Herman Cain: Liberals Want to Destroy America

[Copernicus]

I think Kathryn's point was that individuals making over 200K might see some slight increase in their annual taxes, because they might lose a deduction that they currently qualify for. Mball, can you not see class warfare when it is staring you right in the face? Obama is asking rich people to pay more in taxes and discriminating against lower income people who qualify for that deduction. This is monstrous.

 

[Kathryn]

I think Kathryn's point was that individuals making over 200K might see some slight increase in their annual taxes, because they might lose a deduction that they currently qualify for. Mball, can you not see class warfare when it is staring you right in the face? Obama is asking rich people to pay more in taxes and discriminating against lower income people who qualify for that deduction. This is monstrous.

Thanks but no thanks on your gracious offer to re interpret and twist what I've already clearly stated.

1. I have already made it very clear that I am in favor of a progressive tax - and that I don't even mind paying more in taxes.

2. I have also made it very clear that my issue with Obama's approach to taxation is that he insists on lumping people making $200,000 a year in with millionaires when it comes to tax increases.

3. Furthermore, his policies and his party seem to be encouraging an attitude of class warfare, which doesn't differentiate between those making well under a million dollars a year and those making over a million dollars a yaer. I find this attitude, approach, and spin to be repugnant and detrimental to our society.

 

[Revoltingest]

The class warfare of the tax squabble is when one class is demonized, motivating others to want a piece of their hide.
To say "the rich don't pay their fair share" is to imply that they're getting away with something wrong.
IMO, this is class warfare....even if this particular tax increase is a good idea.

 

[Copernicus]

Thanks but no thanks on your gracious offer to re interpret and twist what I've already clearly stated.

1. I have already made it very clear that I am in favor of a progressive tax - and that I don't even mind paying more in taxes.

2. I have also made it very clear that my issue with Obama's approach to taxation is that he insists on lumping people making $200,000 a year in with millionaires when it comes to tax increases.

3. Furthermore, his policies and his party seem to be encouraging an attitude of class warfare, which doesn't differentiate between those making well under a million dollars a year and those making over a million dollars a yaer. I find this attitude, approach, and spin to be repugnant and detrimental to our society.

Kathryn, what you posted very clearly demonstrates that Obama was not "lumping people making $200,000 a year in with millionaires". In fact, his current proposal is to raise the tax rate on those earning more than $1 million annually. What hits individual taxpayers earning over $200K is merely the loss of some tax deductions, not an increase in their tax rate. So your claim is just false.

As for #3, you really need to step back and look at the Republican Party on the issue of class warfare. They are adamantly opposed to increasing any taxes on high income levels. This is unacceptable, and polls have shown that the majority of Americans support the president on this issue, not the Republican Party. I do think that class warfare has been going on for some time, but it has been declared by the super-rich on everyone else. They have the money to buy influence, and they have made sure that their tax burden has steadily decreased over the past half century, while the burden on those below them has steadily increased. If you truly believe in progressive tax rates, then you need to accept the fact that you yourself are a partisan in this "class warfare" and that you are not on the side of the super-rich.

 

[Kathryn]

Kathryn, what you posted very clearly demonstrates that Obama was not "lumping people making $200,000 a year in with millionaires". In fact, his current proposal is to raise the tax rate on those earning more than $1 million annually. What hits individual taxpayers earning over $200K is merely the loss of some tax deductions, not an increase in their tax rate. So your claim is just false.

No. The Buffett plan in IN ADDITION TO Obama's earlier tax plan, which DOES raise the tax rate on individuals making over $200,000 and families making over $250,000.

"The measure would be in addition to $447 billion in new tax revenue that Obama is seeking to pay for his short-term spending and tax cutting plan to jump start the economy."
Obama Millionaire's Tax: President To Seek New Tax Rate For Wealthy

Besides that - call it what you will - a tax rate increase or a reduction of tax deductions. The bottom line is that individuals and families in the $200,000 - $250,000 income range will pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes.

Obama has not altered his stance on raising the tax rates on these families - he's simply ADDING more tax brackets on higher incomes above $1 million.

Like I said, I don't mind paying a bit more in taxes - but then my husband and I don't have any more kids living at home and though we own a business, we don't have much overhead, so that puts us in a little better position than many families in this income bracket.

As for #3, you really need to step back and look at the Republican Party on the issue of class warfare... If you truly believe in progressive tax rates, then you need to accept the fact that you yourself are a partisan in this "class warfare" and that you are not on the side of the super-rich.

Here you go again with your assumption that I'm somehow siding with Republicans. I am not. I know we need to raise more tax revenue, and I'm willing to do my part, so to speak. But I also want to see some programs cut, and some waste and mismanagement of government spending across the board monitored and corrected.

I believe most Americans feel the same way, regardless of political affiliation or income.

 

[Revoltingest]

Breaking news!
Biden to do his part to cut expenses.
He won't raise the rent he charges the Secret Service.
Secret Service renews Biden rental - Washington Times
Such personal sacrifice.....such a saintly human being.

 

[Copernicus]

No. The Buffett plan in IN ADDITION TO Obama's earlier tax plan, which DOES raise the tax rate on individuals making over $200,000 and families making over $250,000.

"The measure would be in addition to $447 billion in new tax revenue that Obama is seeking to pay for his short-term spending and tax cutting plan to jump start the economy."
Obama Millionaire's Tax: President To Seek New Tax Rate For Wealthy

That isn't what the article says. He is not proposing to raise the tax rate on $200K incomes, only to take away some deductions. He is actually proposing to tax people with incomes higher than $1 million at a higher rate. You said he was lumping $200K incomes with the $1 million incomes. That is false. He is putting them into different categories.

Besides that - call it what you will - a tax rate increase or a reduction of tax deductions. The bottom line is that individuals and families in the $200,000 - $250,000 income range will pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes.

Yes, but not that much higher a percentage, and it doesn't hit everyone in that category equally. Removing deductions that you do not take will not raise the percentage of taxes relative to your income. Moreover, so what? People earning incomes at that level may need to tighten their budgets, but they are in a better position to afford it than people below their income level. That is the nature of a progressive tax code. The wealthy end up paying the same amount of tax on the same level of income, but the tax rate increases only on income that exceeds the lower level. You said that you were in favor of progressive taxes, so that should not be such a big problem for you. It certainly isn't for me.

Obama has not altered his stance on raising the tax rates on these families - he's simply ADDING more tax brackets on higher incomes above $1 million.

Not according to your article. He has actually changed his earlier plan to raise the rates on those lower income levels. Now he is going with the "Buffet Rule".

Like I said, I don't mind paying a bit more in taxes - but then my husband and I don't have any more kids living at home and though we own a business, we don't have much overhead, so that puts us in a little better position than many families in this income bracket.

Seriously? You are more sympathetic to families at that income level than families at lower income levels? Everybody is in the same sinking boat (except for those in the upper 10%). Those who are less underwater are being asked to bail a little faster in order to help those who are drowning. Maybe they can learn to cook a few extra meals at home instead of going out for meals quite so often. Or even buy something at a sale price instead of retail. I know its a struggle to live more modestly, but these are successful families. They can think of ways to economize. Someone making under $100K per year does not have quite as many options.

Here you go again with your assumption that I'm somehow siding with Republicans. I am not. I know we need to raise more tax revenue, and I'm willing to do my part, so to speak. But I also want to see some programs cut, and some waste and mismanagement of government spending across the board monitored and corrected.

I do, too, but the problem is that people disagree heatedly on what is "waste". Liberals want to cut military programs, but that also means a huge hit to the economy, because so many jobs depend on those government contracts. (Yes, it is true that the government can create jobs.) Austerity measures at a time like this are a poison pill. When you throw people out of work, it just pulls money out of businesses that depended on the income that those people used to spend. We are shooting ourselves in the foot by trying to tackle long term debt in a weak economy. You do that when the economy is growing.

And, like it or not, you are in this "class warfare" struggle if you support a progressive tax code, because that is exactly what has been under attack.

 

[Revoltingest]

And, like it or not, you are in this "class warfare" struggle if you support a progressive tax code, because that is exactly what has been under attack.

I see "class warfare" as more about the method to sway the public, rather than the actual agenda.
(Although an onerous agenda could rise to that level...but progressive taxation doesn't necessarily do so.)

 

[Kathryn]

That isn't what the article says. He is not proposing to raise the tax rate on $200K incomes, only to take away some deductions. He is actually proposing to tax people with incomes higher than $1 million at a higher rate. .

The article isn't comprehensive. It does not outline that the Buffett plan is not doing away with earlier Obama proposals to raise the tax RATE on those making $200,000 or more. But this is precisely the case. The Buffett plan in in ADDITION to already proposed raised tax brackets on those making over $200,000.

You said he was lumping $200K incomes with the $1 million incomes. That is false. He is putting them into different categories.

Of course they are in different tax brackets - the Buffett Plan adds additional tax brackets for those making $1 million plus. But that doesn't change the fact that Obama's tax proposal ALSO raises tax rates and brackets for those making $200,000 or more.

So - they are in the same CATEGORY (not tax bracket - I did not say they were in the same tax bracket) as those affected by the ADDITIONAL tax brackets in the Buffett Plan. That category is "Americans whose tax rates are going to be raised under Obama's proposals."

Yes, but not that much higher a percentage, and it doesn't hit everyone in that category equally.

So - you do acknowledge that those making over $200,000 a year will see their tax rates increase under Obama's plan - just "not that much." Well - I didn't give percentages. I was simply clarifying that Obama's plans include RAISING TAXES on those making over $200,000 - NOT just those making over $1 million.

As for not "hitting everyone equally" - well, that's the case across the board with our complex tax code.

Removing deductions that you do not take will not raise the percentage of taxes relative to your income.

Removing deductions that no one takes won't impact tax revenues at all, though, right? The only way Obama's plan to raise revenue WILL work when it comes to tax deductions, is to remove deductions that people DO take. When that happens, the percentage of income paid in taxes increases. It's simple math.

Moreover, so what? People earning incomes at that level may need to tighten their budgets, but they are in a better position to afford it than people below their income level. That is the nature of a progressive tax code.

Well of course. Have you heard me complain about possibly paying higher taxes? I'm not complaining - I've stated openly that there are too many deductions, for starters, and that I believe in a progressive tax.

My concern lies more with WHO is administering and doling out my hard earned money, into what programs. I have a right to demand accountability, and to demand that my elected officials represent the best interests of their constituents, who are paying them to do so.

Not according to your article. He has actually changed his earlier plan to raise the rates on those lower income levels. Now he is going with the "Buffet Rule".

The Buffett Rule is in ADDITION to tax rate increases already in the works.

"The measure would be in addition to $447 billion in new tax revenue that Obama is seeking to pay for his short-term spending and tax cutting plan to jump start the economy."
Obama Millionaire's Tax: President To Seek New Tax Rate For Wealthy

"WASHINGTON — President Obama on Monday will call for a new minimum tax rate for individuals making more than $1 million a year..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/u...-ask-more-of-millionaires.html?pagewanted=all

IN ADDITION TO - The Buffett Rule does not do away with the proposal to raise tax rates on those making over $200,000 a year. If you don't agree with this, please provide a credible source that says otherwise.

"The House passed a bill reflecting Mr. Obama's call for the cuts to be extended only on income below $250,000 per household. But Democrats failed to break a Republican filibuster in the Senate on that approach, or an alternative "millionaire's tax.''
Two days later, Mr. Obama announced that he had reached a deal with Republicans that extended the cuts at all income levels for two years as part of a package that would also keep benefits flowing to the long-term unemployed, cut payroll taxes for all workers for a year and take other steps to bolster the economy. It also continued tax breaks on dividends and capital gains, and lowered the estate tax.
The issue returned in September 2011, when Mr. Obama again proposed ending the tax breaks for income above $250,000 per household as part of a $3 trillion deficit reduction plan.
Bush Tax Cuts - The New York Times

By the way, using the term "households above $250,000" doesn't really accurately reflect that these proposals also include INDIVIDUALS making $200,000.

Seriously? You are more sympathetic to families at that income level than families at lower income levels?

Ummm, no. There you go again, trying to stuff words in my mouth.

Having spent many years of my life living below the poverty line, I am definitely sympathetic to those who truly struggle to make ends meet. That's why I am in favor of a progressive tax.

Everybody is in the same sinking boat. Those who are less underwater are being asked to bail a little faster in order to help those who are drowning. Maybe they can learn to cook a few extra meals at home instead of going out for meals quite so often. Or even buy something at a sale price instead of retail.

Please don't resort to stereotypes. As a person in a higher income bracket, I (like most of my peers) give generously to charitable organizations, pay our taxes on time and in full, cook at home to save money, and buy items on sale when possible.

And, like it or not, you are in this "class warfare" struggle if you support a progressive tax code, because that is exactly what has been under attack.

Not by me. I stand to pay more in taxes and I STILL support a progressive tax code. But, I know this is an inconvenient truth and you'd rather not hear it - I'm not a Republican.

In spite of this, and in spite of my willingness to help others via volunteer work, charitable donations, and higher taxes, I and people in my income bracket are being demonized by the media.

Do you blame me if I don't much care for that approach?

 

[work in progress]

You would almost think, from the conservative propaganda, that Obama is at war against the rich and is going to confiscate their wealth. Nevermind how absurd this notion is that the President doesn't know who writes the cheques which finance his billion-dollar re-election campaign (and will reward him handsomely with backdoor bonuses after his presidency) -- here is more evidence that the biggest hogs at the trough have gotten fatter, and another reason why those neoliberal tax cuts which started with Reagan, need to be rolled back:

America’s Growing Income Gap, by the Numbers

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently released a much-discussed study showing that over the past three decades the income of the highest-paid Americans has soared while the income of others has grown much more modestly.

 

[Copernicus]

The article isn't comprehensive. It does not outline that the Buffett plan is not doing away with earlier Obama proposals to raise the tax RATE on those making $200,000 or more. But this is precisely the case. The Buffett plan in in ADDITION to already proposed raised tax brackets on those making over $200,000.

His original plan was not to raise the tax rate on incomes of $200K/$250K. I thought that that might have been in an earlier proposal, but it was not. He has always proposed just adjusting the deductions that incomes at that level and above can take. For example, he proposes to cap itemized deductions at 28%. So you just misunderstood what was in his original plan. The reality is that those adjustments will raise taxes paid by most (not all) people at that level, but it is not being called a "tax hike" by Obama, because it does not raise the tax rate paid. That may sound like verbal gymnastics to you (and to me, because I don't deny the semantic game), but it is the same type of claim that Republicans have used in the past to deny that they were raising taxes when, in fact, they were raising taxes.

Of course they are in different tax brackets - the Buffett Plan adds additional tax brackets for those making $1 million plus. But that doesn't change the fact that Obama's tax proposal ALSO raises tax rates and brackets for those making $200,000 or more.

The Buffet plan actually raises the tax rate paid. Obama's plan never proposed a hike in tax rate paid on lower incomes. It was all based on the tried-and-true method that politicians have used in the past of changing the way in which people could adjust their taxes paid through deductions. In other words, he was proposing to close what many of us would call "loopholes" in the tax code. Ronald Reagan used this method several times to raise tax revenues. Republicans are only complaining because a Democrat is using the same rhetoric they have used in the past.

So - you do acknowledge that those making over $200,000 a year will see their tax rates increase under Obama's plan - just "not that much." Well - I didn't give percentages. I was simply clarifying that Obama's plans include RAISING TAXES on those making over $200,000 - NOT just those making over $1 million.

No, I do not acknowledge that. Tax rates will not go up for those earning $200K and above. The actual taxes paid will go up, however, because of the way in which the changes will affect taxes paid. Those earning above $1 will see a raise in their tax rate, not those below.

As for not "hitting everyone equally" - well, that's the case across the board with our complex tax code.

True, but Democrats and Republicans traditionally take radically different approaches on how to simplify it. Republicans want to shift the burden onto people with lower incomes, and they have succeeded in doing that over the years. That is no doubt due to the fact that almost everyone in Congress earns income in the upper brackets. As for the unevenness of the tax code, that was created by everyone and his brother lobbying their representatives for special breaks. Usually, the breaks have gone to those with the deepest pockets, who traditionally favor Republican solutions to raising tax revenues--soak the poor. I know that you like to equate the two parties, but they really are not equal in their approaches to tax revenues.

Removing deductions that no one takes won't impact tax revenues at all, though, right? The only way Obama's plan to raise revenue WILL work when it comes to tax deductions, is to remove deductions that people DO take. When that happens, the percentage of income paid in taxes increases. It's simple math.

True, but that wasn't your argument. Your argument was that Obama was proposing to raise tax rates. Not true. What is true is that what people use the term "tax hike" to mean is a semantic shell game. That is why you got the impression that "tax hike" was equivalent to a raise in "tax rates".

Well of course. Have you heard me complain about possibly paying higher taxes? I'm not complaining - I've stated openly that there are too many deductions, for starters, and that I believe in a progressive tax.

True. So why are you so opposed to the Obama plan? Do you think that his cuts are too steep? (I do.) Do you think that he raises too much money from those who earn higher incomes? (I don't. I think that he is treating them with kid gloves.)

My concern lies more with WHO is administering and doling out my hard earned money, into what programs. I have a right to demand accountability, and to demand that my elected officials represent the best interests of their constituents, who are paying them to do so.

Well, that is an entirely different issue. That is a question that people are deeply divided on. In a representative democracy, everybody's ox gets gored. It is just a matter of how deep the wounds are. If your idea of a solution is the Grover Norquist "starve government" approach, then you are not paying attention to how well that has worked for us. It has been the guiding principle of the Republican Party for quite some time now, and it has landed us in our current mess. That, BTW, was Norquist's idea--to shrink government down to baby size and the "drown it in the bathtub." Looks like that part of the plan is working. :sarcastic

"The measure would be in addition to $447 billion in new tax revenue that Obama is seeking to pay for his short-term spending and tax cutting plan to jump start the economy."
Obama Millionaire's Tax: President To Seek New Tax Rate For Wealthy

Your mistake has been to think that the original $447 billion included a tax rate hike. It did not. It only included adjustments to what deductions people could make. Looky here: Tax the Rich: How Obama will pay for his Stimulus Package.

"Obama's largest proposed pay-for -- which the White House estimates would raise roughly $400 billion over 10 years -- would limit itemized deductions and certain other exemptions for individuals with adjusted gross incomes of $200,000 or more ($250,000 and up for married couples)."

Please don't resort to stereotypes. As a person in a higher income bracket, I (like most of my peers) give generously to charitable organizations, pay our taxes on time and in full, cook at home to save money, and buy items on sale when possible.

Nor should you try to stereotype everyone in your income bracket as living the way you do. The fact is that anyone earning the affected income (over $200/250K) is in a better position to cut back on expenses than those earning less income. That doesn't mean that they won't experience pain, but how much pain they experience depends on their individual circumstances. On the whole, it makes sense to do what Obama is proposing. And there are no alternative proposals from the Republicans. They have no plan at all other than to block his proposal.

Not by me. I stand to pay more in taxes and I STILL support a progressive tax code. But, I know this is an inconvenient truth and you'd rather not hear it - I'm not a Republican.

I know you are not a Republican, and I have re-affirmed that in the past. It doesn't matter to me what party you belong to, if you decide that the Republican talking points make more sense and you repeat them more often than the Democratic ones. Two parties control the government, whether we like it or not. On this particular issue, you are going with the Republican talking points about Obama's plan.

In spite of this, and in spite of my willingness to help others via volunteer work, charitable donations, and higher taxes, I and people in my income bracket are being demonized by the media.

I have not noticed Fox News demonizing people like you, and they are one of the most popular "news" organizations in the media. They have a front row seat at White House press conferences. Nor, for that matter, have I noticed such demonization going on in other major news organizations. Demonization occurs on both sides of the political spectrum, and it isn't just aimed at you. Do you ever watch Fox News? You seem to only acknowledge demonization when it is directed at you.

 

[Kathryn]

His original plan was not to raise the tax rate on incomes of $200K/$250K. I thought that that might have been in an earlier proposal, but it was not. He has always proposed just adjusting the deductions that incomes at that level and above can take. For example, he proposes to cap itemized deductions at 28%. So you just misunderstood what was in his original plan. The reality is that those adjustments will raise taxes paid by most (not all) people at that level, but it is not being called a "tax hike" by Obama, because it does not raise the tax rate paid. That may sound like verbal gymnastics to you (and to me, because I don't deny the semantic game), but it is the same type of claim that Republicans have used in the past to deny that they were raising taxes when, in fact, they were raising taxes.

His original plan has ALWAYS been to raise the top two tax brackets - which are the tax brackets that those making over $200,000 fall into.

This is in ADDITION to reducing deductions, and adding MORE tax brackets under the Buffett Rule.

I am not the one misunderstanding tax brackets here.

"High-income households:

Let tax cuts expire: The 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts are scheduled to expire by 2011. Obama is sticking to his call to let those tax cuts expire for high-income households ($200,000 for individuals; $250,000 for families). The White House estimates close to $700 billion would be raised over 10 years.

This provision would raise the top two individual income tax rates to where they were in 2001, before passage of the Bush tax cuts. The 33% bracket would become 36%. And the 35% bracket would rise to 39.6%.

In addition, the long-term capital gains tax rate would increase to 20%, up from 15% currently.

The provision would also reinstate so-called phaseouts for high-income households, which would essentially reduce their eligibility for a host of personal exemptions.
Obama's proposed tax changes - Feb. 2, 2010

Single Filers

These tables are for single filers who are not surviving spouses or heads of household:
Taxable IncomeTax$0 – $8,500 10% of taxable income
$8,500 – $34,500 $850 plus 15% of excess over $8,500
$34,500 – $83,600 $4,750 plus 25% of excess over $34,500
$83,600 – $174,400 $17,025 plus 28% of excess over $83,600
$174,400 – $379,150 $42,449 plus 33% of excess over $174,400
$379,150+ $110,016.50 plus 35% of excess over $379,150


Married & Surviving Spouses

These tables are for married filing jointly or surviving spouses:
Taxable IncomeTax$0 – $17,00010% of taxable income
$17,000 – $69,000 $1,700 plus 15% of excess over $17,000
$69,000 – $139,350 $9,500 plus 25% of excess over $69,000
$139,350 – $212,300 $27,087.50 plus 28% of excess over $139,350
$212,300 – $379,150 $47,513.50 plus 33% of excess over $212,300
$379,150+ $102,574 plus 35% of excess over $379,150


Head of Household

These tax tables are for those considered Heads of Household:
Taxable IncomeTax$0 – $12,15010% of taxable income
$12,150 – $46,250 $1,215 plus 15% of excess over $12,150
$46,250 – $119,400 $6,330 plus 25% of excess over $46,250
$119,400 – $193,350 $24,617.50 plus 28% of excess over $119,400
$193,350 – $379,150 $45,323.50 plus 33% of excess over $193,350
$379,150+$106,637.50 plus 35% of excess over $379,150


Married Filing Separately

These are tax tables for those filing as Married Filing Separately:

$0 – $8,500 10% of taxable income
$8,500 – $34,500 $850 plus 15% of excess over $8,500
$34,500 – $69,675 $4,750 plus 25% of excess over $34,500
$69,675 – $106,150 - $13,543.75 plus 28% of excess over $69,675
$106,150 – $189,575$23,756.75 plus 33% of excess over $106,150
$189,575+$51,287 plus 35% of excess over $189,575

» Official 2011 US Income Tax Brackets (IRS Tax Rates)

No, I do not acknowledge that. Tax rates will not go up for those earning $200K and above. The actual taxes paid will go up, however, because of the way in which the changes will affect taxes paid. Those earning above $1 will see a raise in their tax rate, not those below.

I hope I have clarified that Obama's plan includes raising the tax rates on the top two present income tax brackets as well as creating new, and higher tax rates for millionaires, in addition to cutting tax deductions.

On this particular issue, you are going with the Republican talking points about Obama's plan.

Please show me where I have supported the Republican position. I am supporting a progressive tax as well as eliminating some deductions. Additionally, I support higher tax brackets for millionaires as well.

You seem to only acknowledge demonization when it is directed at you.

Au contraire - I am a huge supporter of individual rights (and responsibilities) civil rights, gay rights, programs such as Medicaid, free speech, freedom of religious expression, etc. I speak out vigorously when I see any group being unfairly demonized or targeted.

In this particular case, it happens to be MY group that's being targeted.

 

[Copernicus]

I am not the one misunderstanding tax brackets here.

"High-income households:

Let tax cuts expire: The 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts are scheduled to expire by 2011. Obama is sticking to his call to let those tax cuts expire for high-income households ($200,000 for individuals; $250,000 for families). The White House estimates close to $700 billion would be raised over 10 years.

This provision would raise the top two individual income tax rates to where they were in 2001, before passage of the Bush tax cuts. The 33% bracket would become 36%. And the 35% bracket would rise to 39.6%.

OK, Kathryn, I'm going to admit that you may be technically right about this new claim, but you have shifted the goalposts somewhat. Originally, you were complaining that Obama was not really distinguishing the $200/$250K bracket from millionaire incomes, and that is just plainly false. However, it is true that Obama proposes to let the Bush era tax cuts expire in order to achieve his economic goals, and that may involve returning to an earlier higher tax bracket for the $200/250K incomes. I don't know, so I need to research that one further. What I do know, however, is that this is the first time you have mentioned expiration of the Bush tax cuts as what you were complaining about originally. Originally, you were confusing tax increases from adjustments in deductions with tax rate increases. If you go back and look at the line you highlighted in your response to mball, it was not the line about letting Bush tax cuts expire. It was the line that referred to reducing the amount that those 200/250K incomes could deduct from their income taxes.

So, here is my question: Do you favor keeping the Bush era tax cuts in place? The Republican Congress that passed them put a sunset date of 2010 on them. A year ago, Obama capitulated to Republican demands to not let the tax cuts expire in exchange for minor concessions from Republicans. Those tax cuts are now set to expire. Do you oppose letting them expire? If so, then please clearly state that. I did not know earlier that that was what this was all about, because you had earlier seemed to confuse his changes to deductions with hikes in tax brackets.

I hope I have clarified that Obama's plan includes raising the tax rates on the top two present income tax brackets as well as creating new, and higher tax rates for millionaires, in addition to cutting tax deductions.

Indeed, but that contradicts your earlier complaint that he was treating the $200/250K incomes no differently from millionaire incomes. If that is what you were saying, then it was false.

Please show me where I have supported the Republican position. I am supporting a progressive tax as well as eliminating some deductions. Additionally, I support higher tax brackets for millionaires as well.

You appear to be backtracking from your original complaints about Obama, but I may have misunderstood you. Please clearly restate what you do not like about his current economic plan. What do you disagree with? How would you change it to make it more agreeable to you? You are beginning to sound like your goals are no different from mine, but I disagree with Obama in that I think he is treating higher income brackets too leniently. He is a terrible negotiator, because he always starts out with his compromise position and ends up having to compromise that.

Au contraire - I am a huge supporter of individual rights (and responsibilities) civil rights, gay rights, programs such as Medicaid, free speech, freedom of religious expression, etc. I speak out vigorously when I see any group being unfairly demonized or targeted.

Just to be clear, we are mostly in agreement on those things. We are talking about economic policy here.

In this particular case, it happens to be MY group that's being targeted.

In what sense has it been targeted unfairly by Obama? What specifically do you object to in his current economic policy?

 

[Kathryn]

OK, Kathryn, I'm going to admit that you may be technically right about this new claim, but you have shifted the goalposts somewhat. Originally, you were complaining that Obama was not really distinguishing the $200/$250K bracket from millionaire incomes, and that is just plainly false.

This is not a "new" claim - you apparently simply didn't understand what I meant when I brought up this information in my conversation with mball. I haven't shifted the goalposts at all - my point has consistently been that Obama has not let up whatsoever on his focus on those making over $200,000 - he hasn't backed down on this in any fashion. Americans in ANY income bracket over $200,000 are slated for a tax rate hike - millionaires and those simply well off. In many areas of the US, those making $200,000 or so are not wealthy - they're not struggling, but they still have to budget, save, and be careful with their money.

However, it is true that Obama proposes to let the Bush era tax cuts expire in order to achieve his economic goals, and that may involve returning to an earlier higher tax bracket for the $200/250K incomes. I don't know, so I need to research that one further.

This absolutely IS true. I gave you some links to jump start your research. I believe they are from pretty neutral sources.

What I do know, however, is that this is the first time you have mentioned expiration of the Bush tax cuts as what you were complaining about originally. Originally, you were confusing tax increases from adjustments in deductions with tax rate increases.

No, this is untrue. I most certainly was NOT. It was YOU who were confused on this point. You kept insisting that I was confused about it, and I kept insisting that I wasn't. You are the one who is still unclear on whether or not Obama proposed and continues to propose a higher tax rate for those making over $200,000. I have not at any point been confused about this.

It's very pertinent to me, in my job as a banker, as well as in my personal life. I have to keep up with these issues in order to best serve my customers. Also, my own household will be directly affected by these increased rates. I have regular discussions about this with my CPA, who surely is more savvy about this than either you or I.

So, no - I'm not confused. Not in the least.

If you go back and look at the line you highlighted in your response to mball, it was not the line about letting Bush tax cuts expire. It was the line that referred to reducing the amount that those 200/250K incomes could deduct from their income taxes.

That's not the only "line" I've had to say about all this. A tax rate HIKE as WELL as reduced and eliminated tax reductions are what's coming down the pike for those making $200,000 and above.

So, here is my question: Do you favor keeping the Bush era tax cuts in place?

Not particularly. As I've clarified ad nauseum, I am in favor of a progressive tax, reduced deductions, cuts in programs, better stewardship over remaining programs, and more transparency and accountability when it comes to how our tax dollars are spent.

What I am NOT in favor of is hiking tax rates and continuing "sloppy business and government waste" as usual. We need comprehensive tax reform.

Indeed, but that contradicts your earlier complaint that he was treating the $200/250K incomes no differently from millionaire incomes. If that is what you were saying, then it was false.

Good lord. I don't know how much clearer I can be. I didn't say that everyone making over $200,000 a year is going to be treated EXACTLY the same in every way. My gosh, every individual tax return is unique, with unique deductions, operating expenses, etc.

I am sorry to dissapoint you, but I haven't been deceitful, or even wrong. My comments regarding Obama's approach to those making over $200,000 a year revolve around his plan to raise ALL those tax brackets and to eliminate many deductions for those making over $200,000. In this sense, they're lumped in with millionaires. This IS the case.

You appear to be backtracking from your original complaints about Obama, but I may have misunderstood you.

Yes. You've been misunderstanding me a LOT.

What were my complaints about Obama that got you in such a ruckus, by the way?

You are beginning to sound like your goals are no different from mine, but I disagree with Obama in that I think he is treating higher income brackets too leniently. He is a terrible negotiator, because he always starts out with his compromise position and ends up having to compromise that.

Just to be clear, we are mostly in agreement on those things. We are talking about economic policy here.

In what sense has it been targeted unfairly by Obama? What specifically do you object to in his current economic policy?

What I object to in his approach to this whole tax issue is that he doesn't seem to understand that those in, say, the $200,000 to $300,000 are not really wealthy individuals. Most people making that sort of money fall into the category of hard working Americans - they're just better compensated for their labor and this is often because they are either in a specialized field requiring a high level of education, or they are often small business owners. My point is - they're "regular Americans" and yet they (we) have been made to feel as if we're "not contributing enough" or that our "wealth" needs to be redistributed. I am personally appalled by these attitudes, and they seem to be perpetrated by Obama himself.

Frankly, I don't appreciate it. Raise my taxes, but don't imply that I haven't earned every penny of my money, and that I don't contribute my fair share to our society or economy.