Obama-Supported Tax Break for Private Jets Comes Under Fire - from Oba

[bonnie]

Those that receive a government check and do nothing and continue to do nothing do have a motivation problem.

To bad if you cannot get a job that paid you what your previous one did.Instead of taking out of my pocket,work two like many are doing.Get rid of cable,the cell phones and all unecessary spending.When you have done that and still can't make it,then ask for help

My husband and I have done so many times,but it was far better than expecting other taxpayers to feed our family.

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: bonnie

I don't have time to look it up now but I believe it came from the CBO...

The CBO says that the poor do not pay federal tax when they buy gasoline or use the telephone?

All the federal tax money goes into the national treasury. It doesn't matter the method that it was collected. Corporate tax, personal income tax, gasoline tax, telephone tax, inheritance tax, Social Security tax, import tax, etc. all goes into the same "pot". The rich do pay a higher percentage of their income via income tax. The poor and middle class pay a higher percentage of their income via Social Security tax. We all decide how much gasoline and telephone tax we pay depending on our telephone plans and the type of car we decide to drive.

This idea that the rich are treated unfairly by the tax code comes right out of the right-wing talk show circuit. That message ignores the tax burden placed on the poor and middle classes via taxes other than the personal income tax. To make such a claim and to repeat such a claim is misleading and very disingenuous.

You seem to have a real problem understanding this.It is not even a question of unfairness.You really don't hurt the rich fair or not.It hurts the very ones that the liberals wring their hands over.But that is unimportant.You got those rich and it is about time.

This ridiculous luxury jet tax is not going into the hands of the poor.But it makes the poor/middleclass and liberals feel so righteous even if no better off financially

[bonnie]

Here's a look at individual tax rates and shares by income in 2007, the most recent data available from the Internal Revenue Service:

•The top 1 percent: Americans who earned an adjusted gross income of $410,096 or more accounted for 22.8 percent of all wages. But they paid 40.4 percent of total reported income taxes, an increase from 39.9 percent in 2006, according to the IRS.

•The top 5 percent: Americans who earned $160,041 or more accounted for 37.4 percent of all wages in 2007. But they paid 60.6 percent of the country's total reported income taxes, up from 60.1 percent a year earlier.

•The top 10 percent: Americans who earned at least $113,018 paid 71.2 percent of the nation's income taxes, up from 70.8 percent a year earlier.

•The top 25 percent: Americans who earned at least $66,532 paid 86.6 percent of the nation's income taxes, up from 86.3 percent a year earlier.

•The top 50 percent: Americans who earned at least $32,879 paid 97.1 percent of the nation's income taxes, up from 97 percent a year earlier.

•The bottom 50 percent: Americans who earned less than $32,879 paid 2.9 percent of the nation's income taxes, down from 3 percent a year earlier.

An important side note: While the tax burden on this country's largest wage-earners has continued to grow since the Bush tax cuts were passed, the impact has been substantially muted.

The income gains made by the wealthiest Americans far outpaced that for the remaining workers, according to an analysis conducted for the Washington-based Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

In fact, two-thirds of the nation's total income gains from 2002 to 2007 flowed to the top 1 percent of households, the 2009 analysis of IRS data by economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez showed.

[Dr. Shane]

I would hope they would pay something into Social Security.

That however is not federal income tax.

It all goes into the national treasury. Nothing is earmarked for any special program. Revenue collected for Social Security just goes into the same fund as revenue collected from gasoline, telephone, imports, corporations, etc. Don't get a bleeding heart for the rich folks. The tax hike Obama is proposing cannot honestly be called "soaking the rich". In past years, the rich have paid twice as much as what Obama is even now proposing. There is absolutely nothing immoral or unethical about what Obama is proposing. The issue is the timing. Is this a good time to take money out of the private sector? I think not.

This focus on personal income tax rates is a game the right-wing, conservative talk radio hosts play. Don't be so gullible to get sucked into their game. Poor people pay taxes. Everyone pays taxes. No one gets away without paying taxes. Even illegal immigrants pay taxes.

[bonnie]

This focus on personal income tax rates is a game the right-wing, conservative talk radio hosts play. Don't be so gullible to get sucked into their game. Poor people pay taxes. Everyone pays taxes. No one gets away without paying taxes. Even illegal immigrants pay taxes.

I don't give two hoots and a holler what any talk show host thinks of personal income tax.

If you would try sticking to what has been said you wouldn't have to rely on your....right-wing, conservative talk radio hosts play you might actually understand what has been said.

I didn't say anything other than many do not pay FEDERAL INCOME TAX.Didn't say anything about other taxes.

Regardless of anything you say,I know from very personal experience how needless tax hikes and economy of the rich impact the "working class"

Especially the working class that is self employed.

I am not as petty as some and feel good regardless if the rich just get theirs.

This tax really will have no impact on the rich at all. It will impact those dependent on that industry,as the rich will go elswhere.The laid off can't really do that. Won't be any different than the luxury yacht tax. Really showed the rich didn't it?

The rich didn't get rich because they were stupid and didn't care how much the government took from them just because it could.The rich pull in their horns and in doing so people like my husband were hurt while they were in Cancun.

The rich as well as the working class and the poor should pay a fair tax.

God expects even the poor to pay 10% of their income

Those that invest and gamble all,work 24/7,go without while trying to get a business on it's feet should not be punsihed just because a government can do so

[Dr. Shane]

Requiring those with more resources to pay more taxes isn't punishing. The rich become rich in part because of their own ambition, skill and risk-taking. However no one becomes rich on their own. They need employees and they need customers. Every rich person owes their success to several others. As their wealth increases, their debt to the society that has allowed them to become wealthy also increases. Paying taxes is one of the ways a successful person gives back to society.

Quote:

I know from very personal experience how needless tax hikes and economy of the rich impact the "working class"

Tax hikes are certainly needed. Even if we go back to 2007 spending levels, we would still be running a deficit. We can't balance the budget with spending cuts alone. The whole issue here should be the timing of the tax cuts. I am one that agrees that raising taxes on anyone during a recession will hurt the economy.

Quote:

I am not as petty as some and feel good regardless if the rich just get theirs.

I don't think anyone in this thread has said the rich need to get "theirs". That is radical right-wing talk show rhetoric. In this thread we have been discussion the Biblical principle of the rich giving more because they have more.

[bonnie]

Requiring those with more resources to pay more taxes isn't punishing. The rich become rich in part because of their own ambition, skill and risk-taking. However no one becomes rich on their own. They need employees and they need customers. Every rich person owes their success to several others. As their wealth increases, their debt to the society that has allowed them to become wealthy also increases. Paying taxes is one of the ways a successful person gives back to society.

[bonnie]

Your constant obsession with talk show hosts does show exactly what happens tho

Take Rush Limbaugh for example.He could afford the tax increases in New York and probally never know it was paid.

He chooses not to be part of the candy man for idiocy.

He has of course moved to FL.Undoubtedly many of those you wring your hands over lost what I assume was a pretty decent job.

Now he has begun a new business in Fl. Again it will mean many employee's.Employee's not earning a paycheck and paying taxes in New York and putting it back into New York economy.

Now maybe you can figure out without right wing radio who got hurt in that.

The many leaving New York seems to have gotten thru to the powers that be and they are lowering taxes.

[Tom Wetmore]

You really should check with a qualified person about your obsession with right wing talk shows.

Sarcasm...

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: bonnie

You really should check with a qualified person about your obsession with right wing talk shows.

Sarcasm...

Nope,Shane cannot think beyond right wing talk radio. This is the reason he believes any conservative disagrees with him.

Shane spends far more time listening to right wing talk radio than I have a desire to do.

He needs to talk to a qualified party to have him understand that not all are as easily influenced as he seems to be.

Some actually have opinions formed because of hands on experiences.

I think you were the one that was spouting the non-existent trickle down.

We lived with the trickle down. During the Carter years,long before right wing talk radio the trickle down was very real.

The only difference is in a good economy the sucess of the wealthy had a positive impact on our own livlihood.

During the Carter years the failure of the economy had a negative impact on our personal finances. The ones it didn't hurt were the wealthy that employed my husband.

They simply took it easy.

[Dr. Shane]

When the harder you work and the better you do makes you the candy man for a government out of control it is punishment.

We all pay taxes. A dollar paid at the gasoline pump is no different than a dollar paid in a luxury tax when buying a yacht. We all pay taxes.

Taxes are also fair. Everyone pays the same amount of income tax on their first $30,000 (given they have the same dependents). Incrementally, everyone pays the same. The highest tax bracket today is 35%. That tax rate only applies to the money earned beyond $379,150. The person that earns $500,000/year is taxed 10% on his or her first $8,500 (or $17,000 if married) just like everyone else in the country. All the way up the ladder they are taxed the same. They don't pay 35% tax on their entire income, they only pay 35% on the portion that exceeds $379,150. That is as fair as fair can be.

I get my news from a variety of sources and that is why I can often tell when someone is just parroting what they hear from someone else. I see a lot of radical, right-wing talk radio parroting going on here. If those repeating this rhetoric are not listening to talk radio, perhaps Limbaugh has crossed over to the dark side and is able to channel his thoughts through willing accomplices.

I get both sides disagreeing with me. In this very threat I have the conservatives (Richard and Bonnie) and the liberal (Tom) both disagreeing with me. That's what happens when a person takes a moderate and centralist position.

[bonnie]

Big difference.No one has ever been audited because they haven't purchased enough gas.

Quote:

Taxes are also fair. Everyone pays the same amount of income tax on their first $30' date='000 (given they have the same dependents). Incrementally, everyone pays the same. The highest tax bracket today is 35%. That tax rate only applies to the money earned beyond $379,150. The person that earns $500,000/year is taxed 10% on his or her first $8,500 (or $17,000 if married) just like everyone else in the country. All the way up the ladder they are taxed the same. They don't pay 35% tax on their entire income, they only pay 35% on the portion that exceeds $379,150. That is as fair as fair can be.

This was concerning Obama's petty little tirade about luxury jet owners and taxing them more because he is totally ignorant

of what he is doing.

Say what you will and use your faulty crystal ball,we have lived with and raised a family on what you and Tom say is not reality

Quote:

I get my news from a variety of sources and that is why I can often tell when someone is just parroting what they hear from someone else. I see a lot of radical, right-wing talk radio parroting going on here. If those repeating this rhetoric are not listening to talk radio, perhaps Limbaugh has crossed over to the dark side and is able to channel his thoughts through willing accomplices.

Since a very young newly wed I have believed the same.Rush Limbaugh was not on the radio.Whether the abuse of the welfare system or taxes my view has been shaped by what we have lived thru

Quote:

I get both sides disagreeing with me. In this very threat I have the conservatives (Richard and Bonnie) and the liberal (Tom) both disagreeing with me. That's what happens when a person takes a moderate and centralist position. [/quote']

A moderate is a watered down democrat

[Dr. Shane]

The top bracket now is 35%. What does Obama want to raise it to? 38%?

In 1932 it was 58%.

In 1944 it was 94%

In 1960 it was 89%

In 1980 it was 70%

The problem isn't that Obama is going to tax the rich unfairly. It is just an issue of the time. This is not a good time to take money out of the private sector.

[bonnie]

The top bracket now is 35%. What does Obama want to raise it to? 38%?

In 1932 it was 58%.

In 1944 it was 94%

In 1960 it was 89%

In 1980 it was 70%

The problem isn't that Obama is going to tax the rich unfairly. It is just an issue of the time. This is not a good time to take money out of the private sector.

And what happened in those years and the years following the lowering of the tax?

It is really tough to improve on God's example.Even for Obama and yourself.

Across the board the same percentage.The millionaire pays far more than the single mother.Uses far less in resources taken from other taxpayers.

My husband and I paid far more in taxes than a "employee"

We helped fund public school education and paid thru the nose for private education for our own children.

We always paid our own medical and all of the other needs for our family. The millionaire in turn pays far more than we did even if the percentage is the same.

The millionaire pumps far more into the economy and most have provided jobs for others.

Tough to out do God in that.

The government needs to restrict spending

[bonnie]

HIgher Tax Rates Won't Work

Memo to Robert Reich: The income tax brought in less revenue when the highest rate was 70% to 91% than it did when the highest rate was 28%..

The intelligentsia of the Democratic Party is growing increasingly enthusiastic about raising the highest federal income tax rates to 70% or more. Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich took the lead in February, proposing on his blog "a 70 percent marginal tax rate on the rich." After all, he noted, "between the late 1940s and 1980 America's highest marginal rate averaged above 70 percent. Under Republican President Dwight Eisenhower it was 91 percent. Not until the 1980s did Ronald Reagan slash it to 28 percent."

That helped set the stage for Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D., Ill.) and nine other House members to introduce the Fairness in Taxation Act in March. That bill would add five tax brackets between 45% and 49% on incomes above $1 million and tax capital gains and dividends at those same high rates. The academic left of the Democratic Party finds this much too timid, and would rather see income tax rates on the "rich" at Mr. Reich's suggested levels—or higher.

This new fascination with tax rates of 70% or more is ostensibly intended to raise gobs of new revenue, so federal spending could supposedly remain well above 24% of gross domestic product (GDP) rather than be scaled back toward the 19% average of 1997-2007.

...All this nostalgia about the good old days of 70% tax rates makes it sound as though only the highest incomes would face higher tax rates. In reality, there were a dozen tax rates between 48% and 70% during the 1970s. Moreover—and this is what Mr. Reich and his friends always fail to mention—the individual income tax actually brought in less revenue when the highest tax rate was 70% to 91% than it did when the highest tax rate was 28%.

When the highest tax rate ranged from 91% to 92% (1951-63), even the lowest rate was quite high—20% or 22%. As the nearby chart shows, however, those super-high tax rates at all income levels brought in revenue of only 7.7% of GDP, according to U.S. budget historical data.

President John F. Kennedy's across-the-board tax cuts reduced the lowest and highest tax rates to 14% and 70% respectively after 1964, yet revenues (after excluding the 5%-10% surtaxes of 1969-70) rose to 8% of GDP. President Reagan's across-the-board tax cuts further reduced the lowest and highest tax rates to 11% and 50%, yet revenues rose again to 8.3% of GDP. The 1986 tax reform slashed the top tax rate to 28%, yet revenues dipped trivially to 8.1% of GDP.

What about those increases in top tax rates in 1990 and 1993? The top statutory rate was raised to 31% in 1991, but it was really closer to 35% because exemptions and deductions were phased-out as incomes increased. The economy quickly slipped into recession—as it did during the surtaxes of 1969-70 and the "bracket creep" of 1980-81, which pushed many middle-income families into higher tax brackets. Revenues fell to 7.8% of GDP.

The 1993 law added two higher tax brackets and, importantly, raised the taxable portion of Social Security benefits to 85% from 50%. At just 8% of GDP, however, individual income tax receipts were surprisingly low during President Bill Clinton's first term.

The Internet/telecom boom of 1998-2000 was the only time individual income tax revenues remained higher than 9% of GDP for more than one year without the economy slipping into recession (as it did when the tax topped 9% in 1969, 1981 and 2001).

.But that was an unrepeatable windfall resulting from the quintupling of Nasdaq stocks—combined with (1) the proliferation of nonqualified stock options that have since been thwarted by the Financial Accounting Standards Board, and (2) the 1997 cut in the capital gains tax to 20%. Realized capital gains rose to 4.6% of GDP from 1997 to 2002—up from 2.5% of GDP from 1987 to 1996 when the capital gains tax was 28%.

Suppose the Congress let all of the Bush tax cuts expire in 2013, which is the current trajectory. That would bring us back to the tax regime of 1993-96 when the individual income tax brought in no more revenue (8% of GDP) than it did in 2006-08 (8.1% of GDP).

It is true that President Obama proposes raising the capital gains tax to 23.8%, which could raise more revenue than the 28% rate of 1993-96. But a 23.8% tax on capital gains and dividends would nevertheless be high enough to depress stock prices and related tax revenues.

Still, pundits cling to the myth that lower tax rates mean lower revenues. "You do probably get a modest boost to GDP from tax cuts," concedes the Atlantic's Megan McCardle. "But you also get falling tax revenue. It can't be said too often—and there you are, I've said it again."

Yet the chart nearby clearly shows that reductions in U.S. marginal tax rates did not cause "falling tax revenue." It is not necessary to argue that tax rate reduction paid for itself by increasing economic growth. Lowering top marginal tax rates in stages from 91% to 28% paid for itself regardless of what happened to GDP.

It is particularly remarkable that individual tax revenues did not fall as a percentage of GDP because changes in tax law, most notably those of 1986 and 2003, greatly expanded refundable tax credits, personal exemptions and standard deductions. As a result, the Joint Committee on Taxation recently reported that 51% of Americans no longer pay federal income tax.

Since the era of 70% tax rates, the U.S. income tax system has become far more "progressive." Congressional Budget Office estimates show that from 1979 to 2007 average income tax rates fell by 110% to minus 0.4% from 4.1% for the second-poorest quintile of taxpayers. Average tax rates fell by 56% for the middle quintile and 39% for the fourth, but only 8% at the top. Despite these massive tax cuts for the bottom 80%, overall federal revenues were the same 18.5% share of GDP in 2007 as they were in 1979 and individual tax revenues were nearly the same—8.7% of GDP in 1979 versus 8.4% in 2007.

In short, reductions in top tax rates under Presidents Kennedy and Reagan, and reductions in capital gains tax rates under Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush, not only "paid for themselves" but also provided enough extra revenue to finance negative income taxes for the bottom 40% and record-low income taxes at middle incomes.

[bonnie]

Just exchange yachts with jets

During his news conference yesterday, President Obama re peatedly laid out his case by calling for new taxes on "corporate jets." The sound bite is designed to seem extremely reasonable. After all, those bankers and hedge-fund managers who can afford to fly around on corporate planes can undoubtedly pay a bit more for the privilege.

We've been here before. In the 1990 deal between President George H.W. Bush and a Democratic Congress, yacht owners were the designated villain. Yachts were, after all, owned by "millionaires and billionaires" who didn't pay their fair share of taxes. Who could object to taxing them a bit more? So Congress passed a 10 percent luxury tax on yachts priced at more than $100,000.

The result was the virtual destruction of the domestic boat-building industry. Sales of luxury boats dropped 70 percent within a year. Several manufacturers went bankrupt. More than 25,000 workers lost their jobs. And because so few boats were sold, the tax didn't even generate much new revenue.

At the end of the day, the millionaires and billionaires were still rich. But thousands of hardworking middle-class Americans ended up out of work. The tax was repealed by a lopsided and bipartisan vote in 1993.

The French economist and philosopher Frederic Bastiat addressed Obama's fallacy some 250 years ago, describing "the seen and the unseen."

Bastiat referred to the example of a farmer who plans to hire a worker to dig a ditch on his property, but is unable to do so because the money he'd have used to pay the ditch-digger went instead to pay taxes. A government bureaucrat is able to use those taxes to spend on various projects. Of course, everyone can see the results of that spending, which undoubtedly makes the bureaucrat popular. But what goes unseen is the loss suffered by the poor ditch digger.

Obama assumes that if someone is wealthy, his or her money just sits there. In reality, individuals either spend that money or they save and invest it. If they spend it, it helps provide jobs for the people who make and sell whatever it is they buy. If the money is instead saved and invested it provides the capital that is needed to start businesses and hire workers.

Every dollar that the government takes in taxes (or borrows in debt for that matter) is one less dollar that someone has to spend, save or invest. The government can then spend the money on the popular programs that the president repeatedly listed in his news conference: student loans, medical research, Medicare, etc. What can't be seen is the lost jobs and slower economic growth that result from the higher taxes.

That isn't to say, as Republicans sometimes claim, that all tax cuts pay for themselves. Nor does it mean that every corporate and individual tax break and loophole is justified. Some, like the ethanol-tax break that Congress repealed recently, are little more than special-interest subsidies disguised as tax cuts. And too much of the tax code is devoted to micromanaging behavior rather than simply raising revenue. Ideally, the tax code should be much flatter, with low marginal rates and few, if any, deductions.

But, for now, Obama should keep in mind the unseen consequences of the tax hikes he recommends -- even if he's only raising taxes on "millionaires and billionaires."

Class warfare may or may not make for good politics, but it certainly makes for lousy economic policy.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/je...L#ixzz1RKHDib1L

[Tom Wetmore]

If not now, when?

Much of what you have posted, I have no real issue with. But the timing issue is where i would take a different stand. I think you have made a case yourself that timing is not a big concern by pointing out that this is not a huge tax increase for people at this income level. It is not going to cause major chaos in their budget. Consider someone with $1 million of taxable income. Now they have $650,000 after taxes. With the rate going back to 38% they would have $620,000 to spend after taxes. That is hardly a crisis.

On the timing, the Federal government is facing a crisis. More revenue must be raised. Spending cuts alone do not solve the problem. Nobody in the congress is willing to cut sufficiently in the area where the government spends the most, defense. As long as we are engaged in war on multiple fronts, we can't trim enough out of the defense budget without jeopardizing our own troops in the field. Massive increases in spending to fund those wars was combined with tax cuts. This country survived the huge cost of WWII with the tax rates like you noted for 1944.

The folly of the Bush policy was to grossly underestimate (or hide) the real cost of war and reduce revenue to pay for it. Why? It would have been political suicide to do otherwise. So to win another term, do what is politically expedient even if it destroys the economy. And we see the same politics paralyzing Congress faced with a political no win choice.

[Dr. Shane]

And what happened in those years

[Dr. Shane]

I think you have made a case yourself that timing is not a big concern by pointing out that this is not a huge tax increase for people at this income level.

[bonnie]

And what happened in those years

[Dr. Shane]

the rich pay for their use of the infrastructure.

They do under our current system. Many conservative right-wingers would like to change that and shift the burden to the poor and middle class.

[bonnie]

They do under our current system. Many conservative right-wingers would like to change that and shift the burden to the poor and middle class.

I do not believe you as to "many".The middle class,the truckers are already carrying the burden. The poor is not

I doubt they many are trying to change the cost of road use.

Nor is it only the rich that pay for the infrastructure.

Two of my brothers are truckers.Neither are rich and they pay many thousands of dollars to use the infrastructure. Their hope of course is to recoup it from the client. Especially in this economy it is not always possible.