ObamaCare includes a 3.8% tax on unearned income

[06wildcat]

There should be more tax brackets added for the higher incomes, with a maximum marginal rate of 45 percent at incomes of around $5 million or so, even then, maybe a handful of people would actually be paying something around 35 percent in taxes.

I was in the 28 percent bracket last year and ended up with an effective tax rate of about 16 percent. I get all sorts of deductions for doing crap that poor people can't even begin to afford. For example, I get to shelter a big chunk of change for retirement now and will most likely be able to pay less in taxes because my income will be less when I need it. Try doing that on $12 an hour while paying for health insurance, rent, etc.

This is where the real problem with our tax system lies. We really need a flat tax with no deductions, credits, or shelters, but it needs to be a graduated flat tax, if that makes any sense.

!0% for someone making $100k is easy,  but 10% for someone making $20k is impossible.

I would propose a 1% income tax for each $10k earned, so if you made $20k you would pay 2%, or $400, $30k would pay 3%, and so on up to 30% for 300k and above. No deductions, period.

Also, a flat 15% for corporate tax.

Might have to adjust those percentages a little bit. The person making $100k would be paying an effective tax rate of 5.5 percent, that's really tough to do even now with deductions.

I'd also favor no corporate tax with a national property tax on business properties before cutting it to 15 percent. Very few corps are paying anything close to 15 percent now anyways highlighted by GE, but more commonly S corps that don't carry over any, or very, little cash from year to year

The only econ class I have ever taken was engg econ, so you'll need to help me understand why it would not be a flat 10%, or $10k, for someone making $100k?

Under a progressive tax structure income is taxed at the rate for the bracket it falls in. About the first $8,000 everyone earns is taxed at 10 percent. The next $26,000 is taxed at 15 percent etc. A guy making $8,000 per year and a guy making $1 billion a year pay the exact same rate on that $8,000. (Disregarding credits, deductions, exemptions etc.).

This is why when Obama proposes lifting the top marginal tax rate back to the Clinton level, the actual tax rates would be lower (10 percent bracket didn't exist).

Under your proposal, someone making $1 million would pay 100 percent in taxes and owe more than they make for anything over that. Even going up 1 percent per $10k would mean that paying anyone more than $1 million would essentially be pointless because all the money would go to taxes.

The marginal tax rate is simply the notational value, the effective tax rate is what you actually pay vs. what most people consider income. Currently the top marginal rate is 35 percent but no one pays anywhere close to that. If there were only two tax rates of 5 and 10 percent with the break coming at $50,000. Someone making $100,000 would pay $2,500 on the first $50k, and $5,000 on the next $50k for a total of $7,500. So while that person would be in the "10 percent bracket", their effective tax rate is 7.5 percent. It goes even lower when you start considering things like deductions and tax credits, unearned income etc.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

There should be more tax brackets added for the higher incomes, with a maximum marginal rate of 45 percent at incomes of around $5 million or so, even then, maybe a handful of people would actually be paying something around 35 percent in taxes.

I was in the 28 percent bracket last year and ended up with an effective tax rate of about 16 percent. I get all sorts of deductions for doing crap that poor people can't even begin to afford. For example, I get to shelter a big chunk of change for retirement now and will most likely be able to pay less in taxes because my income will be less when I need it. Try doing that on $12 an hour while paying for health insurance, rent, etc.

This is where the real problem with our tax system lies. We really need a flat tax with no deductions, credits, or shelters, but it needs to be a graduated flat tax, if that makes any sense.

!0% for someone making $100k is easy,  but 10% for someone making $20k is impossible.

I would propose a 1% income tax for each $10k earned, so if you made $20k you would pay 2%, or $400, $30k would pay 3%, and so on up to 30% for 300k and above. No deductions, period.

Also, a flat 15% for corporate tax.

Might have to adjust those percentages a little bit. The person making $100k would be paying an effective tax rate of 5.5 percent, that's really tough to do even now with deductions.

I'd also favor no corporate tax with a national property tax on business properties before cutting it to 15 percent. Very few corps are paying anything close to 15 percent now anyways highlighted by GE, but more commonly S corps that don't carry over any, or very, little cash from year to year

The only econ class I have ever taken was engg econ, so you'll need to help me understand why it would not be a flat 10%, or $10k, for someone making $100k?

Under a progressive tax structure income is taxed at the rate for the bracket it falls in. About the first $8,000 everyone earns is taxed at 10 percent. The next $26,000 is taxed at 15 percent etc. A guy making $8,000 per year and a guy making $1 billion a year pay the exact same rate on that $8,000. (Disregarding credits, deductions, exemptions etc.).

This is why when Obama proposes lifting the top marginal tax rate back to the Clinton level, the actual tax rates would be lower (10 percent bracket didn't exist).

Under your proposal, someone making $1 million would pay 100 percent in taxes and owe more than they make for anything over that. Even going up 1 percent per $10k would mean that paying anyone more than $1 million would essentially be pointless because all the money would go to taxes.

The marginal tax rate is simply the notational value, the effective tax rate is what you actually pay vs. what most people consider income. Currently the top marginal rate is 35 percent but no one pays anywhere close to that. If there were only two tax rates of 5 and 10 percent with the break coming at $50,000. Someone making $100,000 would pay $2,500 on the first $50k, and $5,000 on the next $50k for a total of $7,500. So while that person would be in the "10 percent bracket", their effective tax rate is 7.5 percent. It goes even lower when you start considering things like deductions and tax credits, unearned income etc.

You misread my proposal.  all of my rates would be effective rates for the total made for the year, and the highest rate would be 30% for those making $300k and above. Everyone would know on Jan 1 exactly how much tax they would owe.

If you made $122,345, you would owe 13%, or $15, 905.85.  If you made $35,780, you would owe 4%, or $1,431.20. No need for a tax accountant, and everyone would pay something.

$0.01 - $10,000 - 1%
10,001 - 19,999 - 2%
20,000 - 29,999 - 3%
30,000 - 39,999 - 4%
.
.
.
100,000 - 109,999 - 11%
110,000 - 119,999 - 12%
.
.
280,000 - 289,999 - 29%
290,000 - infinity    - 30%

[06wildcat]

Yeah, missed the cap bit, makes more sense now. You'd still be raising taxes massively on the lower portion of high earners. You literally have to make millions to pay anywhere close to an effective 30 percent tax rate as it is now. Someone making $400k right now is probably paying an effective tax rate of 20-25 percent. This would raise that by at least $20K and probably closer to $50k or $60k. No one making $400k right now is paying anywhere close to $120,000 in federal income tax.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Yeah, missed the cap bit, makes more sense now. You'd still be raising taxes massively on the lower portion of high earners. You literally have to make millions to pay anywhere close to an effective 30 percent tax rate as it is now. Someone making $400k right now is probably paying an effective tax rate of 20-25 percent. This would raise that by at least $20K and probably closer to $50k or $60k. No one making $400k right now is paying anywhere close to $120,000 in federal income tax.

I'm sure it could use some tweeking in regards to the rates and where they should be applied, but to have a tax code that could be printed on 1 or 2 ages is very attractive to me.

[Rage Against the McKee]

There should be more tax brackets added for the higher incomes, with a maximum marginal rate of 45 percent at incomes of around $5 million or so, even then, maybe a handful of people would actually be paying something around 35 percent in taxes.

I was in the 28 percent bracket last year and ended up with an effective tax rate of about 16 percent. I get all sorts of deductions for doing crap that poor people can't even begin to afford. For example, I get to shelter a big chunk of change for retirement now and will most likely be able to pay less in taxes because my income will be less when I need it. Try doing that on $12 an hour while paying for health insurance, rent, etc.

This is where the real problem with our tax system lies. We really need a flat tax with no deductions, credits, or shelters, but it needs to be a graduated flat tax, if that makes any sense.

!0% for someone making $100k is easy,  but 10% for someone making $20k is impossible.

I would propose a 1% income tax for each $10k earned, so if you made $20k you would pay 2%, or $400, $30k would pay 3%, and so on up to 30% for 300k and above. No deductions, period.

Also, a flat 15% for corporate tax.

Might have to adjust those percentages a little bit. The person making $100k would be paying an effective tax rate of 5.5 percent, that's really tough to do even now with deductions.

I'd also favor no corporate tax with a national property tax on business properties before cutting it to 15 percent. Very few corps are paying anything close to 15 percent now anyways highlighted by GE, but more commonly S corps that don't carry over any, or very, little cash from year to year

The only econ class I have ever taken was engg econ, so you'll need to help me understand why it would not be a flat 10%, or $10k, for someone making $100k?

Under a progressive tax structure income is taxed at the rate for the bracket it falls in. About the first $8,000 everyone earns is taxed at 10 percent. The next $26,000 is taxed at 15 percent etc. A guy making $8,000 per year and a guy making $1 billion a year pay the exact same rate on that $8,000. (Disregarding credits, deductions, exemptions etc.).

This is why when Obama proposes lifting the top marginal tax rate back to the Clinton level, the actual tax rates would be lower (10 percent bracket didn't exist).

Under your proposal, someone making $1 million would pay 100 percent in taxes and owe more than they make for anything over that. Even going up 1 percent per $10k would mean that paying anyone more than $1 million would essentially be pointless because all the money would go to taxes.

The marginal tax rate is simply the notational value, the effective tax rate is what you actually pay vs. what most people consider income. Currently the top marginal rate is 35 percent but no one pays anywhere close to that. If there were only two tax rates of 5 and 10 percent with the break coming at $50,000. Someone making $100,000 would pay $2,500 on the first $50k, and $5,000 on the next $50k for a total of $7,500. So while that person would be in the "10 percent bracket", their effective tax rate is 7.5 percent. It goes even lower when you start considering things like deductions and tax credits, unearned income etc.

You misread my proposal.  all of my rates would be effective rates for the total made for the year, and the highest rate would be 30% for those making $300k and above. Everyone would know on Jan 1 exactly how much tax they would owe.

If you made $122,345, you would owe 13%, or $15, 905.85.  If you made $35,780, you would owe 4%, or $1,431.20. No need for a tax accountant, and everyone would pay something.

$0.01 - $10,000 - 1%
10,001 - 19,999 - 2%
20,000 - 29,999 - 3%
30,000 - 39,999 - 4%
.
.
.
100,000 - 109,999 - 11%
110,000 - 119,999 - 12%
.
.
280,000 - 289,999 - 29%
290,000 - infinity    - 30%

The problem with structuring taxes that way is that if somebody were to get a raise into the lower part of one of those tax brackets, they would effectively make less money due to the higher tax rate. It's only fair to calculate the tax rate the way we do now. I agree that lower rates with little to no deductions makes sense, though.

[06wildcat]

Yeah, missed the cap bit, makes more sense now. You'd still be raising taxes massively on the lower portion of high earners. You literally have to make millions to pay anywhere close to an effective 30 percent tax rate as it is now. Someone making $400k right now is probably paying an effective tax rate of 20-25 percent. This would raise that by at least $20K and probably closer to $50k or $60k. No one making $400k right now is paying anywhere close to $120,000 in federal income tax.

I'm sure it could use some tweeking in regards to the rates and where they should be applied, but to have a tax code that could be printed on 1 or 2 ages is very attractive to me.

Honestly I don't know why people want such simplicity in something that's inherently complex. The very idea of a progressive income tax structure is that those with more income benefit more from government services. The problem is it's very difficult to determine just how much more they benefit and what their share of funding that government should be.

It's painfully obvious that a store owner benefits more from a well-maintained street than the individuals shopping in said store. If we were to put that store on an island accessed by one bridge and it failed, the shoppers are only out the items they would have purchased there. The owner has lost virtually his entire income.

So you have three parties all with vested interests, the owner, shoppers and the government which sees tax revenue from both. Now both the owner and shoppers have an obligation to pay the government to keep that bridge in working order. The question is how much does the government charge each individual? That's difficult to answer, and subject to change at any moment.

Advocating for a fair tax structure and and a simple tax structure are really two different things.

FWIW, under the current structure, a person making $400k would pay $117,658 for an effective tax rate of 29.4 percent even though they're in the 35 percent bracket. That total includes no deductions, exemptions, credits or deferments. It would be incredibly easy to knock that payment down well below $100,000 with those added in, especially if this person lives in a state that has an income tax.

As an example:

The Bidens reported total income of $379,178 on their 2010 tax return, which consists mostly of the vice president's salary of $255,888 and Jill Biden's salary as a college teacher of $82,488. The Bidens also itemized, taking deductions for state income tax, property tax, mortgage interest, and charity. Like many other taxpayers, the Bidens got hit with the Alternative Minimum Tax. The Bidens paid federal income taxes of $86,407, roughly 23% of their total income.

So even under the AMT, the Biden's paid an effective rate of 23 percent, well below the marginal rate of 35 percent. Also far less than what your plan would call for. And you're still going to need some form of deduction for state and local taxes on any plan.

[06wildcat]

Incidentally, Obama made about $1.7 million last year and paid the same effective rate as Biden.

[Joker]

Just think of what else is buried in that 10 million page bill....

That's why we passed it, remember?  To find out what was in it.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

So it's a tax that affects virtually no one?  Or is it a tax that destroys home builders and real estate investors who don't get the personal exemption?  I hope various union contractors are made aware of this if that's the case.  Wouldn't want to mislead them as to why they're getting fired (i.e. the evil rich boss business owner).

I wonder what the Obama made the CBO say it would raise in revenue?  My guess, a couple hundred billion.

Why shouldn't real estate investors and home builders have to pay taxes?

Didn't realize they were previously exempt from taxes.  If that's the case, isn't the real question "why do real estate investors and home builders only have to pay a 3.8% tax"?  If that's not the case, why should they have to pay additional taxes above and beyond what everyone else pays.

They do pay taxes on capital gains if they make enough money. The thing about real estate investment is that you are allowed to reinvest and only pay taxes on the amount of cash you keep. So, I could develop a plot of land, sell that plot of land at a profit of $1,000,000, and then use that $1,000,000 to buy a new even bigger plot of land and pay no taxes on the $1,000,000. The proposed tax will just be a small tax increase for very wealthy people.

This isn't exactly true.  You can do a 1031 exchange and defer taxes in this manner, but eventually you have to pay taxes on all gains.  It's not like the gains just disappear.

I'm sick and tired of people saying the "wealthy" don't pay their fair share.  Half this rough ridin' country pays no income taxes, yet they're running around saying the wealthy don't pay enough.  IMO, if you don't pay any income taxes you can't say what someone elses "fair share" is or is not.  The tax system is fundamentally unfair as drafted, therefore any attempt to make it "more fair" by targeting one group of people is at best political rhetoric and most likely old fashioned populous class warfare (the lowest form of democracy).

Well, I'm personally in favor of no income tax for anyone and a VAT instead, but as long as we are taxing income, I'd rather not give the tax breaks to the billionaires. You should be taxed based upon how much you make each year. You shouldn't be able to save on taxes and use that money to get even wealthier.

Paying ZERO income taxes seems like a pretty good "break".  That's half the country.  Paying less of your unfair share, is not a break.

What blows my mind about all of this is that it was the Dem controlled House/Senate/Exec who renewed those "tax breaks for the wealthy" including upping the Unified Credit to $5MM.  It blows my rough ridin' mind that democrats bitch about the marginal tax bracket of the wealthy while simultaneously endorsing the people who set the wealthy's marginal tax bracket.  They are certifiable insane retards, all of them.

How they can get away with this mindless horseshit class warfare is beyond ridiculous.  This President is a stereotypical certified piece of crap politician.

[Rage Against the McKee]

So it's a tax that affects virtually no one?  Or is it a tax that destroys home builders and real estate investors who don't get the personal exemption?  I hope various union contractors are made aware of this if that's the case.  Wouldn't want to mislead them as to why they're getting fired (i.e. the evil rich boss business owner).

I wonder what the Obama made the CBO say it would raise in revenue?  My guess, a couple hundred billion.

Why shouldn't real estate investors and home builders have to pay taxes?

Didn't realize they were previously exempt from taxes.  If that's the case, isn't the real question "why do real estate investors and home builders only have to pay a 3.8% tax"?  If that's not the case, why should they have to pay additional taxes above and beyond what everyone else pays.

They do pay taxes on capital gains if they make enough money. The thing about real estate investment is that you are allowed to reinvest and only pay taxes on the amount of cash you keep. So, I could develop a plot of land, sell that plot of land at a profit of $1,000,000, and then use that $1,000,000 to buy a new even bigger plot of land and pay no taxes on the $1,000,000. The proposed tax will just be a small tax increase for very wealthy people.

This isn't exactly true.  You can do a 1031 exchange and defer taxes in this manner, but eventually you have to pay taxes on all gains.  It's not like the gains just disappear.

I'm sick and tired of people saying the "wealthy" don't pay their fair share.  Half this rough ridin' country pays no income taxes, yet they're running around saying the wealthy don't pay enough.  IMO, if you don't pay any income taxes you can't say what someone elses "fair share" is or is not.  The tax system is fundamentally unfair as drafted, therefore any attempt to make it "more fair" by targeting one group of people is at best political rhetoric and most likely old fashioned populous class warfare (the lowest form of democracy).

Well, I'm personally in favor of no income tax for anyone and a VAT instead, but as long as we are taxing income, I'd rather not give the tax breaks to the billionaires. You should be taxed based upon how much you make each year. You shouldn't be able to save on taxes and use that money to get even wealthier.

Paying ZERO income taxes seems like a pretty good "break".  That's half the country.  Paying less of your unfair share, is not a break.

What blows my mind about all of this is that it was the Dem controlled House/Senate/Exec who renewed those "tax breaks for the wealthy" including upping the Unified Credit to $5MM.  It blows my rough ridin' mind that democrats bitch about the marginal tax bracket of the wealthy while simultaneously endorsing the people who set the wealthy's marginal tax bracket.  They are certifiable insane retards, all of them.

How they can get away with this mindless horseshit class warfare is beyond ridiculous.  This President is a stereotypical certified piece of crap politician.

Have you looked at how much money you have to make before you start paying taxes? It's only about $25,000. To me, it's more sad that half the country can't make $25,000 per year than it is that those people aren't taxed on their income.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

You can't force somebody to work.  Maybe if it wasn't so easy not to work in this country, more people would try it.  The government created the problem, and the only way to fix it is to undue the idiotic programs that incentivize poverty (that word has almost no meaning in this country).  Instead, the government has brainwashed everyone into thinking that if we raise the highest marginal tax bracket 2% everyones problems will be solved.  What some guy who earns $1,000,000 pays in taxes has absolutely no effect on the so-called impoverished in this country.


What do you think about Obama and the Dems continuing the "tax breaks for the wealthy" and expanding the evil rich peoples' ability to pass wealth onto generations tax free?  I assume the liberals on this board are livid pissed about it.  Crushing the middle-class and all.

[Rage Against the McKee]

You can't force somebody to work.  Maybe if it wasn't so easy not to work in this country, more people would try it.  The government created the problem, and the only way to fix it is to undue the idiotic programs that incentivize poverty (that word has almost no meaning in this country).  Instead, the government has brainwashed everyone into thinking that if we raise the highest marginal tax bracket 2% everyones problems will be solved.  What some guy who earns $1,000,000 pays in taxes has absolutely no effect on the so-called impoverished in this country.


What do you think about Obama and the Dems continuing the "tax breaks for the wealthy" and expanding the evil rich peoples' ability to pass wealth onto generations tax free?  I assume the liberals on this board are livid pissed about it.  Crushing the middle-class and all.

You would have a point if half the country didn't work.

Also, I've always thought that the Bush tax breaks being called "tax breaks for the wealthy" was only a half-truth. Those tax breaks were extended to everyone, even those who pay no taxes. It is very irresponsible to lower taxes and fight a war or two at the same time, though. I'd like to see those tax cuts repealed until we are no longer at war.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

So it's a tax that affects virtually no one?  Or is it a tax that destroys home builders and real estate investors who don't get the personal exemption?  I hope various union contractors are made aware of this if that's the case.  Wouldn't want to mislead them as to why they're getting fired (i.e. the evil rich boss business owner).

I wonder what the Obama made the CBO say it would raise in revenue?  My guess, a couple hundred billion.

Why shouldn't real estate investors and home builders have to pay taxes?

Didn't realize they were previously exempt from taxes.  If that's the case, isn't the real question "why do real estate investors and home builders only have to pay a 3.8% tax"?  If that's not the case, why should they have to pay additional taxes above and beyond what everyone else pays.

They do pay taxes on capital gains if they make enough money. The thing about real estate investment is that you are allowed to reinvest and only pay taxes on the amount of cash you keep. So, I could develop a plot of land, sell that plot of land at a profit of $1,000,000, and then use that $1,000,000 to buy a new even bigger plot of land and pay no taxes on the $1,000,000. The proposed tax will just be a small tax increase for very wealthy people.

This isn't exactly true.  You can do a 1031 exchange and defer taxes in this manner, but eventually you have to pay taxes on all gains.  It's not like the gains just disappear.

I'm sick and tired of people saying the "wealthy" don't pay their fair share.  Half this rough ridin' country pays no income taxes, yet they're running around saying the wealthy don't pay enough.  IMO, if you don't pay any income taxes you can't say what someone elses "fair share" is or is not.  The tax system is fundamentally unfair as drafted, therefore any attempt to make it "more fair" by targeting one group of people is at best political rhetoric and most likely old fashioned populous class warfare (the lowest form of democracy).

Well, I'm personally in favor of no income tax for anyone and a VAT instead, but as long as we are taxing income, I'd rather not give the tax breaks to the billionaires. You should be taxed based upon how much you make each year. You shouldn't be able to save on taxes and use that money to get even wealthier.

Paying ZERO income taxes seems like a pretty good "break".  That's half the country.  Paying less of your unfair share, is not a break.

What blows my mind about all of this is that it was the Dem controlled House/Senate/Exec who renewed those "tax breaks for the wealthy" including upping the Unified Credit to $5MM.  It blows my rough ridin' mind that democrats bitch about the marginal tax bracket of the wealthy while simultaneously endorsing the people who set the wealthy's marginal tax bracket.  They are certifiable insane retards, all of them.

How they can get away with this mindless horseshit class warfare is beyond ridiculous.  This President is a stereotypical certified piece of crap politician.

Have you looked at how much money you have to make before you start paying taxes? It's only about $25,000. To me, it's more sad that half the country can't make $25,000 per year than it is that those people aren't taxed on their income.

If you have kids, this number is much higher.  If you have many kids, the government pays you.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

You can't force somebody to work.  Maybe if it wasn't so easy not to work in this country, more people would try it.  The government created the problem, and the only way to fix it is to undue the idiotic programs that incentivize poverty (that word has almost no meaning in this country).  Instead, the government has brainwashed everyone into thinking that if we raise the highest marginal tax bracket 2% everyones problems will be solved.  What some guy who earns $1,000,000 pays in taxes has absolutely no effect on the so-called impoverished in this country.


What do you think about Obama and the Dems continuing the "tax breaks for the wealthy" and expanding the evil rich peoples' ability to pass wealth onto generations tax free?  I assume the liberals on this board are livid pissed about it.  Crushing the middle-class and all.

You would have a point if half the country didn't work.

Also, I've always thought that the Bush tax breaks being called "tax breaks for the wealthy" was only a half-truth. Those tax breaks were extended to everyone, even those who pay no taxes. It is very irresponsible to lower taxes and fight a war or two at the same time, though. I'd like to see those tax cuts repealed until we are no longer at war.

Only 58% of the country works (per Bureau of Labor Statistics), which isn't my point at all.  The point is:  raising the highest tax bracket 2% does absolutely nothing for those people who don't pay taxes in that bracket.  Yet, our bad person president has brainwashed the masses into thinking if the rich pay more, their problems are solved.  Which is dishonest on his part, and Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on there's.

If more people worked, there would be more tax revenue, and there wouldn't be a need to raise taxes on anyone.  The problem isn't that taxes aren't high enough, its that not enough people pay taxes.  History has shown that cutting taxes increases job growth, which increases wages and personal wealth, which increases increases tax revenue.  It also increases consumption, which is how this country measures it's economic worth. 

Unfortunately we have a President and a political party that thinks the only the country grow economically is with Federal Govt. "investments".  When that ridiculous plan didn't work (as every single person with a brain said it wouldn't) they went around telling people that they saved the country from being worse than it might have been (epic fail) and that we just need to get used to things the way they are, because the Country has changed and there's nothing we can do.  Such is "Hope" with this loser President. 

[06wildcat]

You can't force somebody to work.  Maybe if it wasn't so easy not to work in this country, more people would try it.  The government created the problem, and the only way to fix it is to undue the idiotic programs that incentivize poverty (that word has almost no meaning in this country).  Instead, the government has brainwashed everyone into thinking that if we raise the highest marginal tax bracket 2% everyones problems will be solved.  What some guy who earns $1,000,000 pays in taxes has absolutely no effect on the so-called impoverished in this country.


What do you think about Obama and the Dems continuing the "tax breaks for the wealthy" and expanding the evil rich peoples' ability to pass wealth onto generations tax free?  I assume the liberals on this board are livid pissed about it.  Crushing the middle-class and all.

You would have a point if half the country didn't work.

Also, I've always thought that the Bush tax breaks being called "tax breaks for the wealthy" was only a half-truth. Those tax breaks were extended to everyone, even those who pay no taxes. It is very irresponsible to lower taxes and fight a war or two at the same time, though. I'd like to see those tax cuts repealed until we are no longer at war.

Only 58% of the country works (per Bureau of Labor Statistics), which isn't my point at all.  The point is:  raising the highest tax bracket 2% does absolutely nothing for those people who don't pay taxes in that bracket.  Yet, our bad person president has brainwashed the masses into thinking if the rich pay more, their problems are solved.  Which is dishonest on his part, and Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on there's.

If more people worked, there would be more tax revenue, and there wouldn't be a need to raise taxes on anyone.  The problem isn't that taxes aren't high enough, its that not enough people pay taxes.  History has shown that cutting taxes increases job growth, which increases wages and personal wealth, which increases increases tax revenue.  It also increases consumption, which is how this country measures it's economic worth. 

Unfortunately we have a President and a political party that thinks the only the country grow economically is with Federal Govt. "investments".  When that ridiculous plan didn't work (as every single person with a brain said it wouldn't) they went around telling people that they saved the country from being worse than it might have been (epic fail) and that we just need to get used to things the way they are, because the Country has changed and there's nothing we can do.  Such is "Hope" with this loser President. 

If all the strawmen in your post had jobs no one would ever have to work.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Wow, another person on this board who doesn't know what a strawman is.  shocking. . .

BTW, great argument 06