[jolepp]

A related NYT piece, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/21/business/obamas-tax-on-millionaires-faces-obstacles.html:

Until the recent financial crisis and worldwide economic downturn, individual tax rates had fallen substantially in most developed countries over several decades. In 1980, the top federal rate on Americans was 70 percent, and most European countries were above 60 percent. Today most European countries have rates below 50 percent. The United States has a top rate of 35 percent, but many wealthy Americans pay considerably less because their earnings are derived from dividends or capital gains, which are taxed at no more than 15 percent.

As a result, the effective federal tax rate, including payroll taxes, for the wealthiest 0.01 percent of earners fell to 31.5 percent in 2005, from 42.9 percent in 1979, according to data from the Congressional Budget Office. Over the same time, effective rates for taxpayers in the center of the range fell to 14.2 percent, a decrease of just 4 percentage points.
...
For the top 400 taxpayers, the effective federal income tax rate has dropped from 29 percent in 1993 to 18 percent in 2008. The average adjusted gross income of those 400 households was $271 million. By comparison, households with $50,000 to $75,000 in income paid an effective rate of 15 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

[JohnInIndy]

Considering the rest of the BS they proffer, this wouldn't surprise me.

Some friends of mine recently had to put his 92 year old mother in the hospital, as she was actually reading the "right wing" propaganda being sent to her.
Stuff like, Obama was taking away her medicare, Obama was taking away her SS, Obama was taking away her house, Obama was taking away her guns.

Sick is what GOP has become. A sickness is what the teabaggers are.

Wasn't the democrats spreading that crap in reality with a commercial? Some actor portraying to be conservative while pushing an old lady over the cliff? While no plan would affect anyone who currently gets SS or Medicare.

[shooz]

No sir.
It was the crap she got in her mail.
Tons of it.
I've seen some of it--------------------------All BS.
The teabaggers would shove her over a cliff, or haven't you been keeping up?

For further information, see and comment on the running thread of teabaggery.

[boriscleto]

Stupid Things Being Said About President Obama's Tax Plan and Why They're Stupid Stupidity: The Rude Pundit

[jolepp]

A NYT editorial with some concrete details of the Obama plan:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/22/opinion/taxes-the-deficit-and-the-economy.html

As they say, it is still unclear what the "Buffet rule" would mean in practice.

[JohnInIndy]

So let's ask the question. Obama won't answer it that's for sure.

How MUCH more should we tax the rich? How much more money should the government get to flush down the toilet? Let's see your numbers. Also where should we draw the line as to being rich? With current spending levels will it even make a dent?

[shooz]

What's it matter to you John?
You weasel your way out of paying them anyway.

[jeffkrol]

How much more money should the government get to flush down the toilet?

Oh come on Iraq's "free" now......................Time to start flushing money down ""OUR" toilets.......

[Nesster]

So let's ask the question. Obama won't answer it that's for sure.

How MUCH more should we tax the rich? How much more money should the government get to flush down the toilet? Let's see your numbers. Also where should we draw the line as to being rich? With current spending levels will it even make a dent?

Well, actually Obama has answered these questions, save the one about the toilet

From the NYT editorial linked above:

Americans need to take a close look at what Mr. Obama is calling for: a broad tax reform that raises $1.5 trillion over a decade but allows for lower rates on businesses and individuals by cutting tax breaks and loopholes for special interests, and that restores some fairness to a system in which millionaires and billionaires pay lower tax rates than middle-class families.

The Obama plan would allow the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans — individuals earning more than $200,000 a year and households earning more than $250,000 — to expire at the end of 2012. That would restore the top two marginal tax rates to 36 percent and 39.6 percent, up from 33 percent and 35 percent today. It would also restore the estate tax, which vanished completely in 2010, and raise the capital gains tax on wealthy individuals from 15 percent to 20 percent.

The full Bush-era tax cuts were the single biggest contributor to the deficit over the past decade, reducing revenues by about $1.8 trillion between 2002 and 2009. The White House estimates that Mr. Obama’s plan would raise $866 billion over the next decade, or nearly half of that.

As for the supposed job-killing effects, President Bill Clinton raised tax rates to where Mr. Obama wants to restore them now, and the economy grew faster and added many more jobs during those eight years than it did after President George W. Bush slashed taxes across the board.


...

President Obama has said that tax reform should follow the principle that no household making $1 million or more should pay a smaller share of its income in taxes than a middle-class family. Republicans say this is an act of “class warfare.” But it is clearly unjust to have a tax system that, today, allows 22,000 households earning more than $1 million to pay less than 15 percent of their income in federal income and payroll taxes — less than half of what a middle-class family pays.

Mr. Obama did not specify how he would satisfy the Buffett rule. Allowing the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy to expire would go some way in this direction. So would his proposal to require managers of hedge funds, private equity funds and other investment vehicles to pay standard income taxes on their pay, rather than paying at the much lower capital gains rate.

Many wealthy Americans reap bigger gains from their tax deductions — of mortgage payments, charitable contributions and the like — than the middle class. Taxed at the top marginal rate of 35 percent, they get back 35 cents out of every dollar of authorized deductions. Middle-class filers, who pay a marginal rate of 28 percent, get only 28 cents back.

The president’s proposal would cap the benefit at 28 percent for wealthy taxpayers, raising about $410 billion over 10 years, according to the White House. The idea tracks those proposed by Martin Feldstein, Glenn Hubbard and Greg Mankiw, top economic advisers to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

Mr. Obama is also calling for eliminating unnecessary tax breaks and subsidies for oil companies, the coal industry and others to raise about $300 billion over 10 years. That is drawing fierce criticism from Republicans and some Democrats, eager to shield big campaign donors. These scams need to go.

All of that is pretty clear, and easy to understand.

As for the making a dent bit, it's pretty clear from various independent sources, an increase in revenue makes a very large dent indeed.

But of course, if one doesn't move from the idea that Obama hasn't put out a plan, and that the plan he did not put out doesn't have specifics, and the unspecific plan he didn't put out has no real world, independent, verification... that's pure head in the sand mentality.

[Colbyt]

The estate tax is an immoral redistribution of assets. Small businesses and family farms are destroyed by this evil invention. This money was taxed according to the laws of the land as it was earned. Taxing it again at death is 100% wrong.

[Nesster]

The estate tax is an immoral redistribution of assets. Small businesses and family farms are destroyed by this evil invention. This money was taxed according to the laws of the land as it was earned. Taxing it again at death is 100% wrong.

And yet, we can say that rational estate planning avoids much of this, and improves the transition in business and human terms as well. You don't get the old man grabbing and keeping it all for himself till he croaks... and then the heirs scrambling. By transitioning ownership and wealth over time businesses and small farms should be able to remain viable from this point of view as well.

or what, the government should bend over backwards cause the old coot won't share with his own kids?

[Parallax]

And yet, we can say that rational estate planning avoids much of this, and improves the transition in business and human terms as well. You don't get the old man grabbing and keeping it all for himself till he croaks... and then the heirs scrambling. By transitioning ownership and wealth over time businesses and small farms should be able to remain viable from this point of view as well.

Estate planning is certainly advised, but it shouldn't be necessary to prevent the government from stealing confiscating "collecting" it.

[Nesster]

it isn't stealing if it is legal. How about 'confiscating'?

[Parallax]

it isn't stealing if it is legal. How about 'confiscating'?

Okay, I'll go for that. Post edited.

[shooz]

it isn't stealing if it is legal. How about 'confiscating'?

Fits wallstreet to a T.

But then, they did pay to have the laws changed to allow them to confiscate stuff from the rest of us.

When are the electric utilities gonna ask the tax payer to fix their grid for them?
Oh yeah, when the solar flairs short circuit it.