Obamas marriage penalty

harrymanback

I am supporting obama, but have a question on his tax plan some here may be able to answer.

why does Obama's plan increase rates for persons with family incomes above $250,000 while the individual income level is set at $200,000. is it me, or does that not seem fair for the family. go to school, get a good job, marry a spouse who did the same, start a family, get screwed.

blackredyellow

harrymanback wrote:

I am supporting obama, but have a question on his tax plan some here may be able to answer.

why does Obama's plan increase rates for persons with family incomes above $250,000 while the individual income level is set at $200,000. is it me, or does that not seem fair for the family. go to school, get a good job, marry a spouse who did the same, start a family, get screwed.

No idea... could you file individually and get $200k per return?

jimed14

This is not a slam on the original poster ....

But, one thing I am getting tired of when discussing the tax increases to the rich ... some people are acting like they are going to be bankrupt. Like they are going to have to fire people, it'll cost jobs is what i'm hearing.

Obama wants to reverse the Bush tax cuts, which, during a time when we're fighting 2 wars and racking up record deficits, seems to make sense.

This would mean the top income brackets will go back to the tax %s they had under Cliton ... 39.6% ... and it is currently 35% ....

Is that additional 4.6% to the weathiest 5% REALLY going to "stagnate" this economy? Are they going to get all chicken little and cry the sky is falling?



As for the original post ... well, you're talking about two people on average making $125k vs one individial making $200k ... perhaps, that one making $200k is seen as a lot more well off? I'm not sure .. but I will say ... 4.6% isn't going to kill anyone. I'm sure smart folks will find deductions to lessen the blow.

know1

jimed14 wrote:

This is not a slam on the original poster ....

But, one thing I am getting tired of when discussing the tax increases to the rich ... some people are acting like they are going to be bankrupt. Like they are going to have to fire people, it'll cost jobs is what i'm hearing.

Obama wants to reverse the Bush tax cuts, which, during a time when we're fighting 2 wars and racking up record deficits, seems to make sense.

This would mean the top income brackets will go back to the tax %s they had under Cliton ... 39.6% ... and it is currently 35% ....

Is that additional 4.6% to the weathiest 5% REALLY going to "stagnate" this economy? Are they going to get all chicken little and cry the sky is falling?



As for the original post ... well, you're talking about two people on average making $125k vs one individial making $200k ... perhaps, that one making $200k is seen as a lot more well off? I'm not sure .. but I will say ... 4.6% isn't going to kill anyone. I'm sure smart folks will find deductions to lessen the blow.

But why is it so important that we feed more money to the Federal government?

What if, instead of reversing the Bush tax cuts, we actually pushed through more tax cuts for the poorer end of the financial spectrum?

See - I'm against repealing those tax cuts, but I'm in favor of giving more tax cuts to the less wealthy to make up the difference.

jimed14

know1 wrote:

But why is it so important that we feed more money to the Federal government?

What if, instead of reversing the Bush tax cuts, we actually pushed through more tax cuts for the poorer end of the financial spectrum?

See - I'm against repealing those tax cuts, but I'm in favor of giving more tax cuts to the less wealthy to make up the difference.

this is why ... our record level deficit we need to pay down before China owns our asses ...

http://www.calaborlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/deficits-by-president.jpg

know1

jimed14 wrote:

this is why ... our record level deficit we need to pay down before China owns our asses ...

http://www.calaborlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/deficits-by-president.jpg

But I see that as a spending issue instead of a revenue issue. Let's cut spending.

jimed14

know1 wrote:

But I see that as a spending issue instead of a revenue issue. Let's cut spending.

well, it's both ... fighting these wars isn't helping ...

but as long as we are FORCED to spend on the wars, sorry, we need to collect a little more tax ... and sorry it's coming from the rich, but, it's not some ENORMOUS hit ...

I'm not a blind Obamanaut ... I think he suckered out and dodged the question "with a $700B bail out on the horizon, what are you going to cut from your spending plan?" during the debate (so did McCain) ...

Neither of these guys has a fool proof way to bring the deficit back to zero ... but, I do know, McCain wanting to LOWER taxes on the wealthy again, is down right irresponsible.

know1

jimed14 wrote:

well, it's both ... fighting these wars isn't helping ...

but as long as we are FORCED to spend on the wars, sorry, we need to collect a little more tax ... and sorry it's coming from the rich, but, it's not some ENORMOUS hit ...

I'm not a blind Obamanaut ... I think he suckered out and dodged the question "with a $700B bail out on the horizon, what are you going to cut from your spending plan?" during the debate (so did McCain) ...

Neither of these guys has a fool proof way to bring the deficit back to zero ... but, I do know, McCain wanting to LOWER taxes on the wealthy again, is down right irresponsible.

So if we weren't fighting a war (a war I oppose) then you would be in favor of an overall tax cut?

Nevertheless, wouldn't you agree that it's EASIER to fight the war if you have the money for it? One of the ways that I oppose it is to call for lower taxes. In my opinion, it's kind of flawed to want the war to stop, but to continue to call for higher taxes to fund it.

jimed14

know1 wrote:

So if we weren't fighting a war (a war I oppose) then you would be in favor of an overall tax cut?

Nevertheless, wouldn't you agree that it's EASIER to fight the war if you have the money for it? One of the ways that I oppose it is to call for lower taxes. In my opinion, it's kind of flawed to want the war to stop, but to continue to call for higher taxes to fund it.

If the war stopped tomorrow ... we'd still be trillions of dollars in deficit.

know1

jimed14 wrote:

If the war stopped tomorrow ... we'd still be trillions of dollars in deficit.

So lets cut spending.

jimed14

know1 wrote:

So lets cut spending.

agree ... and ... raise a little revenue.

spiral out

What i want to know is what percentage of americans actually earn over $200.000 a year?

_

know1 wrote:

But why is it so important that we feed more money to the Federal government?

What if, instead of reversing the Bush tax cuts, we actually pushed through more tax cuts for the poorer end of the financial spectrum?

See - I'm against repealing those tax cuts, but I'm in favor of giving more tax cuts to the less wealthy to make up the difference.

How will tax cuts help people who are too poor to pay taxes to begin with? They won't. But social programs such as those that provide health care will.

beachdweller

drop it all, create a loop hole free flat tax rate for business and individuals/families so this stupidity can stop

harrymanback

beachdweller wrote:

drop it all, create a loop hole free flat tax rate for business and individuals/families so this stupidity can stop

problem is it would be too easy ...