What do you think of Obama's proposed Buffett Rule?

About 40% of all households don't pay any personal income taxes.

 

Which only make up 43% of all Federal taxes paid.

 

Question: What makes YOU think YOU deserve my money? After all, if I worked hard, studied hard, played by all the rules, saved, invested....and YOU didn't.....then why should I be forced to give you some of my money?

How many millions in our country don't pay any federal income taxes? How many actually not only do NOT pay anything in, but get a credit paid to them? I can tell you that it's far more than the number at the top who aren't paying any. So, how 'fair' is that? Obama has said everyone must pay their fair share. "Everyone." He said everyone. But not everyone does. And this wasn't always the way it was and just proves how far our country has moved towards socialist policies. Back in the old days, you didn't have to make much, but you paid Uncle Sam something in taxes. I think it actually made people feel like they were part of it all....that they were also helping to support the country. And the income levels who pay ZERO in federal income taxes is rising fast, thanks to liberals. Click on chart below to see the breakdown on income levels...and how much they pay in federal income taxes:

 

Who are you talking to? Who asked you to give them your money?

You're totally wrong. It was Bush who cut millions off the tax rolls. You don't remember him braggin about it?

 

This is a bit distorted as anyone can point out. The chart refers to "personal income taxes" and not all income taxes paid by working individuals. FICA taxes, specifically the Social Security portion, are only paid for by those earning less than about $107K (this year) with Medicare taxes only being collected on earn income without a cap. The total typically FICA tax rate a 7.65% but has been reduced for the last two years with the money being replaced by general revenues but normally that is a huge burden for low income individuals. The "Return" they get above what they paid in personal income taxes is a "rebate" for FICA taxes to lower their overall tax burden. The Social Security Trust Fund gets all of the FICA/Payroll taxes but a refund is provided from "general expendatures" to these low income workers.

Is 40% not paying personal income taxes fair? Of course not which is a primary argument for letting the Bush era tax cuts expire at the end of 2012. Republicans as well as Democrats should support allowing the Bush era tax cuts to expire. They were only temporary to begin with.

As for the "paying for welfare" we must realize that this only relates to roughly $550 billion of which only $330 billion is paid for by taxation. The rest is borrowed. The largest share of this goes to food assistance programs (i.e. "food stamps") where predominately it's white divorced women with children receiving this assistance. I don't support how the Federal government provides assistance for food but at the same time I don't endorse allowing Americans to literally starve to death. There are better ways to provide food for the needy for about 1/4th of the cost but it needs to be done regardless.

Based upon average income statistics I'm very well off, albeit not wealthy, and I pay a huge amount in both FICA and personal income taxes. I don't mind doing that but certainly argue that our government is wasting at least 1/2 of the entire federal budget. My bigger concern is that the federal government is borrowing money to fund it's expendatures. Yes, we need to reduce spending (something the Republicans aren't really advocating except "down the road" when they won't be in office), freeze the national debt limit, and increase taxes to the point that we have a balanced budget.

If we go by Obama's budget proposal that reflects almost $1 trillion in deficits I would propose cutting that budget by $400 billion at least. Allow the Bush era tax cuts to expire raising revenue by about $370 billion and then increase taxes across the board or further reduce expendatures by cutting military expendatures (the elephant in the living room) by until the $230 billion gap is closed and we have a balanced budget.

I'll pay more in taxes but the deficit spending must stop and it must stop right now. I will not agree to pay more in taxes if the government continues to borrow. We have no Right to impose debt upon future taxpayers, ever.

 

Which is why I support allowing all of the Bush era tax cuts to expire. None of us were "hurting" under the Clinton era tax rates. That would still leave about $630 billion more in spending cuts and tax increase that are required and 2013 needs to be a balanced budget year just like the 2000 Clinton budget. If we could balance the budget under a Democratic president before then we should be able to do it again and it needs to be done in 2013 after all of the outrageous deficit spending over the last 11 years under Bush and Obama.

 

You and others will forever politicize this issue and will remain jealous of the wealthy!

What you don't understand is a tax IS NOT LEVIED ON THE PERSON! Taxes are levied on a transaction. The capital gains tax rate is the same for all capital gains, no matter if the amount is $50K or $50 trillion. It makes NO difference who the person might be!

Focus on the transaction and stop politicizing and personalizing this stuff and you will find eternal happiness...

 

I understand it perfectly.

A middle class family that earns its income has very little investment income. They pay a marginal rate of 28% plus FICA taxes of 7.5%.

A trust fund babie or Mitt Romney who has unearned income based on their wealth pays the special low privileged tax rate of 15%.

Which is why Romney who is worth a quarter billion pays a much lower marginal rate of tax than a typical middle income family.

Which is total horse(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Wow, all the billionaire and millionaire apologists. The only trickle down y'all going to get is what's left over after a whiz.

 

On deferred income investments at withdrawal the person pays ordinary income taxes...which is really a rip if their tax rate is above the capital gains tax rate.

On non-deferred income investments, or after-tax investments, these are taxed at the current capital gains tax rate.

How many millions of Americans have 401K or similar plans that have after-tax investments? My point is simple; the capital gains tax rate applies to millions of Americans...not just the wealthy. Every property owner is subject to capital gains taxes.

Unless someone is encouraging a 'progressive' capital gains tax rate, if it remains a flat rate, raising this rate will negatively effect tens of millions of Americans...

 

A reward in society for those who work hard, manage their lives in order to save some money, and who try to plan for the future, is to invest in something; stocks, bonds, property.

When you make statements about Romney or trust fund babies you prove your jealousy of the wealthy.

Once again, taxes are levied on a transaction...not on a person. Every person is entitled to the identical tax laws...there is no discrimination!

 

Whoa Nellie, where did this 28% tax come from on middle class families? I make considerably more than the average American middle class family and I pay a ton of taxes but I don't come anywhere near paying 28% of my net income in personal income taxes.

While I won't look it up I believe that the median household income is $70,000 or close enough to use that. If I refer to the 1040EZ instructions where a person would pay the maximum amount of tax (if they could pay less by itemizing then they wouldn't use the 1040EZ) then immediately for a family of 2 there is a $19,000 deduction. So we have a net income of $51,000 that is taxable. The tax on $51,000 per the tax charts (page 34) for two filing jointly is $6,804.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040ez.pdf

That is a tax rate of 13.34% (not 28%) on $51,000 in net income based upon a joint filing status using form 1040EZ for a median income family.

If I go to the highest possible tax listed on the 1040EZ tax charts it's for $100,000 in net income and the tax is $17,244 or 17.244%.

It is true that this doesn't include FICA taxes which, if I recall correctly, are about 4.5% currently but should go back up to the 7.65% as soon as Congress stops pandering for votes in November. This reduction in the FICA tax rate makes no sense to begin with because those that have jobs aren't hurting from unemployment and the "lost FICA" revenues are being paid into the Social Security/Medicare Trust fund with deficit spending.

 

The question I propose to you all is when was the last time a poor person hired you to work. I'm pretty sure never or if you had one it lasted only a few months. The ugly truth is if you want a job, you can't take the upper class because we're the ones that work for them unless you're your own boss. This is going to raise the rate of unemployment because now the upper class is going to cut what they're paying for workers because now they have to pay more taxes. He's just pressing the button on the elevator to the floor below Carter if you ask me.

 

It's amusing to see how many people want higher taxes. Why isn't the opposite of this rule embraced? For example, why aren't people that are paying higher tax rates than millionaires and billionaires, since they get their money from capital gains and not from an employer, demanding that their tax bracket is decreased.

 

I see the Buffet rule as a bit ridiculous. Let's take Mitt Romney seeing as so many people use his example. Yes, he may only pay 15% on his capital gains, but he more than likely paid taxes on that money before he invested it and the 15% he paid dollars-wise is more than any of us pay at our highest tax rate.

However, I am not a believer in Supply-Side economics and over the past 12+ years, tax-breaks for the rich do nothing to increase jobs. There is no trickle down. You want the economy better? Find a way to give the Middle class more disposable income. Just like the Military, it is the middle managers (senior NCO's or E6-E9) who really run things. If the middle class does well, so goes the economy (I stole that line from Ed Shultz of MSNBC!).

The reason I say this is because the wealthy buy what they want to, reguardless of the status of the economy. One can only have so many houses, cars, and other things. Once they find they have everything they do one of two things: 1) they put the money away 2) They run for President.

 

Why are we even having a discussion about increasing the tax rates on wealthier people? What can possibly be the motive for this?

In constant 2005 dollars, 50 years ago the federal government spent ~$2000 per citizen, and today, they are spending ~$11,000 per citizen.

The next question is how much of this ~$9000 extra per citizen the government is spending is taking care of domestic issues?

This IS NOT comprehensive tax reform; this is 100% political BS and millions of American suckers fall for this crap...pathetic...

 

What do you believe the results of a public survey might be if only one question is asked; In order to fund the government you demand, and in order to reduce deficit spending and debt, will YOU support a 3% tax rate increase for ALL federal income tax brackets?

 

Of course Romney and others have paid million$ in federal and state taxes at the highest tax rates. As they accumulate more after-tax cash, they invest more...precisely what all Americans should be doing. Those who earn more can invest more and those who earn less will invest less...duh...this is not rocket science...this is life! We need all income groups in society; the wealthy cannot exist without lower incomes and lower incomes cannot exist without the wealthier.

How do you know that in your 12+ year time frame that tax breaks for the wealthier did not create some quantity of jobs? Do you believe that most jobs are created by tax breaks for the lower incomes?

BTW; the tax rate reductions were for all income groups...not just the wealthy.

Lastly, in private enterprise, you don't simply 'give' the middle class, or anyone, more disposable income. Wages and compensation are determined primarily by supply and demand. US companies also are struggling to compete in the global marketplace so arbitrarily giving people more income exacerbates the off-shore manufacturing debate.

If I am only capable of earning $30K per year, then it is imperative of me to design a lifestyle in which I only spend $27K per year and place $3K minimum per year into cash savings, and I must not assume any credit debt that I cannot service if I am unemployed for six months. For every American who violates this common sense guideline...this provides a big part of the explanation why so many people today feel poor...

 

I don't know if the owner qualified as "poor" but I have worked for an owner where I was paid more than the owner made in "take-home" wages and the job lasted for about two years until I left.

This isn't really all that surprising because business ownership can be based upon borrowed money and often the owner earns virtually nothing compared to the workers. For the last two years at my brother's Mercedes Benz service center, an established business for over 20 years, he's earned almost nothing but the technicians continued to earn a fairly good living because of the recession.

 

Reducing the deficit does not reduce the national debt. All deficits increase the national debt.

If the question was "In order to fund the government to reduce the national debt will you support a 62.5% increase in current taxation?" I believe that virtually everyone wouldn't just say "No" but instead would they'd say, "HELL NO!" but with 40 cents of every dollar in expendatures based upon borrowing that's what's required just to balance the US budget.

 

Sure, and potentially fabulous wealth most cannot even imagine.

How so?

Repetitive and irrelevant as demonstrated above. The effect is that trust fund babies and Mitt Romneys who are wealthy enough to live off their investments pay a marginal tax rate less than half what middle class working families pay.

Which is BS.

 

Let me know if you misread my post or really do not understand what marginal tax rate means.

 

When poor people spend money they are definitely putting people to work.

When a billionaire has his money stashed in a bank that is not lending, he is not.

 

Of course.

Ask the Pass the Buck generation to raise taxes and they say "hell no".

As the Pass the Buck generation to gut SS or medicare or the military or any other major spending programs and they say "hell no."

Politicians pander to them and cut taxes and pass more spending program.

We need a government that will stand up to the Pass the Buck generation.

But that has only happened once in the past 31 years.

 

Sorry I missed that and yes I do know but based upon a quick Wiki look-up the marginal tax rate for $60K in 2010 was 15% for a married couple filing jointly. Of course that is on net, not gross income, and while deductions vary based upon personal expendatures I might assume that $60K in net income might reflect $100K or perhaps more in gross income from personal experience.

It is still long ways from 28% cited.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Federal_income_tax_rates_2