This is socialism and very disturbing

Wilson

Registered User
Forum Member
Feb 8, 2002
4,426
10
0
1813 Virginia St
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Most voters are aware that Barack Obama wants to raise taxes on high-income taxpayers if he's elected president in November.

But what does the Democratic candidate mean by high-income? Who'd be affected and how? While the Obama campaign must still settle on more details about their plans, outlines are starting to emerge.

To start, Obama frequently cites $250,000 as the line between those who would be subject to higher taxes and those who wouldn't.

Indeed, under Obama's tax plan, married couples with at least $250,000 in gross income are likely to see their taxes go up if Obama is elected president.

But what about single filers? The line for them would likely be about $200,000, according to an Obama adviser.

Those groups could end up paying anywhere from several thousand dollars to tens of thousands of dollars more to Uncle Sam than they do now, according to estimates from the Tax Policy Center.

From income to Social Security to estates, we take a look at four areas where the high-income set and the very well off may be subject to a bigger tax bill in an Obama administration.
Income taxes

Obama would restore the top two income tax rates to their pre-2001 levels of 36% and 39.6%. Currently they're 33% and 35%.

Obama's proposal would also reinstate some limitations on how much of a given deduction or personal exemption high-income taxpayers may take.

However, not everyone in the top two brackets would necessarily be affected by the rate increase. Much depends on whether they've been subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) in the past.

You're supposed to calculate your tax liability under both the regular income tax code and the AMT. If your bill under the AMT is bigger, you must pay that.

The Obama rate increase would certainly narrow the spread between the two - since the amount owed under the regular code would go up. The question is would the amount you owe because of the increase exceed your AMT bill.

"Until the regular tax starts exceeding the [AMT bill], you won't have an increase," said John Battaglia, a director in the private client advisors practice of Deloitte. "But if people are deep into AMT, it wouldn't matter."

For example, if the rate increase would mean you owe $2,500 more under the regular code, but your AMT bill is normally $5,000 more than your regular bill, you would still pay the AMT.
Payroll taxes

In addition to wages up to $102,000 - the current cap on salary subject to the payroll tax, which funds Social Security - Obama would also tax amounts over $250,000.

In other words, income between $102,000 and $250,000 would be protected.

Obama's stated goals are to better fund the Social Security program - which faces a long-term shortfall - and to make the system more progressive. Currently, the vast majority of Americans pay the Social Security tax on 100% of their income because they don't make more than the $102,000 wage cap. By contrast, very highly paid taxpayers only pay Social Security tax on a portion of their income. People who make $204,000, for example, only pay the tax on 50% of their income.

The rate at which salary is taxed for Social Security is 12.4% (half of which is normally paid by employees and half by their employers).

Obama hasn't said whether the money from wages and salaries over $250,000 would be taxed at the same rate. If it were, the person making $300,000 in gross income - $50,000 above the $250,000 watermark - would pay an additional $3,100 into the system annually (6.2% x $50,000).

We also don't know whether the benefits promised to the highest income workers would go up as a result of their paying more into the system.

"Those are details that Senator Obama would want to work out on a bipartisan basis with Congress," an Obama adviser said.

That lack of specificity concerns some tax experts. "If Obama is hinting that those making more than $250,000 would pay a higher payroll tax rate ... it would fundamentally change the way Social Security operates and run the risk of making the program look less like social insurance and more like welfare," Tax Vox blog editor Howard Gleickman wrote for the Tax Policy Center.
Investment income taxes

Long-term capital gains used to be taxed differently than dividends, which were subject to one's top income tax rate. Under the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, gains and dividends are treated equally. Currently the most one would pay is 15%.

Both rates are scheduled to rise by 2011 - long-term gains to 20% and dividends would once again be taxed a taxpayer's top income tax rate for dividends.

Obama would continue to treat gains and dividends equally and would keep the current rate in place for everyone except high-income households.

He hasn't specified how high he'd like to make the rate, but observers expect and Obama himself has virtually said that the new rate likely would fall between 20% and 25%.
Estate tax

Finally, Obama's proposals to tax wealth are not only defined by income levels.

When it comes to family wealth, for instance, Obama favors maintaining the estate tax, which is scheduled to be repealed in 2010 for one year. But he would limit its reach.

Obama would freeze the estate tax exemption amount at $3.5 million - up from its current $2 million level and the $1 million level it's set to revert to in 2011. He would also keep the current top rate of 45%, which is below the 55% it is set to revert to in 2011. To top of page
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
I pretty much only skimmed it, Wilson, but i'd be interested what you would classify as 'socialist.' Uh, specifically.

Just giving it a quick once over, it looks much less 'scary' than other stuff that been posted here that also claimed it was Obamas 'official policy.'

Just trying to get a handle on this.
 

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,910
135
63
16
L.A.
I pretty much only skimmed it, Wilson, but i'd be interested what you would classify as 'socialist.' Uh, specifically.

Just giving it a quick once over, it looks much less 'scary' than other stuff that been posted here that also claimed it was Obamas 'official policy.'

Just trying to get a handle on this.

Yeah, you know "socialist" like when we were totally communist in the Clinton years. Remember the long lines for bread and unmotivated business climate of the 1990's.:rolleyes:
 

Cie

Registered
Forum Member
Apr 30, 2003
22,391
253
0
New Orleans
I pretty much only skimmed it, Wilson, but i'd be interested what you would classify as 'socialist.' .

He meant This is proposed redistribution of income and very disturbing.

For the record, laying further tax burden on multi- income families earning 250K is extremely disturbing to me.
 

Wilson

Registered User
Forum Member
Feb 8, 2002
4,426
10
0
1813 Virginia St
I'll try to keep this elementary for the expected simpletons that already replied in this thread.

A system based on discriminatory taxation (progressive taxation of income or inheritance) is simply not related to normal taxation constitutionally allowed by the 16th amendment. It is disguised expropriation of the successful people of this country.

It is simply an attempt to establish social equality.

Kosar, please try to explain to me why this isn't a Socialistic tactic to equally distribute wealth in this country.
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
He meant This is proposed redistribution of income and very disturbing.

Yeah, I understood that he was talking about 'redistribution of wealth.' Just wondered specifically in this *next* official tax policy of Obamas that someone is rolling out, because at first glance, it seems more tepid than some other 'official policies' of his that have been posted here.

For the record, laying further tax burden on multi- income families earning 250K is extremely disturbing to me.

I understand. But I find it puzzling that most people that never comment on the total waste of money in Iraq, get excited about reverting back to previous tax rates. Or better put, letting the 'tax breaks' expire. I truly believe that these, what will have been, 8 years will define our scrambling financially as a nation for God knows how long.

And triple the time frame it if we or Israel pre-emptively attack Iran.

I was actually kind of surprised at this, I guess, 'new' policy because most of it looks pretty reasonable.

Forget about Iraq. Forget about Katrina.

This admin has been the loosest and most irresponsible with our money than probably any since Carter.

Now add in Iraq. No end in sight, probably not really with Obama either, or not for another 3 years or so, all told.

I chuckle about the 'conservative' tag that people place on themselves and they see nothing wrong with this. Not towards you, necessarily, but I think and/or hope you know what I mean.
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
I'll try to keep this elementary for the expected simpletons that already replied in this thread.

A system based on discriminatory taxation (progressive taxation of income or inheritance) is simply not related to normal taxation constitutionally allowed by the 16th amendment. It is disguised expropriation of the successful people of this country.

It is simply an attempt to establish social equality.

Kosar, please try to explain to me why this isn't a Socialistic tactic to equally distribute wealth in this country.

Wilson,

If you're able, please quote from your article what is representative of socialism.

Thank you, sir.
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
The hitting the brews thread is in the general forum.

lol-

I think the first Wilson post that ever made me laugh.

Of course it was for the exact opposite reason than he would think.

I'm quite sure UGA was being sarcastic.

And to that point, nobody here is calling Wilson racist.

Just asking what he finds in that plan that is supposedly (#24 obama plan posted here) socialist.

:shrug:
 

WhatsHisNuts

Woke
Forum Member
Aug 29, 2006
27,941
1,223
113
50
Earth
www.ffrf.org
Matt: Thanks for adding the part about the cost of the war. I love how the right wing, anti-tax crowd is for the war and against increased taxes. The war isn't gonna for itself kids. Any rational person that watchs over their own personal finances knows you can't spend money you don't have without increasing your income or decreasing your other expenses.
 

UGA12

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 7, 2003
7,774
108
63
Between The Hedges
The hitting the brews thread is in the general forum.
Yes I have been drinking, but as kosar said just making an observation from before mentioned general forum.
UGA sorry about your mascot!!

RIP UGA VI
ugaVI.jpg
 

Cie

Registered
Forum Member
Apr 30, 2003
22,391
253
0
New Orleans
Yeah, I understood that he was talking about 'redistribution of wealth.' Just wondered specifically in this *next* official tax policy of Obamas that someone is rolling out, because at first glance, it seems more tepid than some other 'official policies' of his that have been posted here.



I understand. But I find it puzzling that most people that never comment on the total waste of money in Iraq, get excited about reverting back to previous tax rates. Or better put, letting the 'tax breaks' expire. I truly believe that these, what will have been, 8 years will define our scrambling financially as a nation for God knows how long.

And triple the time frame it if we or Israel pre-emptively attack Iran.

I was actually kind of surprised at this, I guess, 'new' policy because most of it looks pretty reasonable.

Forget about Iraq. Forget about Katrina.

This admin has been the loosest and most irresponsible with our money than probably any since Carter.

Now add in Iraq. No end in sight, probably not really with Obama either, or not for another 3 years or so, all told.

I chuckle about the 'conservative' tag that people place on themselves and they see nothing wrong with this. Not towards you, necessarily, but I think and/or hope you know what I mean.

I guess I would consider myself fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I would prefer decreased spending to increased taxation as a method of shrinking the deficit. One thing is certain, I sincerely hope that we are out of Iraq as soon as it's strategically feasible. The reign of this admin has been a mess of deception and spending. Still, I could not have supported John Kerry in '04 -even in retrospect- , just like I cannot support Obama this year.

Here's why ......This unfortunate war will continue to cost $$ for years, as you indicated. Meanwhile, Obama would definitely increase spending on entitlements, foreign aid, etc. Plus he'd increase the burden on entrepreneurs, upper middle class multi-income families, and anyone with dividend income.

Did I mention the ludricous nature of his proposed elimination of capital gains tax? Completely absurd. I can say that Obama and I are not too far apart on his proposed estate tax exemption of $3.5 million. As they say, too little, too late;)
 

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,910
135
63
16
L.A.
I'll try to keep this elementary for the expected simpletons that already replied in this thread.

thanks. :rolleyes:

such complicated concepts being copy/pasted, from totally unbiased sources. i really appreciate the way you've slowed it down.

Sincerely,
Simpleteon
 
Last edited:

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,471
139
63
Bowling Green Ky
Can't really see where Iraq has much to do with but defence defence spending is flexible--its high in times of war less in times of peace--

Liberal social programs are not only constant but grossly understated intially and continue to escalate yearly.

How do you continuely propose new ones when you can't figure how to pay for ones we have:shrug:

--and on tax issue--may I remind you the same liberals mantra how tax breaks would ruin us--yet we had record tax revenues after tax breaks.
Who was right?

The frivilous spending is more the problem than the intake. Such as foreign aid--pork spending etc.

Now if one is really concerned about federal deficeit and spending and not politically motivated it's beyond obvious by each candidates prior actions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/14/u...op/Reference/Times Topics/People/B/Becker, Jo
Senator Barack Obama on Thursday released a list of $740 million in earmarked spending requests that he had made over the last three years, and his campaign challenged Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to do the same.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
John McCain: "one of five senators to reject earmarks entirely, part of his long-standing view that such measures prompt needless spending."
 

IntenseOperator

DeweyOxburger
Forum Member
Sep 16, 2003
17,897
63
0
Chicago
I would prefer decreased spending to increased taxation as a method of shrinking the deficit. One thing is certain, I sincerely hope that we are out of Iraq as soon as it's strategically feasible. The reign of this admin has been a mess of deception and spending. Still, I could not have supported John Kerry in '04 -even in retrospect- , just like I cannot support Obama this year.


:toast:
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top