This is about Obama, but it's also not thread...

Again, show me where in Obama proposal is he going to tax the ultra wealthy more? You know the top half of the 1% you talk about. Those who don't have any money to begin with don't pay much taxes anyway.

Please explain how Obama's SS plan is not a big tax hike on people makes more than 200k?

So the way to balance the budget is to institute massive spending like Obama's plan? Was taxed around 40% last year, I will be taxed a lot more under Obama, how much is enough. Do you want to go back to the Jimmy Carter years?

 

yeah I forgot about all those middle class people busting their hump to make money off of the carried interest exception and the estate tax.

because it's not, relatively speaking.

No, actually the Bill Clinton years would be just fine. yeah -wow, raising taxes to the level that they were at during the longest postwar economic expansion in history is a real economic death -sentence. Hell, I bet Obama's plan wouldn't even match the levle they were at under George Bush I.

And the fact that you were taxed around 40% means you suck at finding tax deductions - hire a better accountant next time.

 

I see, so a 6.5% tax hike is insignificant to you?

LOL, I guess you know my finance better than myself and my accountant? So please do share with me some magic deductions you know of.

 

just a few posts ago you were pretending like you were a man in the street bustin yo' hump for a paltry 75k, now you are rockafella making 200k

The 6.5% number you are pulling out of the ass of somebody else, but if that is the case my advice to you is to suck it up or move to a country with a lower effective tax rate, like Iraq.

 

Pretending? Are you kidding me, where did I say I was making 75k?

The 6.5% I was referring to the uncapped SS tax Obama is proposing. Moving to a another country? Neah, I much rather this country doesn't repeat the Jimmy Carter years.

 

The top earners in this country pay a 15% tax rate on a majority of their income.

How'd that happen?

Well, we set up the rules.

I bought into a little start up gas exploration company. We've been drilling wells for about 3 years. Any royalty income we make we put back into drilling wells so I've been getting a K-1 back for a couple of years that shows a loss for our drilling expenses. Last year I got back several thousand dollars from what I had been paying on my quarterly estimated tax for years. Starting this year we will begin selling the wells that we have owned for more than 12 months and when I get my check for my percentage, I will pay 15% capital gains on the income.

Sweet huh?

Of course Big Jorge will point out that I could have lost my ass and in fact a lot of people get into this type of thing and do...but if I had it would have been tax deductable.

 

yeah Obama's a hell of a guy, but he is way to inexperienced to be the head of a country. Being a senator for 3 years isn't a great accomplishment. He has good arguments when it comes to the debates, but there is a whole lot more to being president than arguing over healthcare and tax cuts.

 

Not really, the President is primarily just the author of his administration's mission statement. After that and his first 10-12 key appointments, the day to day work of the executive branch is done by the bureaucracy.

Do you think Obama would appoint a Secretary of State with no international experience? Would much of the State department's personnel turn over under the level of ambassador? Probably not.

That's why the vision and philosophy of the candidate is the most important factor and after that the ability to judge character and competency in his appointments. (exactly the major failing of the Bush administration that chose loyalty and dogma over competency)

I think that's the potential people see in Obama versus the politics as usual they see in Clinton. Of course, potential means you haven't done anything yet, but it explains the growing landslide.

 

^ I'm not quite sure its as simple as that. Different Presidents have different management styles, Reagan delegated almost everything while Clinton liked to be involved in almost everything. The President is more than just delegator and chief as still needs to play a direct role in steering the direction of his Admin. and for better or worse is accountable for the successes and misteps of the bureacracy. As Reagan showed with Iran-Contra and GW Bush with Katrina just leaving it to the bureacracy can easily get a President into trouble.

Of course the flip side holds true that sometimes a President needs to just back off like Carter probably should've as during the Iran Hostage Rescue attempt but I don't think that means that the President should just always sit back and leave everything outside of broad vision to the bureacracy.

 

Your example is ridiculous, not because it's impossible, but because it's not happening that often. Since the internet bubble burst, there's not a lot of dumb investors throwing money at unprofitable ventures. And if they make money, they are taxed at an average of 35% (second highest among capitalist countries in the world), and then if the owner wants to pull out any of those profits, he or she is taxed at 15%. The owner may choose to pay himself or herself an income instead, but if so, it is taxed at the appropriate rate.

(I certainly don't have a problem with dividend taxes, because I think we should encourage reinvestment.)

 

Upper middle class folks earn salaries, the wealthy make capital gains from ownership. The capital gains tax rate is 15%.

Appreciating assets is where the real money is. Actually heavily leveraged appreciating assets.

 

LOL - removing the social security contribution cap is repeating the Jimmy Carter years? You are either deliberately being ignorant or deliberately misleading. I don't really care to figure out whcih one.