So again, on things he can't use executive action on, like taxes, he should say nothing?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Obama Will Seek to Raise Taxes on Wealthy to Finance Cuts for Middle Class
- Thread starter Trojita
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
So again, on things he can't use executive action on, like taxes, he should say nothing?
Sounds like you can live off a whole lot let less so you should be welcoming this change.I read it and it's disgusting. I'm trying to support my family and save for retirement and this shit only hurts that cause. I'm lucky we were just able to pay off our auto loans a couple months back. But the fucking student debt might as well be a mortgage in and of itself. So essentially I'll be at a higher tax rate just because I barely make more than 500k? Absurd. It'd be different if I were even at 750k but essentially 505k for 3 people and another on the way with the already absurd health cost, cost of living etc. it's just not helping and I'm pissed.
LegendofJoe
Member
You realize taxes don't work like that right? You'll pay higher taxes on the 5k you make over 500k...
Exactly, it's no wonder at all to me why he's having trouble saving money when he's that clueless about how taxes work.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Yeah really. What retired couple is making that much money? I would love to be "retired" and still have 180 grand coming in every year.where do these numbers come from? 260k a year?
If i made 230k a year i'd gladly pay more taxes.
I don't know why that makes it not count. Republicans wanted him to extend the cuts for everyone, including the rich, and were threatening not to vote for any extension that didn't include the rich. Obama stuck to his guns and got it so only the rich cuts expired.
If Obama is some corporatist double agent, why wouldn't he just go with republicans and extend the tax cuts for the rich?
Did I say he was those things? Letting tax cuts expire is a whole lot less work and less blame towards his party than inacting tax code revisions that screw over the people that fund all election campaigns.
Politicians will not seriously consider raising taxes on the rich while elections are so costly to do.
I read it and it's disgusting. I'm trying to support my family and save for retirement and this shit only hurts that cause. I'm lucky we were just able to pay off our auto loans a couple months back. But the fucking student debt might as well be a mortgage in and of itself. So essentially I'll be at a higher tax rate just because I barely make more than 500k? Absurd. It'd be different if I were even at 750k but essentially 505k for 3 people and another on the way with the already absurd health cost, cost of living etc. it's just not helping and I'm pissed.
Where do you live that $500K for a family of 3 isn't MORE than sufficient? I live in NY and that is MORE than enough to be comfortable no matter where you live. Cry me a river LOL.
A capital gains tax increase will be destructive to the middle class...
How will the proposed increase be destructive to the middle class?
How will the proposed increase be destructive to the middle class?
I missed this part:
for couples with incomes above $500,000 annually.
Exactly, it's no wonder at all to me why he's having trouble saving money when he's that clueless about how taxes work.
Well to be fair, most people have no clue how taxes work. That's why they get upset at titles like this topic. The middle class who get upset about tax raises for the rich in particular. Republicans are excellent at taking advantage of people's ignorance.
I missed this part:
Even if it was for all incomes, I wouldn't call it "destructive" to the middle class. Capital gains should be taxed even higher IMO. Most middle class people earn money through their wages so any marginal tax increase on capital gains is unlikely to do real damage.
You also only see the increased tax rate on the dollars earned above the $500,000 threshold. If you make $505,000 per year, you will only see an increased effective tax rate on the $5,000 that you make above the threshold.
Also, if you donate to charities or non-profit organizations, you can eliminate the impact that the taxes have on your earned income.
I'm having a hard time seeing a family earning over $500,000 per year as middle class. Everyone seems to believe they are middle class.
Also, if you donate to charities or non-profit organizations, you can eliminate the impact that the taxes have on your earned income.
I'm having a hard time seeing a family earning over $500,000 per year as middle class. Everyone seems to believe they are middle class.
Elfforkusu
Member
Maybe he can use the NSA's databases to blackmail all republican congressmen into going along with it.
You also only see the increased tax rate on the dollars earned above the $500,000 threshold. If you make $505,000 per year, you will only see an increased effective tax rate on the $5,000 that you make above the threshold.
Also, if you donate to charities or non-profit organizations, you can eliminate the impact that the taxes have on your earned income.
I'm having a hard time seeing a family earning over $500,000 per year as middle class. Everyone seems to believe they are middle class.
This reminds me of the dentist and lawyer saying they would pay a lot more in taxes, because they make $201,000. Relight doesn't seem to know the difference between marginal vs effective tax rate.
This is either terrible trolling, a complete misunderstanding of what progressive taxation is, or a complete delusion. Or, a combination of all three.
You realize taxes don't work like that right? You'll pay higher taxes on the 5k you make over 500k...
You guys all don't understand how the capital gains tax rates work. They are not marginal.
You guys all don't understand how the capital gains tax rates work. They are not marginal.
Who is talking about capital gains? I sure as hell wasn't.
So you were not talking about the proposal to increase capital gains tax on couples earning more than $500,000?Who is talking about capital gains? I sure as hell wasn't.
A Human Becoming
More than a Member
It's just PR talk. That's what politicians do. It's not meaningful, it doesn't impact the party, it doesn't do anything. He should talk about what he can do instead of pandering to his supporters.So again, on things he can't use executive action on, like taxes, he should say nothing?
It's just PR talk. That's what politicians do. It's not meaningful, it doesn't impact the party, it doesn't do anything. He should talk about what he can do instead of pandering to his supporters.
You aren't answering my question. If your idea is that the president should only ever talk about things he can directly implement through executive order, we would hardly hear from him. Your concept of what a resident should do is bizarre.
You guys all don't understand how the capital gains tax rates work. They are not marginal.
The poster in question wasn't talking about capital gains taxes either.
Well, he claims to have read the proposal, and the only proposal relating to $500k is about capital gains, right? The first reply to his post even told him it was about capital gains.The poster in question wasn't talking about capital gains taxes either.
I find capital gains taxes destructive to the government as a whole. They are among the most fluctuating tax categories there are, and when you budget around them you can accidentally set yourself up for a huge deficit in case of an economic downturn. And as a result spending would have to drastically change with how the economy is doing.
Taxes should be based on more stable things, and get rid of capital gains taxes completely.
Taxes should be based on more stable things, and get rid of capital gains taxes completely.
So you were not talking about the proposal to increase capital gains tax on couples earning more than $500,000?
No
Well, he claims to have read the proposal, and the only proposal relating to $500k is about capital gains, right? The first reply to his post even told him it was about capital gains.
Right, which is why Cyan rightfully corrected him that he was misinterpreting what he was reading. And then it was all righted.
So which proposal relating to $500k incomes are you talking about?
A Human Becoming
More than a Member
I want to hear about things that can potentially happen, not fantastical thinking. He's been spouting this stuff for years. It gets old.You aren't answering my question. If your idea is that the president should only ever talk about things he can directly implement through executive order, we would hardly hear from him. Your concept of what a resident should do is bizarre.
Yes, I would rather the president not babble on about the same policies constantly when they're not going to happen.
Randolph Freelander
Member
Why wasn't any of this proposed years ago when Obama knew he could get it through Congress?
He couldn't get it through Congress after 2010, it would have never made it through the Republican house. Before that mid-term election, it also wouldn't have survived filibuster in the Senate. And it's moot anyway, because raising taxes wasn't going anywhere at that point due to the lingering effects of the recession.
Basically, it's just as much a "go nowhere" proposal then as it is now.
Zeus Molecules
illegal immigrants are stealing our air
It's just PR talk. That's what politicians do. It's not meaningful, it doesn't impact the party, it doesn't do anything. He should talk about what he can do instead of pandering to his supporters.
If this proves popular it could be a platform used by the party in 2016 and/or used against republicans in office now who vote against it.
I want to hear about things that can potentially happen, not fantastical thinking. He's been spouting this stuff for years. It gets old.
Yes, I would rather the president not babble on about the same policies constantly when they're not going to happen.
The same policies constantly? Ok, clearly politics is not something you regularly follow.
Right, which is why Cyan rightfully corrected him that he was misinterpreting what he was reading. And then it was all righted.
I don't think the misdirection about progressive taxation helped at all.
If this proves popular it could be a platform used by the party in 2016 and/or used against republicans in office now who vote against it.
I think the Republicans will just propose larger tax cuts for all levels and use it against Democrats for opposing/vetoing a bill to provide tax cuts to the middle class. At best it's a wash.
A Human Becoming
More than a Member
It's been a popular idea for years. Seriously, surveys show people like progressive ideas. The problem is the disconnect between what voters want and what their elected leaders do. There was a study in the last year or two showing that.If this proves popular it could be a platform used by the party in 2016 and/or used against republicans in office now who vote against it.
It is actually. Maybe you should get your head out of your ass. I feel like you're targeting me without anything substantial to support your critique.The same policies constantly? Ok, clearly politics is not something you regularly follow.
So which proposal relating to $500k incomes are you talking about?
Not Obama's proposal but income tax increases in general. The poster I was referring to wasn't talking about capital gains as far as I know...
Randolph Freelander
Member
I want to hear about things that can potentially happen, not fantastical thinking. He's been spouting this stuff for years. It gets old.
Yes, I would rather the president not babble on about the same policies constantly when they're not going to happen.
To be fair, if President Obama were to only talk about things he could get done, he would have to read Republican talking points. Basically, a non-starter.
It's going to be 2 more years of "I'd like to do this" followed by the word "no."
It is actually. Maybe you should get your head out of your ass. I feel like you're targeting me without anything substantial to support your critique.
You don't even have a coherent critique. You think a president should never speak unless whatever he talks about happens tomorrow. It's complete and utter nonsense and makes absolutely no sense.
If he is talking about the proposal regarding $500k couples, I think he is talking about the proposal to increase the capital gains tax rate for $500k couples.Not Obama's proposal but income tax increases in general. The poster I was referring to wasn't talking about capital gains as far as I know...
I don't think the misdirection about progressive taxation helped at all.
I think the Republicans will just propose larger tax cuts for all levels and use it against Democrats for opposing/vetoing a bill to provide tax cuts to the middle class. At best it's a wash.
He was confusing capital gains taxes and progressive taxes. This has already been sorted out and not be curt but: do you have a point?
It's just PR talk. That's what politicians do. It's not meaningful, it doesn't impact the party, it doesn't do anything. He should talk about what he can do instead of pandering to his supporters.
He does talk about things he can do, these aren't mutually exclusive. People can literally talk about at least 2 different things in the span of a few years, it happens. Also how do you come to the conclusion that political talk does nothing? You think people vote and draft legislation based solely on facts they self-research?
A Human Becoming
More than a Member
I never said tomorrow. You're putting words in my mouth. Obamacare didn't happen tomorrow. That was something worth talking about. This is more "help the middle class" talk.You don't even have a coherent critique. You think a president should never speak unless whatever he talks about happens tomorrow. It's complete and utter nonsense and makes absolutely no sense.
It makes sense to people who live in reality, unlike yourself who only wants to hear what you want to hear.
If he is talking about the proposal regarding $500k couples, I think he is talking about the proposal to increase the capital gains tax rate for $500k couples.
I got the impression he was talking about income taxes, hence the paycheck to paycheck thing. Maybe I was wrong?
I never said tomorrow. You're putting words in my mouth. Obama didn't happen tomorrow. That was something worth talking about. This is more "help the middle class" talk.
It makes sense to people who live in reality, unlike yourself who only wants to hear what you want to hear.
You think that anything he can't do unilaterally or that a congress controlled by his own party can't push through without opposition shouldn't be talked about or mentioned. It's completely bizarre.
My point is, especially if you look at the other posters I quoted, people were confusing capital gains taxes and progressive marginal income tax rates. People were saying that the tax only applied to the amount after $500k, which is not the case.He was confusing capital gains taxes and progressive taxes. This has already been sorted out and not be curt but: do you have a point?
You may be still confused because the proposal still creates progressive capital gains tax rates: 0%, 15%, 20% and 28% (so how can you confuse capital gains taxes with progressive taxes, when the capital gains tax is a progressive tax?). Capital gains just is not taxed at marginal progressive rates.
My point is, especially if you look at the other posters I quoted, people were confusing capital gains taxes and progressive marginal income tax rates. People were saying that the tax only applied to the amount after $500k, which is not the case.
You may be still confused because the proposal still creates progressive capital gains tax rates: 10%, 15%, 20% and 28% (so how can you confuse capital gains taxes with progressive taxes, when the capital gains tax is a progressive tax?). Capital gains just is not taxed at marginal progressive rates.
Okay. That makes sense. Relight seemed to be referring to his income tax. My mistake.
A Human Becoming
More than a Member
Ugh I know. That's why I just roll my eyes when he says this stuff.It's going to be 2 more years of "I'd like to do this" followed by the word "no."
You're right, it's not mutually exclusive. I just find it depressing and pointless because it won't happen. Promises are so easy to make, but we know with many elected officials, especially presidents, they are easily broken.He does talk about things he can do, these aren't mutually exclusive. People can literally talk about at least 2 different things in the span of a few years, it happens. Also how do you come to the conclusion that political talk does nothing? You think people vote and draft legislation based solely on facts they self-research?
People don't, but Obama isn't running for re-election and as we saw in the midterms other democrats run from him. I don't see how anything he says in the next two years will do any good. Didn't Republicans distance themselves from Bush in 2008?
It's reality. I'm sorry if you find it weird I'd rather he spend time talking about and doing things in his control.You think that anything he can't do unilaterally or that a congress controlled by his own party can't push through without opposition shouldn't be talked about or mentioned. It's completely bizarre.
My point is, especially if you look at the other posters I quoted, people were confusing capital gains taxes and progressive marginal income tax rates. People were saying that the tax only applied to the amount after $500k, which is not the case.
You may be still confused because the proposal still creates progressive capital gains tax rates: 10%, 15%, 20% and 28% (so how can you confuse capital gains taxes with progressive taxes, when the capital gains tax is a progressive tax?). Capital gains just is not taxed at marginal progressive rates.
The poster in question seemed to be confusing progressive income tax with capital gains taxes, which is why he retracted his statement.
And please excuse me -- I am typing on my phone, substitute "progressive income tax" for income tax.
This is the same logic as trickle down economics. I'm in favor of direct spending instead, as I mentioned
I mean sure, you cut middle class taxes so people can go blow their refunds at Walmart and stimulate the gdp and finance some minimum wage jobs while funneling most that money back to the rich. Is it good for the economy? Probably, but I don't think its good for the country
Additional budget money to people who have very low saving percentages (Current understanding of middle class, that's not doctors) is practically speaking, spending.
My point is that it was not helping his confusion by telling him more wrong information, that he will be taxed on the marginal amount over $500k. By telling him he will only be taxed on the $5k over $500k, he may still think that it is 1) the marginal income over $500k or 2) the marginal capital gains over $500k, neither of which is correct.The poster in question seemed to be confusing progressive income tax with capital gains taxes, which is why he retracted his statement.
And please excuse me -- I am typing on my phone, substitute "progressive income tax" for income tax.
It's reality. I'm sorry if you find it weird I'd rather he spend time talking about and doing things in his control.
You must constantly be disappointed.
A Human Becoming
More than a Member
Not so much anymore. I was after the first couple years he was in office.You must constantly be disappointed.
My point is that it was not helping his confusion by telling him more wrong information, that he will be taxed on the marginal amount over $500k. By telling him he will only be taxed on the $5k over $500k, he may still think that it is 1) the marginal income over $500k or 2) the marginal capital gains over $500k, neither of which is correct.
I did not say 1 or 2, so I wonder why you even included me in your post.
Because you implied he had a complete misunderstanding of what progressive taxation is when he talked about a higher tax burden at $505k. What were you referring to?I did not say 1 or 2, so I wonder why you even included me in your post.
Because you implied he had a complete misunderstanding of what progressive taxation is when he talked about a higher tax burden at $505k. What were you referring to?
I was referring specifically to his income tax, which is what I assumed he was referring to since nothing in his post was about capital gains.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.