The Obama Tax Hike

[Jack and Barbara 0]

I can find a few polls for you if you want, but the consensus is that the majority of Americans (not those well off) are having worse times now then during the boom years pre-Bush. Of course there will be exceptions, but do I have to define what exceptions means?

how about this poll for a start?

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=132365

Although 55 votes might appear to be a somewhat scientific sample in some circles, it is not in mine. Why does anyone think both Congress AND Bush are doing a worse job now than in the late 90s? Why has the number 1 issue for the upcoming eleciton become the economy? A few years ago it was national security.

Seriously, are all the conservative VJers that well off (again, Rogue, I did not say they are evil...)? If so, I'd be interested in finding out your careers. Maybe I'll make the switch down the road to a higher paying salary, but I'd still stick by higher taxes if it means my fellow Americans who are struggling would get a helping hand.

By the looks of your pic there id give you some advice. You need to put a little more time in. A wish for the government to take more money from your fellow man, is not a good wish.

I know I need to put more time in, unless I'd opt for IB. That's why I was inquiring about the jobs that make more money so down the road I could possibly make that switch. As stated before the fellow man you are referring to is in the top 1-5%. I'd prefer the other 95% to benefit even at a moderate financial expense to the top 1-5% earners. The fellow man I was referring to is in the lower and middle income classes.

[GaryC 7]

The answer to all this is fiscal discipline. The Republicans have forgotten what fiscal discipline is at least from Reagan onward. Both in the White House and in Congress. It's kind of hard for Republicans to argue now that they will save the day. They haven't shown to be capable of that anywhere in the last 28 years. Governments, deficits and debts have nothing but grown under the Republicans. So much so that nobody can really take seriously any claim from that side that they'll get it under control this time around. They can't. In fact, they won't even try.

This is exactly what I mean. They keep on pandering to the left by growing government instead of realing it in thinking somehow it will achieve gains at the polls. It hasn't, so they need to go back to basics, and in 2012 they will have both the opportunity and the mandate to do just that.

Although part of me is a bit frightened over the next 4 years, I see this as an opportunity and hope Obama won't actually do everything he says he wants to once he starts to see the affects. The problem with McCain coming in is that for the most part we will remain the same as now- which by the way I think is just great. The last 4 years for me have easily been the best years of my life. But unfortunately millions of people are somehow convinced that the country is in horrible shape and they will just keep nagging on and on for 4 more years thinking pseudo socialism is the answer and perhaps someone even farther left than Obama will come in. I think its time to give people a refresher course.

So, you think it's just great that we are becoming a nation of borrowed wealth? That we're essentially pawning our children's future? I don't think that's great at all. I'd like to leave a better place for my children than what I had not one that's worse.

If you get your way and Obama is elected he will tax you to the point that your children will have nothing anyway. Raising taxes on us only makes us poorer.

Paying for the things we afford ourselves only opens our eyes as to what the things really cost. That will help us evaluate better whether we really want them. Being such an advocate of the illagal attack on Iraq, for example, you shouldn't have a problem paying for that. Instead, you're forcing the next generations to pick up the tab for W's wet-dream. That just ain't right anywhay you slice it. I'd ask you to put your money where your mouth is.

I am happy to put my money where my mouth is. The war was needed and I am glad to pay for that. The cost now is less than the cost of not doing it later. It's all the other BS that the dems want I don't want to pay for. The attempt by the left to make things fair for everyone makes things unfair for all. I would love to see about 2/3 of the social programs cut back or eliminated all together. Make them what they were originally intended, a safety net and not a way of life. The economy would be healthier and the people would be able to take care of themselves without the need for the government to "take care of us".

[Ban Hammer 12,829]

I can find a few polls for you if you want, but the consensus is that the majority of Americans (not those well off) are having worse times now then during the boom years pre-Bush. Of course there will be exceptions, but do I have to define what exceptions means?

how about this poll for a start?

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=132365

Although 55 votes might appear to be a somewhat scientific sample in some circles, it is not in mine. Why does anyone think both Congress AND Bush are doing a worse job now than in the late 90s? Why has the number 1 issue for the upcoming eleciton become the economy? A few years ago it was national security.

Seriously, are all the conservative VJers that well off (again, Rogue, I did not say they are evil...)? If so, I'd be interested in finding out your careers. Maybe I'll make the switch down the road to a higher paying salary, but I'd still stick by higher taxes if it means my fellow Americans who are struggling would get a helping hand.

i'm fairly certain that not just conservative vj'ers took that poll......

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If you get your way and Obama is elected he will tax you to the point that your children will have nothing anyway. Raising taxes on us only makes us poorer.

Where in Obama's tax plan does he mention raising taxes on low-income or middle class people? Yes, you will be taxed if you are making a lot of money, but shouldn't people making the most be taxed more than those just getting by?

Rich =evil I see you been shopping at the leftwing store!

Actually, my previous posts stated nothing like that. In the words of Gary, a typical right wing response. If you read before, instead of joining in a few pages too late, you might have read that I wrote hopefully one day I will be in the same 1-5% that will see increased taxes. However, I would also expect to be taxed more.

All ppl should be taxed equally! Nuff said.

Do you also favor all ppl being paid equally?

[Jack and Barbara 0]

[quote

Although 55 votes might appear to be a somewhat scientific sample in some circles, it is not in mine. Why does anyone think both Congress AND Bush are doing a worse job now than in the late 90s? Why has the number 1 issue for the upcoming eleciton become the economy? A few years ago it was national security.

Seriously, are all the conservative VJers that well off (again, Rogue, I did not say they are evil...)? If so, I'd be interested in finding out your careers. Maybe I'll make the switch down the road to a higher paying salary, but I'd still stick by higher taxes if it means my fellow Americans who are struggling would get a helping hand.

i'm fairly certain that not just conservative vj'ers took that poll......

I completely agree. My point was that 55 is not very substantive. In VJ, maybe yes. In the U.S. overall, not a chance.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Paying for the things we afford ourselves only opens our eyes as to what the things really cost. That will help us evaluate better whether we really want them. Being such an advocate of the illagal attack on Iraq, for example, you shouldn't have a problem paying for that. Instead, you're forcing the next generations to pick up the tab for W's wet-dream. That just ain't right anywhay you slice it. I'd ask you to put your money where your mouth is.

I am happy to put my money where my mouth is. The war was needed and I am glad to pay for that. The cost now is less than the cost of not doing it later. It's all the other BS that the dems want I don't want to pay for. The attempt by the left to make things fair for everyone makes things unfair for all. I would love to see about 2/3 of the social programs cut back or eliminated all together. Make them what they were originally intended, a safety net and not a way of life. The economy would be healthier and the people would be able to take care of themselves without the need for the government to "take care of us".

When and where have you advocated payng higher taxes to fund the war effort? Let's see it.

[GaryC 7]

Paying for the things we afford ourselves only opens our eyes as to what the things really cost. That will help us evaluate better whether we really want them. Being such an advocate of the illagal attack on Iraq, for example, you shouldn't have a problem paying for that. Instead, you're forcing the next generations to pick up the tab for W's wet-dream. That just ain't right anywhay you slice it. I'd ask you to put your money where your mouth is.

I am happy to put my money where my mouth is. The war was needed and I am glad to pay for that. The cost now is less than the cost of not doing it later. It's all the other BS that the dems want I don't want to pay for. The attempt by the left to make things fair for everyone makes things unfair for all. I would love to see about 2/3 of the social programs cut back or eliminated all together. Make them what they were originally intended, a safety net and not a way of life. The economy would be healthier and the people would be able to take care of themselves without the need for the government to "take care of us".

When and where have you advocated payng higher taxes to fund the war effort? Let's see it.

I am stating it now. Show me where I ever said I didn't want to pay for it. Lets see it.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Paying for the things we afford ourselves only opens our eyes as to what the things really cost. That will help us evaluate better whether we really want them. Being such an advocate of the illagal attack on Iraq, for example, you shouldn't have a problem paying for that. Instead, you're forcing the next generations to pick up the tab for W's wet-dream. That just ain't right anywhay you slice it. I'd ask you to put your money where your mouth is.

I am happy to put my money where my mouth is. The war was needed and I am glad to pay for that. The cost now is less than the cost of not doing it later. It's all the other BS that the dems want I don't want to pay for. The attempt by the left to make things fair for everyone makes things unfair for all. I would love to see about 2/3 of the social programs cut back or eliminated all together. Make them what they were originally intended, a safety net and not a way of life. The economy would be healthier and the people would be able to take care of themselves without the need for the government to "take care of us".

When and where have you advocated payng higher taxes to fund the war effort? Let's see it.

I am stating it now. Show me where I ever said I didn't want to pay for it. Lets see it.

Right here. You're advocating McCain's irresponsible continuation of Bush's disastrous fiscal policy. How does that pay for the war effort in Iraq? Where does that raise the 2-3 trillion dollars that this war is costing us?

[GaryC 7]

Paying for the things we afford ourselves only opens our eyes as to what the things really cost. That will help us evaluate better whether we really want them. Being such an advocate of the illagal attack on Iraq, for example, you shouldn't have a problem paying for that. Instead, you're forcing the next generations to pick up the tab for W's wet-dream. That just ain't right anywhay you slice it. I'd ask you to put your money where your mouth is.

I am happy to put my money where my mouth is. The war was needed and I am glad to pay for that. The cost now is less than the cost of not doing it later. It's all the other BS that the dems want I don't want to pay for. The attempt by the left to make things fair for everyone makes things unfair for all. I would love to see about 2/3 of the social programs cut back or eliminated all together. Make them what they were originally intended, a safety net and not a way of life. The economy would be healthier and the people would be able to take care of themselves without the need for the government to "take care of us".

When and where have you advocated payng higher taxes to fund the war effort? Let's see it.

I am stating it now. Show me where I ever said I didn't want to pay for it. Lets see it.

Right here. You're advocating McCain's irresponsible continuation of Bush's disastrous fiscal policy. How does that pay for the war effort in Iraq? Where does that raise the 2-3 trillion dollars that this war is costing us?

I repeat, show me where I ever said I didn't want to pay for the war. I didn't. Bush's tax cuts were the best thing any president has done since Reagan. McCain wants to continue that. It will stimulate the economy and increase the federal coffers. Cut the useless social programs that just make us dependent on the government. Pay for it that way.

[zqt3344 21]

The only way Mr Messiah Ovomit can deliver on all his outlandish Kool Aide fruit punch promises to his liberal left followers is TO RAISE ALL TAXES on everything EVERYWHERE, hallo people open your eyes and wake up, you are no longer at the Ovomit rock concert smoking your doobies and shouting "Love all, serve all, we can change it"

The Obama Tax Hike

By ANDREW G. BIGGS

March 12, 2008; Page A20

Until recently, Sen. Barack Obama took a responsible position on Social Security, noting the urgency of reform and saying all options should be on the table.

But having cornered himself among Democratic activists whose attitudes toward Social Security reform range from demagoguery to denial, Mr. Obama has recently veered sharply left. He now proposes to solve the looming Social Security shortfall exclusively with higher taxes.

"Once people are making over $200,000 to $250,000," Mr. Obama says, "they can afford to pay a little more in payroll tax." No shared sacrifice, no outreach to moderates or conservatives, here.

Mr. Obama's proposal is to make a significant change to the payroll tax system. Currently, all wages below about $100,000 are subject to a 12.4% Social Security payroll tax. But all wages above that amount are not subject to the tax. Mr. Obama wants to eliminate the cap, but, in a concession to taxpayers, exempt wages between $100,000 and $200,000. He wants to create a "donut hole" in the taxing mechanism that pays for the nation's largest retirement program.

The problem is two-fold: His proposal would be a very large tax hike, yet it won't be enough.

Mr. Obama's plan fixes less than half of Social Security's long-term deficit, making further tax increases inevitable. The Policy Simulation Group's Gemini model estimates that Mr. Obama's proposal, if phased as Mr. Obama suggests, would solve only part of the problem. A 10 year phase-in, for example, would address only 43% of Social Security's 75-year shortfall. And this is assuming that Congress would save the surplus from the tax increases -- almost $600 billion over 10 years -- rather than spending it, as Congress does now.

What's more, Mr. Obama's plan would keep Social Security in the black for only three additional years. Under his proposal, annual deficits would hit in 2020, instead of 2017. By the 2030s the system would still run an annual deficit exceeding $150 billion.

Mr. Obama's modest improvements to Social Security's financing come at a steep cost. The top marginal federal tax rates would effectively increase to 50.3% from 37.9%, equivalent to repealing the Bush income tax cuts almost three times over.

If one accounts for behavioral responses, even the modest budgetary improvements from Mr. Obama's plan are likely to be overstated. If employers reduce wages to cover their increased payroll-tax liabilities, these wages would no longer be subject to state or federal income taxes, or Medicare taxes. A 2006 study by Harvard economist and Obama adviser Jeffrey Liebman concluded that roughly 20% of revenue increases from raising the tax cap would be offset by declining non-Social Security taxes. Assuming modest negative behavioral responses, Mr. Liebman projected an additional 30% reduction in net revenues, leaving barely half the intended revenue intact.

Mr. Obama's plan would also dramatically raise incentives for tax evasion, further degrading revenue gains. Many high-earning individuals evade the Medicare payroll tax by setting up "S Corporations," paying themselves in untaxed dividends rather than taxable wages. John Edwards avoided $590,000 in Medicare taxes this way in the 1990s. Under Mr. Obama's plan, Mr. Edwards's savings would have exceeded $3 million. With that much at stake, the incentive to follow Mr. Edwards lead will be that much greater.

Mr. Obama's plan shows the limits to taxing the rich as a solution to Social Security's problems. Top earners would effectively be tapped out, with taxes as high as economically and politically feasible, yet most of Social Security's deficit, and the much larger shortfalls in Medicare, would remain.

The U.S. already collects far more Social Security taxes from high earners than other countries do. Social Security taxes here are currently capped at about three times the national average wage -- far above other developed countries. In Canada and France payroll taxes are levied only up to the average wage. In the United Kingdom, taxes stop at 1.15 times the average wage; in Germany and Japan at 1.5 times. Social Security is already more progressive than these countries' pension programs, and Mr. Obama's plan would make it more so.

President Bill Clinton considered lifting the wage ceiling modestly, but was skeptical of eliminating it outright. Doing so would "tremendously change the whole Social Security system . . . We should be very careful before we get out of the id

ea that this is something that we do together as a nation and there is at least some correlation between what we put in and what we get out," Mr. Clinton said in 1998. "You can say, well, they owe it to society. But these people also pay higher income taxes and the rates are still pretty progressive for people in very high rates."

Social Security's shortfalls are primarily attributable to society-wide trends of lower birth rates and longer lifespans. If we want to retain the shared character that underpins its political support and distinguishes it from traditional welfare programs, we need to share the burdens of reform proportionately. Mr. Obama should drop his exclusive focus on raising taxes and return to his previous view, that Social Security faces significant problems requiring prompt attention. All options should be on the table.

Mr. Biggs, a former principal deputy commissioner at the Social Security Administration, is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1205281803...in_commentaries

[Jack and Barbara 0]

It is hard to advocate for either side to support tax cuts during a time of war or significant military operations. Taxes can be cut, in theory, for anyone right now and for years to come. The only problem is somewhere down the line the rising annual defecit and overall budget defecit of between $8-9 billion is going to continue grow. It would be great to have tax cuts, wouldn't it? But, at what expense? And what about future generations, like Mr. Big Dog was referring to?

It's hard to acknowledge paying for a "needed" war from cutting spending on domestic programs such as education, highway repairs, park services, medicare, unemployment benefits, etc. Sure, some domestic programs that are ineffective (possibly No Child Left Behind Act) should be cut or at least modified. But to cut those programs to fund a war that most Americans disapprove us doesn't make sense. And no, this isn't the liberal left talking. This is both sides of everyday Americans talking.

Domestic cuts such as for education make it harder for the not privileged to afford college education. I can only imagine an America where these kinds of programs were done away with and my kids will hopefully not be a part of it.

[SaadBell 0]

I would love to see about 2/3 of the social programs cut back or eliminated all together

How about move to a third world country, and then you can have at it, cause they sure don't have any programs to help the needy. Let me ask you this, what about the children who have no one to care for them, cut them out also, throw their little ones out on the street to beg? Wow your compassion is overwhelming, we are supposed to be a civilized people, and people who have compassion for their fellow man. We had what you are talking about before the great depression, didn’t work out so well, so why do you think going back to a time when you looked out for only you would work this time. History tells a story, all you have to do is READ some of it. The depression, the dust bowel, the hunger and poverty, no medical, kinda sounds like now. We are the only civilized country that does not have health care, ####### is that about. We need to care for our people, not giving our soldiers antidepressants so they can continue to fight the war. Oh by the way, that is what the military is now doing to keep the troops going, since they are tiring out over there, they give them antidepressant to keep them fighting, oh yea sounds like World War 11 when Germany was handing out speed to keep it’s soldiers fighting. We might as well just throw it all in the trash and go back to life before the great depression, I really truly hope nothing ever bad happens to you, and you need some help, what if your wife was sick and you had no money or food, let her die, because you don’t have enough money for a doctor’s. Sounds a little like living in the jungle with no rules, it is everyone for their own self, screw your neighbor, they are losers if they starve, have I got that correct.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Paying for the things we afford ourselves only opens our eyes as to what the things really cost. That will help us evaluate better whether we really want them. Being such an advocate of the illagal attack on Iraq, for example, you shouldn't have a problem paying for that. Instead, you're forcing the next generations to pick up the tab for W's wet-dream. That just ain't right anywhay you slice it. I'd ask you to put your money where your mouth is.

I am happy to put my money where my mouth is. The war was needed and I am glad to pay for that. The cost now is less than the cost of not doing it later. It's all the other BS that the dems want I don't want to pay for. The attempt by the left to make things fair for everyone makes things unfair for all. I would love to see about 2/3 of the social programs cut back or eliminated all together. Make them what they were originally intended, a safety net and not a way of life. The economy would be healthier and the people would be able to take care of themselves without the need for the government to "take care of us".

When and where have you advocated payng higher taxes to fund the war effort? Let's see it.

I am stating it now. Show me where I ever said I didn't want to pay for it. Lets see it.

Right here. You're advocating McCain's irresponsible continuation of Bush's disastrous fiscal policy. How does that pay for the war effort in Iraq? Where does that raise the 2-3 trillion dollars that this war is costing us?

I repeat, show me where I ever said I didn't want to pay for the war. I didn't. Bush's tax cuts were the best thing any president has done since Reagan. McCain wants to continue that. It will stimulate the economy and increase the federal coffers. Cut the useless social programs that just make us dependent on the government. Pay for it that way.

Bush has drained the coffers more than he has filled them. The war is funded by IOU's that the next generations will have to shoulder. You are being dishonest here.

[HAL 9000 96]

[quote

Although 55 votes might appear to be a somewhat scientific sample in some circles, it is not in mine. Why does anyone think both Congress AND Bush are doing a worse job now than in the late 90s? Why has the number 1 issue for the upcoming eleciton become the economy? A few years ago it was national security.

Seriously, are all the conservative VJers that well off (again, Rogue, I did not say they are evil...)? If so, I'd be interested in finding out your careers. Maybe I'll make the switch down the road to a higher paying salary, but I'd still stick by higher taxes if it means my fellow Americans who are struggling would get a helping hand.

i'm fairly certain that not just conservative vj'ers took that poll......

I completely agree. My point was that 55 is not very substantive. In VJ, maybe yes. In the U.S. overall, not a chance.

Well anyone serious enough to equate VJ-OT and polls with the US from a representative standpoint is probably teetering on the verge of insanity.

[dalegg 143]

The answer to all this is fiscal discipline. The Republicans have forgotten what fiscal discipline is at least from Reagan onward. Both in the White House and in Congress. It's kind of hard for Republicans to argue now that they will save the day. They haven't shown to be capable of that anywhere in the last 28 years. Governments, deficits and debts have nothing but grown under the Republicans. So much so that nobody can really take seriously any claim from that side that they'll get it under control this time around. They can't. In fact, they won't even try.

This is exactly what I mean. They keep on pandering to the left by growing government instead of realing it in thinking somehow it will achieve gains at the polls. It hasn't, so they need to go back to basics, and in 2012 they will have both the opportunity and the mandate to do just that.

Although part of me is a bit frightened over the next 4 years, I see this as an opportunity and hope Obama won't actually do everything he says he wants to once he starts to see the affects. The problem with McCain coming in is that for the most part we will remain the same as now- which by the way I think is just great. The last 4 years for me have easily been the best years of my life. But unfortunately millions of people are somehow convinced that the country is in horrible shape and they will just keep nagging on and on for 4 more years thinking pseudo socialism is the answer and perhaps someone even farther left than Obama will come in. I think its time to give people a refresher course.

So, you think it's just great that we are becoming a nation of borrowed wealth? That we're essentially pawning our children's future? I don't think that's great at all. I'd like to leave a better place for my children than what I had not one that's worse.

I already said I agree we have been fiscally irresponsible.

Although part of me is a bit frightened over the next 4 years, I see this as an opportunity and hope Obama won't actually do everything he says he wants to once he starts to see the affects. The problem with McCain coming in is that for the most part we will remain the same as now- which by the way I think is just great. The last 4 years for me have easily been the best years of my life. But unfortunately millions of people are somehow convinced that the country is in horrible shape and they will just keep nagging on and on for 4 more years thinking pseudo socialism is the answer and perhaps someone even farther left than Obama will come in. I think its time to give people a refresher course.

I take it you weren't in Iraq and/or Afghanistan.

No, I enlisted in the army in the 80s. I did not enlist in the 2000s.