No wonder Obama has his college records sealed....he probably flunked Math!

[Plane]

  You can't raise taxes on "the rich" and even dent the debt that Obama has rendered upon this country and generations to follow.  But it WOULD continue to squelch any possiblility of job creation, as you raise taxes on the job creators and employers.  But you apparently flunked logic 101

Be Sanguine

Just because President Obama says he will soak the rich does not mean that it will happen, or that he would even try.

He is probly smarter than that, but he seems sure that most of us are not that smart.

Wait untill the retired community finds out that most of the rates he would like to raise are on investment income.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Raising the top tax rate to 39% is not soaking anyone.

You can easily find comparisons between Romney's plan and Obama's online.

Taxes are at close to an all time low, and yet, there are not that many jobs being created.

Warren Buffett and many others made tons of money when taxes were a lot higher.

Sirs can go speak volumes to himself, he is ignorant and annoying.

[sirs]

You can't raise taxes on "the rich" and even dent the debt that Obama has rendered upon this country and generations to follow.  But it WOULD continue to squelch any possiblility of job creation, as you raise taxes on the job creators and employers.  But you apparently flunked logic 101

Be Sanguine

Just because President Obama says he will soak the rich does not mean that it will happen, or that he would even try.

He is probly smarter than that, but he seems sure that most of us are not that smart.

Wait untill the retired community finds out that most of the rates he would like to raise are on investment income.

To be honest Plane, I do think he thinks most of us are not that smart.  It's kinda SOP for liberal elites to think that way.  they just know better and we just need to shut up and let them run things as they deem fit

Raising the top tax rate to 39% is not soaking anyone.

It is when they're ALREADY paying a higher tax rate on their income.  It is when raising it doesn't remotely touch the debt.  But by all means, continue to demonstrate your uncredible say so, but great grasp at immature namecalling

 

Warren Buffett and many others made tons of money when taxes were a lot higher.

Very few of us, who'll be hit the hardest with the increased taxes, have the resources of a Warren Buffett

[Plane]

Raising the top tax rate to 39% is not soaking anyone.

You can easily find comparisons between Romney's plan and Obama's online.

Taxes are at close to an all time low, and yet, there are not that many jobs being created.

It took me a while to get what you ment , then I read this Washington Post article then I got it.

In a way it is true that the effective rate of taxation is falling, in the same way that a students grades would be falling if he were turning in some tests blank and some tests incomplete.

If Americans continue to be unemployed and underemployed in rising numbers the effective rate of taxation will continue to fall as more zeros ands sub pars are added to the advradge.

So having the worst unemployment numbers in thirty years (pretty persistantly) is produceing this statistcal effect.
This is putting a nice spin on unemployment isn't it?


By the way , this statements truth also depends on placeing your time horizon in the correct decade. 


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/15/AR2009041503371.html
http://money.howstuffworks.com/personal-finance/personal-income-taxes/tax-brackets1.htm

Effective Tax Rate

To find your effective tax rate, or your overall tax rate, divide your total tax by your taxable income.


•1913: Tax brackets range from 1 percent on income of $0-$20,000 to 7 percent on income of $500,000 and higher.
•1916: Revenue Act increases rates. Tax brackets range from 2 percent to 15 percent.
•1917: War Revenue Act of 1917 increases rates. Tax brackets range from 2 percent on income of $0-$2,000 to 67percent on income of $2 million and higher.
•1920s: Tax rates are cut because the economy is doing well. The highest marginal rate decreases to 25 percent.
•1930s: Big increases because of the Great Depression. Lowest rate is 4 percent. Highest rate is 79 percent. Income of $90,000-$100,000 is taxed at 59 percent. In 1933, there are 55 tax brackets, mostly in 1 percent increments.
•World War II: Great tax increases to fund the war. The lowest rate in 1944 is 23 percent, for income of $2,000 or less. The highest rate is 94 percent for income of $200,000 or more.
•1981: Economic Recovery Tax Cut of 1981 lowers tax rates. Highest tax rate drops from 70 percent to 50 percent.
•1986: Tax Reform Act of 1986 reduces rates further and cuts the number of brackets. For the 1986 tax year there are 15 tax brackets. For 1987, there are five. [source: The Tax Foundation]

In the 1980s, economists argued that high tax rates dissuaded people from working hard. The tax changes in the 1980s, then, were meant to encourage economic growth. Tax rates have fluctuated since then, but the simplified tax bracket system has changed very little.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Very few of us, who'll be hit the hardest with the increased taxes, have the resources of a Warren Buffett

======================================
The only tax increase proposed is to raise the top bracket from 35% to 39% for incomes over $250K per couple.

No one will be hit hard by that, and the few that will be hit at all will hardly have any aspect of their lifestyle changed.

[sirs]

Very few of us, who'll be hit the hardest with the increased taxes, have the resources of a Warren Buffett
======================================
The only tax increase proposed is to raise the top bracket from 35% to 39% for incomes over $250K per couple.

That's not the Warran Buffett folk.  Compared to the population of this country, the Buffetts make up an extremely small fraction of those making over $250k.  And for those who run a business, have a payroll and other financial obligations to meet, especially if they're barely making 250K, they DO get hit the hardest, while your Mr Buffett throws another $100 in the fire.   Just because Buffett can handle the increased taxes without blinking an eye, hardly refers to the vast majority that it would negatively impact

Not to mention mathematics 101 that demonstrates how this tax increase doesn't even scrape the surface of the debt now being imposed upon this country, its children, and their children's children

[Plane]

Very few of us, who'll be hit the hardest with the increased taxes, have the resources of a Warren Buffett

======================================
The only tax increase proposed is to raise the top bracket from 35% to 39% for incomes over $250K per couple.

No one will be hit hard by that, and the few that will be hit at all will hardly have any aspect of their lifestyle changed.

I guess those not hired as a result of a tax increase will not know why.

[Xavier_Onassis]

They may not even exist. Raising taxes by 4% is NOT a hardship. If you take money out of profits and hire people that same year with the profits, the cost of paying them is deductible as a business expense and no one pays taxes on it.

[Plane]

They may not even exist. Raising taxes by 4% is NOT a hardship. If you take money out of profits and hire people that same year with the profits, the cost of paying them is deductible as a business expense and no one pays taxes on it.

Unemployment is 8%,so +4%=12%

I would guess this to be a hardship.


5

[Xavier_Onassis]

It is absurd to assume that all money not taxed goes to hiring the unemployed.

[Plane]

It is absurd to assume that all money not taxed goes to hiring the unemployed.

I shall take your overstatement and return it in reverse.

It is absurd to think that none of the money ripped away from the economy by taxes is being removed from good purposes.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Probably the worst thing that could be done with money is to spent it on war, or anything that causes destruction. Taxes can be used for highly beneficial things: highways, bridges, hydroelectric plants, medical research. Money in the private sector can be spent on destructive activities: casinos, bogus drugs that not only do not do what they are supposed to, but are harmful.

When money is spent, regardless of by whom, it can have a multiplier effect which is unrelated to whether the government or some private individual spends it.

[sirs]

It is absurd to assume that all money not taxed goes to hiring the unemployed.

I shall take your overstatement and return it in reverse.

It is absurd to think that none of the money ripped away from the economy by taxes is being removed from good purposes.

OUCH....touche', Plane

[Xavier_Onassis]

It is equally absurd to think that money spent by the government is always spend by a more worthy purpose than money spent by some guy with a private business. Money spent on a highway is a lot more productive than money spend on some bozo;s soda vending machines.
There is no touché

[Plane]

It is equally absurd to think that money spent by the government is always spend by a more worthy purpose than money spent by some guy with a private business. ..............................................

Perhaps not always, but generally and mostly yes , money spent by people who need to earn it is spent more wisely than money spent by someone who can demand or print it.