Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yet another bad Obama idea. Not-for-profits are going to take a huge hit and charitable contributions are going to dry up.
But, wait, it's ok, Nanny Federal Government will care for us all.
So, basically you are saying that people only give to charities because they get a tax deduction?
Says a lot about altruism in this country doesn't it?
Anyway, some details on impact on higher earners from the NYT:
Um I do believe all were doing is taking away the tax breaks that the rich were given, and instead taxing the poor less... Its not like Obama is the first person to change tax percentages on certain brackets. Were merely undoing the counter-productive tax plan that Bush put in place.
And you didn't even refute anything I said. Obviously were not just giving tax breaks to lower income families "just because". Is that your argument?
And are you saying that the rich will somehow not be rich anymore after their 3% increase? Or that the poor will all of a sudden become rich?
"caution" must be a nickle-and-dimer who works for another person and doesn't know how an entrepreneur thinks, nevermind reading about their personalities and how they make their money. It's in their blood to make money.
Why does Warren Buffet favor tax hikes? because he knows how to work with numbers and they're always in his favor. so no matter how much he gets taxed, he still makes more so it doesn't really bother him nor any other rich person in this country.
"caution", take a break from all the conservatives on the radio complaining about the tax hikes that were already given a break for about 8 years. stop listening to talk show hosts who make money off you're ignorance and keep spewing the same nonsense to propell themselves up to the upper echelon of society. They really don't care about the common working class male, if they did, they wouldn't take a cut no higher than a couple hundred thousand of if they did take that couple mil in their contracts they'd give back like any "man of the people" would do if they were so much for the people.
I wonder how long it will take people to realize that taxing the wealthy will NOT bring in the revenue needed to cover the spending. There are not enough of the "rich" for that to happen. Obama and the Democrats know that, and that is why they are proposing the elimination of many of the middle class benefits (which amounts to increasing taxes).
The middle class will end up carrying the weight of this spending spree. Hope that happens by next election. Maybe people will have awakened then.
What's so dangerous is that the Democrats want to make people dependent on the government - dependent and complacent - so that they will keep electing the democrats to power. Just look at their pandering to labor unions, evidence of which is laced throughout the spending program and budget proposals. Preference for contracts is to be given to unionized shops, which basically leaves non-union companies and employees out in the cold. It's a new kind of discrimination, isn't it.
The word fair has been used.
Tell me this please.
What more/better federal services do those that pay more get?
Do the rich get 5 Marines and only one for the poor person?
Isn't the point of taxes to pay for what the government provides to you?
Isn't fair for the 'price' to be the same regardless of the recipient?
What income group do you think uses federal government services the most?
The word fair has been used.
Tell me this please.
What more/better federal services do those that pay more get?
Do the rich get 5 Marines and only one for the poor person?
Isn't the point of taxes to pay for what the government provides to you?
Isn't fair for the 'price' to be the same regardless of the recipient?
What income group do you think uses federal government services the most?
There was a tongue-in-cheek suggestion made on a talk show that speaks to your point. Maybe we should start to give people a proportional vote based on the amount of taxes paid. Then if I pay twice the income taxes you pay, I get double the number of votes.
Although suggested in humor, if we had that kind of a system, this country would be a far different place, and our elected officials would pay far more attention to how they tax us and spend our money. We have ignorant people who pay no taxes voting in elections, and they appear content to vote in people who will feed their habit for government "services."
I wonder how long it will take people to realize that taxing the wealthy will NOT bring in the revenue needed to cover the spending. There are not enough of the "rich" for that to happen. Obama and the Democrats know that, and that is why they are proposing the elimination of many of the middle class benefits (which amounts to increasing taxes).
The middle class will end up carrying the weight of this spending spree. Hope that happens by next election. Maybe people will have awakened then.
What's so dangerous is that the Democrats want to make people dependent on the government - dependent and complacent - so that they will keep electing the democrats to power. Just look at their pandering to labor unions, evidence of which is laced throughout the spending program and budget proposals. Preference for contracts is to be given to unionized shops, which basically leaves non-union companies and employees out in the cold. It's a new kind of discrimination, isn't it.
Great post. If you think liberal Democratic policies are good for the econmy, just look at Detroit or New Orleans.
Obama is not "raising" the income tax, he is simply letting the Bush tax cuts for the >$250,000 income group expire.
The plan is full of hidden "tax increases" called by other names. Basic question is -- in the end, will the lower and middle class end up with more in their pockets?
This Thursday the Obama administration will announce the first legislative proposal to begin rolling back the Bush Tax Cuts for the rich, and to redistrubute the tax burden more towards the affluent - WHICH IS WHERE IT SHOULD BE!!!
The days of Dubya's evil smirk are over!!!
Obama will once again make the rich pay their fair share, and to reverse the massive distribution of wealth from the middle-class to the rich that occurred during the Bush administration..
We have been living a great, failed social experiment ever since Reagan - it is called Trickle Down Economics...
It didn't work - the middle class never got anything from it - and now it has resulted in an economic train wreck as the confidence of the middle-class consumer has been shattered...
We need a more progressive tax system - there is absolutely no doubt about it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
