So Obama wants to Raise the Top 2 tax Brackets

[Veretax]

With the top two tax brackets returning to 1990s levels, the Obama Campaign thinks it will raise a lot of revenue. They also have been touting that anyone making under 250K a year will get a Tax Cut. I'm not buying it. According to The Tax Policy Center Here is how the Bracket's break down in 2008 (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/Content/PDF/individual_rates.pdf). Something smells Fishy.

Let's look at a Few of these:

The top two Tax brackets in 2008 were defined as:

If you are Single,
$164,550 up to $357,700
$357,700+

If you were a Head of a Househould,

$182,400 up to $357,700
$357,700+

If you were married filing jointly,
$200,300 up to $357,700
$357,700+

If you were Married filing separately
$100,150 Up to $178,850
$178,850+

That was not including deductions of course. So I don't understand how Obama can say he's going to Cut taxes for everyone under $250K, when the Top Brackets look like this, unless he's going to redefine the brackets. I've not seen one word about him doing that. All I have seen is he wants to roll back the Bush tax cuts. Am I wrong on this? Cause it sure likes a discrepancy from where I sit.

[TMK9973]

Um....when did he say he was going to raise taxes on "The top 2 brackets"?

He said he would increase the TOP markginal tax rate, and lower it for anyone making under 250k.

Never said he was going to raise taxes on the "Top 2 brackets"

[Kilmer17]

Of course this is just the INCOME tax part of his plan.

Business, estate, etc etc taxes will go up for everyone.

[TMK9973]

Ok - I see what you are getting at. In Obama tax plan he says taking the top 2 marginal tax rates and increasing them from 33% and 35% to 36% and 39%.

However - You missed two things -

1) The same plan says that Obama will adjust the thresholds of the rates to ensure that married couple making 250k or less (single making 200k or less) would not see a increase

2) That because the other rates go down, those making higher then 250k would still benifit. Example - If I make 255k a year, well 5k of that will be at a higher rate, but 200k of that will be lower. This is why most experts say that no one making less then 350k wouldn't see a tax increase overall.

[prophet]

To get all the "benifits" that Obama has sprewed out he is either lying (shocked :doh:), or going to have to raise most people's taxes.. If you disagree can I get a free ticket to Disney World from you.

[hkHog]

Of course this is just the INCOME tax part of his plan.

Business, estate, etc etc taxes will go up for everyone.

Exactly, this is completely being ignored. In addition, most (not all) of his proposed income tax reductions for 95% of the population also apply to people who are unemployed so if your income is $0 you will get an income tax refund, or in other words a welfare check every year. In fact, when you consider that 50% of americans already pay no federal income tax that means that under Obama's plan over half of the country will be living on welfare. That is absurd!

[TMK9973]

Exactly, this is completely being ignored. In addition, most (not all) of his proposed income tax reductions for 95% of the population also apply to people who are unemployed so if your income is $0 you will get an income tax refund, or in other words a welfare check every year. In fact, when you consider that 50% of americans already pay no federal income tax that means that under Obama's plan over half of the country will be living on welfare. That is absurd!


Can you back that "Stat" up?

http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/ajc/bookman/entries/2008/10/07/the_half_of_americans_pay_no_i.html

[DeanCollins]

In fact, when you consider that 50% of americans already pay no federal income tax that means that under Obama's plan over half of the country will be living on welfare. That is absurd!

It's "trickle up economics", howduyalike it? :laugh: Makes more sense than reagan's plan as there are a lot more people walking around spending money, instead of hording it. ;)

[TMK9973]

BTW - If you make nothing (or under 19k) you could get a tax credit of $500....


Yup - CLEARLY we will have masses quit their job and make 0 for a whole year in order to get that $500 check......

[MurrayH81]

If you think any of the main party candidates are really going to help you or anyone who looks like you, you are sadly mistaken.

They both are there to help themselves, and their preferred brand of wealthy people.

Taxes are going to be raised to pay for previous spending deficits and new programs. Waste and greed will continue.

Until partisans of both sides wake up and vote all the scoundrels out of office, it will always be that way.

I hope we still can salvage something when that time comes.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Can I suggest that with all the problems we are going to have in the next four years, whether someone pays 39% or 36% income tax on money made over 250K is really not that important.

[SnyderShrugged]

If you think any of the main party candidates are really going to help you or anyone who looks like you, you are sadly mistaken.

They both are there to help themselves, and their preferred brand of wealthy people.

Taxes are going to be raised to pay for previous spending deficits and new programs. Waste and greed will continue.

Until partisans of both sides wake up and vote all the scoundrels out of office, it will always be that way.

I hope we still can salvage something when that time comes.



well said!! :cheers:

[Redskins Diehard]

Can you back that "Stat" up?

http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/ajc/bookman/entries/2008/10/07/the_half_of_americans_pay_no_i.html


It looks like Jay says that 38% or so don't pay income tax. Unless you count FICA which they will be reimbursed when they start drawing their benefits

[SoCalSkins]

Can I suggest that with all the problems we are going to have in the next four years, whether someone pays 39% or 36% income tax on money made over 250K is really not that important.

It is to the person making over 250k.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

It is to the person making over 250k.

Really? Let's consider Joe the fake plumber. He makes 280K a year, say. 30K of that is over 250K. 3% of 30K is less than $1,000. Are you telling me that this election is about $1000 to people? Two wars, SC justices, credit freezes, 10 trillion in national debt, Iran, Russia, and Osama bin laden and other terrorists still running around, and 1000 bucks is the determinative factor. It's really sad.

(by the way, apparently the difference between socialism and free market economics is $1000 now too.)

[hkHog]

It is to the person making over 250k.

And the people they employ. The Dept. of Labor claims that in the nest two years 7 out of every 10 NEW jobs will be provided by people making over $250,000. Raise their taxes and you slow job growth.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

And the people they employ. The Dept. of Labor claims that in the nest two years 7 out of every 10 NEW jobs will be provided by people making over $250,000. Raise their taxes and you slow job growth.

Why did we lose 2 million jobs in the last 8 years then? Before the credit crisis.

And I guess you're saying that those people making 280K a year were going to pay someone 1K a year to work for them and now they can't afford it?

[hkHog]

Really? Let's consider Joe the fake plumber. He makes 280K a year, say. 30K of that is over 250K. 3% of 30K is less than $1,000. Are you telling me that this election is about $1000 to people? Two wars, SC justices, credit freezes, 10 trillion in national debt, Iran, Russia, and Osama bin laden and other terrorists still running around, and 1000 bucks is the determinative factor. It's really sad.

(by the way, apparently the difference between socialism and free market economics is $1000 now too.)

Again, you are only looking at income taxes. Obama wants to raise Social Security and capital gains on people making over $250,000 by much more than 3%.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Again, you are only looking at income taxes. Obama wants to raise Social Security and capital gains on people making over $250,000 by much more than 3%.

5% is much more than 3%, you are right... the same rate Reagan charged.

[SoCalSkins]

Really? Let's consider Joe the fake plumber. He makes 280K a year, say. 30K of that is over 250K. 3% of 30K is less than $1,000. Are you telling me that this election is about $1000 to people? Two wars, SC justices, credit freezes, 10 trillion in national debt, Iran, Russia, and Osama bin laden and other terrorists still running around, and 1000 bucks is the determinative factor. It's really sad.

(by the way, apparently the difference between socialism and free market economics is $1000 now too.)

Why stop at 280k? What if Joe the surgeon is making 2 million a year or Joe the CEO is making 50 million a year? It is over an 8% increase over what a person pays now in the top bracket.

I voted for Obama, but not because of his tax plan.

[hkHog]

Why did we lose 2 million jobs in the last 8 years then? Before the credit crisis.

And I guess you're saying that those people making 280K a year were going to pay someone 1K a year to work for them and now they can't afford it?

Souring economy, minimum wage increase, gas prices, etc... all of those led to unemployment increases. You are proving my point, why do you want to raise taxes on the people who create new jobs when unemployment is INCREASING!? That makes no sense.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Souring economy, minimum wage increase, gas prices, etc... all of those led to unemployment increases. You are proving my point, why do you want to raise taxes on the people who create new jobs when unemployment is INCREASING!? That makes no sense.

Actually, the biggest reason we lost jobs is because the dollar isn't worth **** anymore. Because America, the country, borrowed from China and India way too much.

Look, we can't go crazy and try to balance the budget in four years or anything. But we can be responsible. And the insinuation that a 3% tax increase on less than 5% of Americans is going to cause lost jobs or a recession is ridiculous. And voting on 1000 bucks is ridiculous too given everything else that is going to go on for the next 4-8 years.

[Midnight Judges]

Exactly, this is completely being ignored. In addition, most (not all) of his proposed income tax reductions for 95% of the population also apply to people who are unemployed so if your income is $0 you will get an income tax refund, or in other words a welfare check every year. In fact, when you consider that 50% of americans already pay no federal income tax that means that under Obama's plan over half of the country will be living on welfare. That is absurd!

Are you claiming that McCain would not give a tax refund to people who pay 0 net income tax? If you are, you would be mistaken. Besides, people who work still have payroll taxes.



But such proposals -- known in tax parlance as "refundable tax credits" -- have become increasingly common in recent years, supported by both parties. Sen. McCain himself uses them as the cornerstone of his health-care plan.



President George W. Bush's 2001 tax cuts increased an existing child tax credit, and made it refundable so households that didn't pay taxes could receive it.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122454768040352279.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

[USS Redskins]

It's cool - to quote the messiah, himself: "I just want to spread the wealth around."

And I am sure, no make that POSITIVE that there are liberals who are just dying to give a little more... maybe 40% or 50% - hell, make that 75% of what they earn because the Gov't does such a fan-damn-tastic job of using our money (no matter who is in power). Go ahead liberals - show your support for His Barackness' "Spread the Wealth Around Plan" and give that much more than everyone else...

[KevinthePRF]

Souring economy, minimum wage increase, gas prices, etc... all of those led to unemployment increases. You are proving my point, why do you want to raise taxes on the people who create new jobs when unemployment is INCREASING!? That makes no sense.

To pay for the ever increasing government. Why has zero to do with party affiliation, even though republicans lie to their voters to make them think they will shrink government spending.

[JMS]

Obama is absolutely going to "redefine the brackets"... His proposal has folks making more than 250k getting a moderate increase... but his changes go all teh way up to folks making tens of millions a year and hits them with ever increasing tax hikes.

Wealthy in this country over the last three decades have had it historically good. from 1971 - 1980 when Reagan game to office we had a 70% tax rate in this country for people making more than 200k. And that was a reduced tax rate from previous years. From 1940 - 1963 the top tax rate was closer to 90%.

For the last decade the uber rich have been paying significantly less than the middle class in taxes. Guys like Warren Buffet with his 100 million a year taxible income pay like 15% in taxes. The middle class pay's 30-35%
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php


Obama's "socialist" idea is to get the uber wealthy to pay closser to what the middle class pays, which is totally reasonable. Least it was reasonable when Ronald Reagan had the wealthy paying more than Obama has proposed from 1981-1987..

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Obama is absolutely going to "redefine the brackets"... His proposal has folks making more than 250k getting a moderate increase... but his changes go all teh way up to folks making tens of millions a year and hits them with ever increasing tax hikes.

Wealthy in this country over the last three decades have had it historically good. from 1971 - 1980 when Reagan game to office we had a 70% tax rate in this country for people making more than 200k. And that was a reduced tax rate from previous years. From 1940 - 1963 the top tax rate was closer to 90%.

For the last decade the uber rich have been paying significantly less than the middle class in taxes. Guys like Warren Buffet with his 100 million a year taxible income pay like 15% in taxes. The middle class pay's 30-35%
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

Also true... the tax rate and what people making a certain amount actually PAY in taxes are two totally different things.

[TMK9973]

It's cool - to quote the messiah, himself: "I just want to spread the wealth around."

And I am sure, no make that POSITIVE that there are liberals who are just dying to give a little more... maybe 40% or 50% - hell, make that 75% of what they earn because the Gov't does such a fan-damn-tastic job of using our money (no matter who is in power). Go ahead liberals - show your support for His Barackness' "Spread the Wealth Around Plan" and give that much more than everyone else...


Show me ANY liberal who is saying a income tax rate sould be 40%, 50%, or 75% off income?

In fact - Show may any liberal who says your tax rate should be 35% of your total income?

[Redskins Diehard]

Obama is absolutely going to "redefine the brackets"... His proposal has folks making more than 250k getting a moderate increase... but his changes go all teh way up to folks making tens of millions a year and hits them with ever increasing tax hikes.

Wealthy in this country over the last three decades have had it historically good. from 1971 - 1980 when Reagan game to office we had a 70% tax rate in this country for people making more than 200k. And that was a reduced tax rate from previous years. From 1940 - 1963 the top tax rate was closer to 90%.

For the last decade the uber rich have been paying significantly less than the middle class in taxes. Guys like Warren Buffet with his 100 million a year taxible income pay like 15% in taxes. The middle class pay's 30-35%
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php


Obama's "socialist" idea is to get the uber wealthy to pay closser to what the middle class pays, which is totally reasonable. Least it was reasonable when Ronald Reagan had the wealthy paying more than Obama has proposed from 1981-1987..

Buffet is such an anomaly I don't know why he is always trotted out as the case study. The man is the richest man in the world and has never had a salary higher than 100k per year(the same as his poor tax burdened secretary). You say "guys like Warren Buffet" when there are no guys like Warren Buffet. The man has a 100k salary and no bonus and is worth over 50billion. Make a Buffet tax bracket especially since he apparently won't mind.

[JMS]

Actually, the biggest reason we lost jobs is because the dollar isn't worth **** anymore. Because America, the country, borrowed from China and India way too much.


Actually a significant part of the global economies problem is the dollar is worth too much. You might have noticed that the dollar has appreciated greatly during this financial crisis, as consumers around the world believe the US will weather these financial crisis better than their own countries are flocking to purchase dollars and T bills as the safest investment out there...

This destabilizes foreign countries who we need to be healthy to buy our imports.

Also in Bush's first term, he was the first president since Herbert Hoover too have a net loss of jobs over his entire 4 year term rather than a net gain. And of coarse the dollar was still strong then.

Unemployment isn't a causal effect of a weak dollar. A weak dollar actually makes our imports cheaper and exports more expensive which should ease unemployment.

The job loss has more to do with exploitive one sided trade policies which leave Americans and our minimum wage competing with third world workers who are happy with dollars per day rather than hour. And again the minimum wage hike was not the cause. Now with China, vietnam, Indonesian workers willing to work for $3 a day... hiking the minimum wage from 4-5 dollars is not significant.

There has never been a time in America's existance where Americans could out produce third world labor on a price per hour labor basis. So their went our manufacturing base and our technology industry. Exported by Washington's inability or unwillingness to protect it's market from preditory/exploitive trade practices.



Look, we can't go crazy and try to balance the budget in four years or anything. But we can be responsible. And the insinuation that a 3% tax increase on less than 5% of Americans is going to cause lost jobs or a recession is ridiculous. And voting on 1000 bucks is ridiculous too given everything else that is going to go on for the next 4-8 years.

It would be a disaster to try to balance the buget while the GNP was contracting. That's a page out of hoovers economic hand book. McCain might say he's going to do it, but he's not stupid enough to actually attempt it... We hope.

It would be much smarter to get the economy growing again, and to hold government spending neutral. Then we grow our way out of our troubles like Clinton and Newt did in the 1990's.

[JMS]

Buffet is such an anomaly I don't know why he is always trotted out as the case study. The man is the richest man in the world and has never had a salary higher than 100k per year(the same as his poor tax burdened secretary). You say "guys like Warren Buffet" when there are no guys like Warren Buffet. The man has a 100k salary and no bonus and is worth over 50billion. Make a Buffet tax bracket especially since he apparently won't mind.

Actually Buffet isn't the wealthiest man in the world. He's the wealtheist man in the country, just recently surpassed Bill Gates and the Wallmart family.

Also Buffet does make more than 100 k a year, his secretary makes more than 100k a year; and Buffet does get a bonus too. As I said his taxible income was closser to 100 million than 100k.

The reason Warren get's brought up so much is because he's been very public in declairing what is going on. The wealthiest 1% of the country in 1980 owned 8% of the countries wealth. Today the wealthiest 1% own 20% of the wealth and the middle class is seeing their standards of living decrease and their savings disapear...

Warren saying HEY!!! it's because we wealthy folk are paying half the tax rate as the middle class... That's pretty powerful statement which most Americans didn't realize. It's not an isolated case either. Anybody who makes a majority of his money from dividends and stock investments is in Warren's demographic. Folks who actually work for a living are getting screwed!! Noteing this fact is one reason why Ronald Reagan was against capital gain's cuts/repeall..

[Midnight Judges]

Buffet is such an anomaly I don't know why he is always trotted out as the case study. The man is the richest man in the world and has never had a salary higher than 100k per year(the same as his poor tax burdened secretary). You say "guys like Warren Buffet" when there are no guys like Warren Buffet. The man has a 100k salary and no bonus and is worth over 50billion. Make a Buffet tax bracket especially since he apparently won't mind.

I know plenty of people making well over $500K and not one of them pays more than 28% net income tax. Show me someone who does and I'll show you a someone who needs a new CPA.

[SnyderShrugged]

I know plenty of people making well over $500K and not one of them pays more than 28% net income tax. Show me someone who does and I'll show you a someone who needs a new CPA.



I'm certain that the rate for income over $250k is 36%. If someone is smart enough to take advantage of tax shelters and other deferals, then good for them. All of us can do that regardless of income level. It doesnt change the base rate.

[Midnight Judges]

I'm certain that the rate for income over $250k is 36%. If someone is smart enough to take advantage of tax shelters and other deferals, then good for them. All of us can do that regardless of income level. It doesnt change the base rate.

The base rate is not what matters. The net income tax, the bottom line is what is important. Rich folks have more avenues for deductions, so I don't reallly agree than every can take advantage in similar proportions regardless of income level.

[JMS]

I know plenty of people making well over $500K and not one of them pays more than 28% net income tax. Show me someone who does and I'll show you a someone who needs a new CPA.


The fact is Buffet doesn't use a CPA, doesn't do any tax planning, and has no tax shelter since he's paid off his home in the 1970's. He just sits down and fills out the tax form himself every year.

Before Bush, we counted investment income as income. Now we count investment income as capital gains. For at least one year that income wasn't taxed at all. Currently it's taxed at a much smaller rate than your yearly wage/earnings... Buffet makes a relatively modest salary, and recieves most of his income from his investments. That's why he's down at 15% tax bracket.

I would argue that most of the millionaires in this country are in Warren's demographic of modist wage and the bulk of their earnings coming from investments.

If Buffet had wanted to get creative he has projected he could have gotten his tax burden down another 7--8% without much effort.

[GSF]

I am not an expert in taxes and economics, but it seems to me that raising the taxes of the wealthy may actually help most of them to remain wealthy. Isn't it the middle class that mainly consumes the goods and serviced sold by the companies owned and managed by the wealthy? If the economy continues to falter, won't the struggle of the middle class eventually hurt the wealthy as well?

Also, aren't the taxes increases proposed by Obama actually a return to the rates as they were before Bush cut them?

[JMS]

I am not an expert in taxes and economics, but it seems to me that raising the taxes of the wealthy may actually help most of them to remain wealthy. Isn't it the middle class that mainly consumes the goods and serviced sold by the companies owned and managed by the wealthy? If the economy continues to falter, won't the struggle of the middle class eventually hurt the wealthy as well?


Exactly Correcy... I figure they believe if they can keep what they have, they'll be ok; even if they have a hard time adding to it....



Also, aren't the taxes increases proposed by Obama actually a return to the rates as they were before Bush cut them?

Yes and no. Yes the top tax rate obama is proposing is down around Clinton's, and lower than Ronald Reagan's. No because Obama wants to also repeal Bush Jr's capital gain's break out and count that as income too like every President Before Bush W did. This is the biggest boondoggle going in favor of the super wealthy and will have a dramatic effect on their taxes regardless of a tax rate hike.

[Larry]

I'm certain that the rate for income over $250k is 36%. If someone is smart enough to take advantage of tax shelters and other deferals, then good for them. All of us can do that regardless of income level. It doesnt change the base rate.

According to The Tax Foundation (http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html) (and they get their numbers from the IRS), The average person in the "top 1%" (Which means everybody making over $389K adjusted gross.) paid 22.8% of their adjusted gross in taxes.

(First chart on the page, second line.)

(And no, 36% isn't "the base rate", it's the marginal rate. In theory, they're supposed to pay 36% of whatever they make above the threshold. If the cutoff is $250K, and you make 250,001, then you pay 36% of one dollar.)

[Larry]

The fact is Buffet doesn't use a CPA, doesn't do any tax planning, and has no tax shelter since he's paid off his home in the 1970's. He just sits down and fills out the tax form himself every year.

Before Bush, we counted investment income as income. Now we count investment income as capital gains. For at least one year that income wasn't taxed at all. Currently it's taxed at a much smaller rate than your yearly wage/earnings... Buffet makes a relatively modest salary, and recieves most of his income from his investments. That's why he's down at 15% tax bracket.

I would argue that most of the millionaires in this country are in Warren's demographic of modist wage and the bulk of their earnings coming from investments.

If Buffet had wanted to get creative he has projected he could have gotten his tax burden down another 7--8% without much effort.

When the GOP was complaining that Theresa Kerry wasn't paying enough taxes, because she was paying 15%, it was revealed that the reason her taxes were that low was because roughly half of her income is from tax-free municipal bonds.

[Redskins Diehard]

Actually Buffet isn't the wealthiest man in the world. He's the wealtheist man in the country, just recently surpassed Bill Gates and the Wallmart family.

Also Buffet does make more than 100 k a year, his secretary makes more than 100k a year; and Buffet does get a bonus too. As I said his taxible income was closser to 100 million than 100k.

The reason Warren get's brought up so much is because he's been very public in declairing what is going on. The wealthiest 1% of the country in 1980 owned 8% of the countries wealth. Today the wealthiest 1% own 20% of the wealth and the middle class is seeing their standards of living decrease and their savings disapear...

Warren saying HEY!!! it's because we wealthy folk are paying half the tax rate as the middle class... That's pretty powerful statement which most Americans didn't realize. It's not an isolated case either. Anybody who makes a majority of his money from dividends and stock investments is in Warren's demographic. Folks who actually work for a living are getting screwed!! Noteing this fact is one reason why Ronald Reagan was against capital gain's cuts/repeall..

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/12/C0R3.html

What do you claim his salary is?

http://www.forbes.com/2008/03/05/buffett-worlds-richest-cx_mm_0229buffetrichest.html


Who is the richest man in the world?
Of course this article was way back in March. And with daily gyrations of the markets and dollar and peso and euro it could certinly have changed multiple times in the past week alone. But even if we want to drop the "world's richest man" title he is still the country's richest man.


If you want to have Buffet(a tax bracket of 1 person) shoulder more burden then you will have to adjust how capital gains and dividends are handled...changing something from 35-37 or 100 for that matter will have a minimal impact on his overall percentage.

[Redskins Diehard]

I know plenty of people making well over $500K and not one of them pays more than 28% net income tax. Show me someone who does and I'll show you a someone who needs a new CPA.


So why will raising the percentage do anything?

[SnyderShrugged]

According to The Tax Foundation (http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html) (and they get their numbers from the IRS), The average person in the "top 1%" (Which means everybody making over $389K adjusted gross.) paid 22.8% of their adjusted gross in taxes.

(First chart on the page, second line.)

(And no, 36% isn't "the base rate", it's the marginal rate. In theory, they're supposed to pay 36% of whatever they make above the threshold. If the cutoff is $250K, and you make 250,001, then you pay 36% of one dollar.)


Yes, I understand how the marginal rate works, and I mispoke when I said base rate.

I also understand that many of the wealthy do not pay on the full marginal rate due to just what you referenced. The adjusted gross. I only put forth that all americans are free to benefit from this same tactic, and most do. Regardless, there are set rates that the wealthy pay on there income, and that rate is higher than those that earn less than $250k (without adjustments)

[JMS]

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/12/C0R3.html

What do you claim his salary is?

http://www.forbes.com/2008/03/05/buffett-worlds-richest-cx_mm_0229buffetrichest.html



Buffet was quoted in the tax article as making 46 million of taxable income, being worth 50 million, and paying 17.7% income tax.

That was June 2007..
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece



Who is the richest man in the world?


I thought it was the Sultan of Bruni. Gates held the title for 13 years.



If you want to have Buffet(a tax bracket of 1 person) shoulder more burden then you will have to adjust how capital gains and dividends are handled...changing something from 35-37 or 100 for that matter will have a minimal impact on his overall percentage.

I want a tax rate for myself too. A JMS .2% tax bracket. baring that, I think uber wealthy folks shouldn't pay less than middle class folks living paycheck to paycheck.

[MurrayH81]

I am not an expert in taxes and economics, but it seems to me that raising the taxes of the wealthy may actually help most of them to remain wealthy. Isn't it the middle class that mainly consumes the goods and serviced sold by the companies owned and managed by the wealthy? If the economy continues to falter, won't the struggle of the middle class eventually hurt the wealthy as well?

Amen. This could be said to be a contributing factor to our economic hardship.

Let's think, the middle class are those with decent credit ratings and incomes. When they started to become contracted by having to pay a larger share of taxes, the economy shrank a bit. The alarmed plutocracy decided to grab some money from the next rung down (sub-prime borrowers and those who live on credit). Now, they are coming back to the middle class again (via the Bailout Bill) to get their shell game money back.

[Redskins Diehard]

Buffet was quoted in the tax article as making 46 million of taxable income, being worth 50 million, and paying 17.7% income tax.

That was June 2007..
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece



I thought it was the Sultan of Bruni. Gates held the title for 13 years.



I want a tax rate for myself too. A JMS .2% tax bracket. baring that, I think uber wealthy folks shouldn't pay less than middle class folks living paycheck to paycheck.

I don't know much about the Sultan. And what I do know is from a source that I am usually skeptical of....wiki. But it claims that his wealth is tied to the price of oil so I imagine he has taken a pretty hard hit lately. But that also says he was the richest man in the world in 1997 which seems to contradict your assertion that Gates held it for 13 years prior to WB taking over.

Of that 46 million, 100k was salary. The rest is capital gains and dividends. Changing how those sources of income are treated is in my opinion very different from changing the marginal tax rate of Mr. Buffet(and everyone else for that matter). And that adjustment would involve very different implications.

Larry mentions a good point about Theresa Heinz earlier. How do we stick it to her if she is content with returning a lower percentage tax free?

[Veretax]

First, apologies for bumping a 5 day old thread, and apologies for not responding to a thread I started. The point i was trying to make is something wasn't making any sense. I'd heard out the wazzoo how anyone under 250K would not have to worry about tax increases. A quick look at the Brackets made me believe that perhaps that is not entirely correct, not without redefining the top two income brackets (or adding one). I've read through this thread and I still have not seen anyone able to cite where Obama said he'd redefine the Brackets in this way. Perhaps I'm wrong on this, but it does concern me. Because remember the business man is also paying matching taxes on Social security for example for his employees that are W-2 wage earners. So let's not forget that.

[Tastes Like Chicken]

I have a question, maybe someone can provide some clarification.

If you and your spouse COMBINED make over $250k, then you will not see an Obama tax decrease, correct?

But if you are single you can make up to $200k by yourself, and see a tax decrease.

Something about that doesn't seem right. A dating couple living together could make up to $400k while still getting a tax decrease.

So, if my wife and I combine for more than $250k, should we get divorced?

[ccsl2]

I have a question, maybe someone can provide some clarification.

If you and your spouse COMBINED make over $250k, then you will not see an Obama tax decrease, correct?

But if you are single you can make up to $200k by yourself, and see a tax decrease.

Something about that doesn't seem right. A dating couple living together could make up to $400k while still getting a tax decrease.

So, if my wife and I combine for more than $250k, should we get divorced?

LOL no divorce is needed. Just file seprately.

[Tastes Like Chicken]

LOL no divorce is needed. Just file seprately.

I tell ya what, as if marriage in and of itself wasn't already punishment enough.... :wtf:

[ccsl2]

I tell ya what, as if marriage in and of itself wasn't already punishment enough.... :wtf:

LOL some times you gotta do what you gotta do. Me and my wife file seprately and it works out better if we do it that way. I can use standard deductions and she itemizes (mortgage interst etc.). If we do it together we would be in trouble with Uncle Sam.