! Have the government subsidize businesses who hire anyone on welfare rolls. No free phones, unless you have a job.

Stop all wars unless it is a direct threat to our national security!

I agree with most here, except raising rates on investment income. Not a good move when the economy is hurting.

The problem here is two opposing ideologies. One ideology that puts it's faith and trust in American private enterprise and one that places it's faith in government bureaucracy. It seems to me that the free enterprise system has by far been more successful at creating wealth for everyone, jobs, security, comfort and prosperity than the Feds ever hoped to.

$17 trillion has been spent by the Feds since the War on Poverty began. I dont know that I can say it has been all that successful.