BREAKING NEWS: Obama to propose a "buffet tax" on people earning $1 MILLION+ a year (election, elect)
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.
You can take the entire wealth of every multi-millionare and billionare in this country and it won't pay off our debt.
I'd like to see your figures on that. As of 2007, the top 1% owned 34.6% of all U.S. wealth. All U.S. household wealth in 2007 was $65 trillion. Even if multimillionaires were limited to the top 1/4 of 1%, that would be enough to pay the entire debt.
But the Obama plan is not a tax on wealth, it's a tax on income. If someone is earning over a million a year, they can afford to pay another 3% income tax -- especially considering that they enjoyed lower tax-rates for 10 years. And the right tosses the baseless meme about taxing the 'job creators' which Warren Buffett, the richest man in the nation, soundly rejects:
Quote:
Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.
I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.
Should the tax rate increase on people earning $1 million+ per year?
The tax rate should increase on the 47% of residents who are currently not paying any taxes.
I might have been willing to say Yes at one point, but then I wasn't making the $250K household income which now qualifies me as "rich" - although it certainly doesn't feel that way.
So let me get this straight. It's ok to keep playing with the amounts that those who are able to earn a higher income through hard work must pay, but the slackers continue to get a free ride?
I'll say No as I aspire to get into the $1M annual bracket.
Those of us who are working hard already pay infinitely more in taxes than that 47% who pay NOTHING yet benefit from our efforts. Let's start taxing EVERYONE and make sure that the entire population has some skin in this game.
Obama knows that the Norquist House isn't going to agree to this. I guess his re-election strategy for the next several months is going to be introducing popular ideas that the Republics dislike so he can then campaign against the do-nothing Congress. We'll see if it works.
This Clown Marxist has no intention of slowing down on his re-distribution of wealth plan! (Unless you're one of his supporters)
All I can say, if you think raising taxes by 3% on millionaires is an example of Marxism, you don't know what Marxism is. Reagan's top tax-rates were 50%. I guess that makes him Red Reagan. Rates were 91% under Eisenhower -- you know, the guy who lead the nation into victory as a general in WWII. I guess he was a Marxist too. No, they both realized that to run a government and pay its bills and debt, the government needs revenue. Currently, government revenue is 14% of GDP -- the lowest in 70 years.
Even 39% isn't high by historical standards. Under Eisenhower, the top tax rate was 91%. Under Nixon, it was 70%. Obama just wants to kick it back to 39 -- just three more points for the very rich. Not back to 91, or 70. Three points. And they go insane. Steve Forbes said that Obama, quote "believes from his inner core that people... above a certain income have more than they should have and that many probably have gotten it from ill-gotten ways." Which they have. Steve Forbes, of course, came by his fortune honestly: he inherited it from his gay egg-collecting, Elizabeth Taylor ***-hagging father, who inherited it from his father. Of course then they moan about the inheritance tax, how the government took 55% percent when Daddy died -- which means you still got 45% for doing nothing more than starting out life as your father's pecker-snot.
Obama knows that the Norquist House isn't going to agree to this. I guess his re-election strategy for the next several months is going to be introducing popular ideas that the Republics dislike so he can then campaign against the do-nothing Congress. We'll see if it works.
He doesn't really have much of an option. The "Do Nothing" don't seem to want to change, it will be up to the American people to change them. I know if I have a tire on my car the has no tread, I change it.
I'd like to see your figures on that. As of 2007, the top 1% owned 34.6% of all U.S. wealth. All U.S. household wealth in 2007 was $65 trillion. Even if multimillionaires were limited to the top 1/4 of 1%, that would be enough to pay the entire debt.
But the Obama plan is not a tax on wealth, it's a tax on income. If someone is earning over a million a year, they can afford to pay another 3% income tax -- especially considering that they enjoyed lower tax-rates for 10 years. And the right tosses the baseless meme about taxing the 'job creators' which Warren Buffett, the richest man in the nation, soundly rejects:
And of course, this tax doesn't affect Buffet one bit.
Stupid remark! All those "rich" people BO wants to tax are mostly the ones who either provide jobs through the business they own or invest and their invested $'s provide the $'s to create and/or support business that provides jobs.
Trickle down economics does not work. They don't create jobs, they just continue to make themselves richer.
Well he announced it with a good lead time so that those earning $1 million plus can alter their incomes so that the actual income is under $1 million and the rest is gained via other means.
He's giving these "rich" a heads up to change the way they earn their money.
But the blind followers probably don't see this.
I'd like to see your figures on that. As of 2007, the top 1% owned 34.6% of all U.S. wealth. All U.S. household wealth in 2007 was $65 trillion. Even if multimillionaires were limited to the top 1/4 of 1%, that would be enough to pay the entire debt.
But the Obama plan is not a tax on wealth, it's a tax on income. If someone is earning over a million a year, they can afford to pay another 3% income tax -- especially considering that they enjoyed lower tax-rates for 10 years. And the right tosses the baseless meme about taxing the 'job creators' which Warren Buffett, the richest man in the nation, soundly rejects:
Yes, please show where you got your figure that total wealth of 2007 was $65 trillion. Just a quick division would make that about $223,000 per person in 2007...that's if you divided $64t by 300m people....
Quote:
A nine-figure fortune won’t get you much mention these days, at least not on these pages. This year, for the first time, everyone in The Forbes 400 has at least $1 billion. The collective net worth of the nation’s wealthiest climbed $120 billion, to $1.25 trillion.
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.
