Do Obama supporters really, truly

[Colleen27]

I don't believe that to be true, they were lower under Reagan, and then Bush I raised them, remember him getting tossed out of office for breaking his "read my lips" comment.

You're ruight. There is a brief period during the last year of the Reagan administration and the first two years of the elder Bush's administration where the top rate was slightly lower than it is now. However, the overall trend remains - the top rate in the 40s was in the 80% range, 90% top rates prevailed in the 50s and 60s. In the 70s, the top rate fell to 70%; for most of the Reagan administration, it was 50%. Obama's proposal would reset the rate to the pre-Bush rate of 39% - still far lower than through most of the history of the income tax in our country.

 

[Master Mason]

I wish we could just have a flat tax. Get rid of all these complicated hidden taxes, and everyone will still pay their fair share.

I completely agree with this. How much did you make, multipled by a percentage, and send a check.

 

[Mickey&Donald]

Socialist.

 

[HakunaMatata2]

Hmm, not sure...half million a year? Million a year? Something like that.

Or maybe if you have a million or so put away...not including your primary residence.

And exactly what amount of capital gains income do you think a half million or million dollars will produce? How about when the markets fluctuate as they are doing now and the basis for capital gains income gets cut in half? I hope you realize that many of these folks that you think are rich would actually qualify for one of Obama's handouts.

 

[Disneycrazymom]

I just don't understand why $250 is such a "magic" number? I think we are - to quote a movie - all in this together -and we need to stand up when anyone is being treated unfairly. I believe the people who have worked for the money should get to keep it. Where is the cut off. When do we stand up and say NO that money belongs to them. They earned it! I am sad that so many think because it is not them it is perfectly fine.

 

[freckles and boo]

I just don't understand why $250 is such a "magic" number? I think we are - to quote a movie - all in this together -and we need to stand up when anyone is being treated unfairly. I believe the people who have worked for the money should get to keep it. Where is the cut off. When do we stand up and say NO that money belongs to them. They earned it! I am sad that so many think because it is not them it is perfectly fine.

I think there are much more significant things to be sad about. Poverty, bankruptcy because of health care costs, illiteracy, crime, cancer... I can't muster sadness for this.

 

[Sk8Leigh]

I think there are much more significant things to be sad about. Poverty, bankruptcy because of health care costs, illiteracy, crime, cancer... I can't muster sadness for this.

It's what our country was founded on, equal opportunity for all, not equal results. We aren't European Socialists, or we aren't supposed to be. So yes, when we are turning into that, it is sad.

 

[Galahad]

The wealthy do reap benefits from the fact that many of us didn't choose to pursue the almighty dollar. We provide valuable services to the community instead

.

Most people that are "wealthy" - say around that 200,000 or 300,000 range (there are a lot more of them than the multi-millionaires) are 1) working for wages - not living off of capital gains, and 2) did not get where they are by "pursuing the almighty dollar". That's insulting at best. The supposition that altruism is the private purvue of the underpaid is absurd.

There is nothing defensible about a progressive income tax code any more than there is anything defensible about those parts of the code that are regressive.

If somebody owns a large house with say, 4 large Plasma TV's in it and it is broken into and one of them is stolen, should the thief have a different punishment because they victim had three other TV's left over after the theft. The "what you have left over" argument really doesn't make sense. Who decides what is "enough"?

 

[sha_lyn]

I just don't understand why $250 is such a "magic" number? I think we are - to quote a movie - all in this together -and we need to stand up when anyone is being treated unfairly. I believe the people who have worked for the money should get to keep it. Where is the cut off. When do we stand up and say NO that money belongs to them. They earned it! I am sad that so many think because it is not them it is perfectly fine.

Not to mention that in some areas $250 isn't very much to live on. Sure here we would be set for life if DH made that, but in place like NYC or LA-CA it is barely a comfortable income.

 

[Mickey&Donald]

I agree with you that many folks are very focused on themselves these days, and I really wish that wasn't the case. I think it's important for those who have more to help those who have less. However, I think that should be done through charitable giving rather than a government mandate.

A lovely thought, but not even close to realistic. Charitable giving is something that people should already be doing (heck, I have next to no money, and I still donate to those who have even less than I do!). Sadly, charitable giving is not as widespread as it should be. How many wealthy people do you know who are looking at the excess $100,000 in their bank account, and saying, "You know, I really only NEED $30,000 to live on every year. I'm giving the rest to charity!"

It's a sad world we live in.

 

[AndyLL]

One correction. The rich were not paying a lower rate. As has already been stated in this thread, we have a marginal rate. So the taxes from 1 to x are one rate, from x to y another and so on. The top rate only tells you what the marginal rate is for the top bracket, to know the full story, you must also know what the brackets are. So while according to your numbers, the top marginal rate was lower, that only means that once you spilled over into the top bracket that you were taxed at a lower rate for each additional dollar.

A little nitpicky but yes. But it was not progressive since as income went up the marginal rate did not.

But your numbers did prove what I was saying, the tax rates under Clinton were not the lowest they had been in the last 3 decades they were lower under both Reagan and Bush from your numbers.

The rate was lower for 4 years out of those 3 decades.

 

[SydneyFalco]

Do these people really think it's okay?

What's the incentive to do better financially under the Obama plan, as your increase will be lessor so that others can "share your wealth"?

Well, I doubt this'll make much impact on someone who considers Obama (a centrist politician at best in almost any other industrialized nation in the world) to be ideaologically similar to Castro, but here goes: progressive taxes function on the idea that any society that enables a person to make millions or even billions (for this we must admit that the society and its structures/institutions plays as much of a role in a person's getting ahead as the person's talents, whatever Ayn Rand might think) needs that person to acknowledge their debt to said structures/institutions. To put it more simply, the better this country helps make it for you--protecting you, enabling you--the better you must help make this country.

As for its "denying incentive to achieve", anyone's welcome to pay me 300K a year at the highest U.S. progressive tax rate on record for the rest of my life, and I'll work twice as hard as I do now.

What I find amazing is that, with their country at war on two fronts and in debt to China in the mega-billions, patriotic Americans are not clamouring to help contribute to getting out from under. It's a big change from the days of victory gardens, rubber drives and meat rationing.

 

[FergieTCat]

... never mind ...

 

[Mrs.Toad]

I don't think so. I think in the past the top rates were far higher than they are now. But I don't think anybody was discouraged from earning more. In fact, the USA was at it's economic peak relative to the rest of the world. Nobody could touch us back then.

Back when top rates were 91%, or even 70%, I could see where some might be discouraged from working hard to earn more.

But 35-39%? I don't think people are that petty.

Up to 1986 the top rates were 49% and 50%
1987 it was 35% and 38.5%
1988-1992 it was 33% and 28% (thats right... the rich paid a LOWER rate then the middle class
1993-1999 36% and 39.6%

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

The rich did just fine in the 80s and 90s with those rates

A minor quibble. Your "up to 1986" was 1982-1986. From 1965-1981, the top rate was 70%. Prior to that, the top rate was 91% for nearly 20 years.

Kind of makes the difference between 35% and 39% look like small potatoes, doesn't it?

 

[Mrs.Toad]

Oops, and I have to add that I prefer McCain's tax plan to Obama's, I just don't think Obama's is the end of the world. Besides, the many other issues where I prefer Obama's stance easily cancels out this one.

 

[AndyLL]

Most people that are "wealthy" - say around that 200,000 or 300,000 range (there are a lot more of them than the multi-millionaires) are 1) working for wages - not living off of capital gains, and 2) did not get where they are by "pursuing the almighty dollar". That's insulting at best.

Obama's plan was 250,000 adjusted gross income so most people in your range would not even be touched. (probably only over 280K or so)

The exact bottom number I'm sure will be debated.

There is nothing defensible about a progressive income tax code any more than there is anything defensible about those parts of the code that are regressive.

There is plenty defensible about it which is why just about every country has had it forever.

It is much easier for the wealthy to make more money and to avoid taxes on more money.

Something as simple as a COL adjustment in income favors the rich.

Everyone in my company received a 3% raise... who benefits most. I don't hear Republican's complaining when a progressive raise in income helps them.

 

[Galahad]

What I find amazing is that, with their country at war on two fronts and in debt to China in the mega-billions, patriotic Americans are not clamouring to help contribute to getting out from under. It's a big change from the days of victory gardens, rubber drives and meat rationing.

Wow. There are a number of replies to this but I stick with:

1) "Contibuting" comes in many varieties. Contributing to my government is not the only or even the most effective way to get us out from under.
2) The entire tenor of the argument being made is that those whose taxes are going up are being told they have behaved badly and will now be corrected. Sanctimony is not a very persuasive way to win an argument.

 

[Galahad]

There is plenty defensible about it which is why just about every country has had it forever.

How? Taking money from a rich person is still theft. Taking money in order to do something "noble" with it is still theft. How is the fact that every other country has it an argument in its favor? There are a lot of things most other countries have that even the most liberal American would not want any part of.

 

[SplashMtnCrew]

The incentive is that even after taxes you have more money. And more money means more things to make you happy.

A $1000 tax credit isn't going to buy me a Lexus or a vacation home.

Why are people 'entitled' to these things? More things are never going "to make you happy." Technically, Robin Hood was a thief, wasn't he? No matter the motive, to take something that doesn't belong to you is stealing.


Those who mention 'rich' people and public school teachers needing more money, that is laughable. A truely "rich" person would never consider sending their children to a 'public' school. Therefore, they don't really care how much $ a public school teacher makes. Just stating a fact.

 

[Galahad]

Those who mention 'rich' people and public school teachers needing more money, that is laughable. A truely "rich" person would never consider sending their children to a 'public' school. Therefore, they don't really care how much $ a public school teacher makes. Just stating a fact.

I disagree with this. Unless you have a more precise definition of truely rich.

That teachers are underpaid (a solid fact) is not an argument in favor of confiscating money from people who are not underpaid.