Say he is for the middle class but then allow taxes on the middle class to go up?

That makes no since to me.

A tax rate increase huts me (middle class) a lot more than a rich guy so who is really paying for this?

Thanks Obama.

Yes, the President and the President alone sets all tax policy.

This is why we disbanded Congress years ago. They were rendered irrelevant by the public's irrational belief that the President had all the power.

Mebbe we can get him to jump off that cliff...

Now we're blaming Obama??? What about Bush? Technically, we should be blaming Obama for at least 8-14 years after his term. That's when the real effects of administrative decisions are seen. Blame Obama all you want, but I'm still on Bush/Cheney for their bailouts, unpaid war, housing crash (although, they couldn't have done it without Bill Clinton's set up), etc. That's what we're seeing the effect of now...Blame Bush. Actually, blame Cheney...Bush was was too dumb to pull off anything. That guy could fluff up a wet dream.

Do you blame Bush for ANYTHING? I'm sure you do. pot/kettle.

Taxes aren't the problem, government spending is the problem. Out of control spending causes inflation and a decrease in the value of a dollar.

If the government learned to spend reasonably, then my money would have a lot more purchasing power. They keep printing more and more money, which makes the money I have, have less value.

And that's a tax which hurts everyone, but hurts the people the most who live paycheck to paycheck and have the least amount of money available for discretionary spending.

Obama & the rest of the Republicans and Democrats don't even care about poor people. They're happy to lay a massive tax on them via the federal reserve's out of control bungling of the monetary system in the United States.

Bailouts???..er..That WAS Osimba

All I know is Obama said he was here to help the middle class and yet I just received a tax increase. Good job Obama!

More than anything it's just that the US government is very inefficient.
If better run you can have over 50% of GDP going to the government without any problems (like Sweden). Or you could have less than 20% going to the government and things can work fine too (like Singapore).

how the fluff is middle class $400 k per year. What does that make the rest of us earning $100k or below... unemployed?

I actually think you get it..wtf??
$400k is MIDDLE class?

I started working(delivering morning news) when i was 10 yr old.
Actually started paying taxes on a summer job at age 14 from school(remember summer work programs?)
From age 14,on i paid ALL taxes due for 35 yrs, religiously.
At age 49 i became government certified 100% disabled.
My government has seen their way fit to figure that my 35 yrs as a tax paying citizen is worth $1065.00 per month...Yea

I think a better question is why does it matter whether someone is middle class, lower class or upper class?

How is it morally right to take almost 40% of everything ANYONE earns. And when the deal they're likely to strike now AGAIN fails to fix the deficit problem - because nothing will be done about spending, the real problem - how much more should those evil greedy rich people have to pay?

If you had a rich neighbor and a poor neighbor, would you break into the rich neighbor's house and take his/her possessions by force in order to give them to the poor neighbor? If not, what makes it right for the government to do that?

What are you TALKING ABOUT?..So the rich should not pay taxes?

15% across the board..Everyone is happy.
fluff supposed to be an edit

Supertodd, why do you think there were so many communist revolutions early 20th century? It's basically the poor neighbor breaking into the rich neighbor's house.

Then also, it's much better for the economy to have less inequality. Another factor that contributed to revolutions in the past.

So yea, those things make it right for the government to redistribute wealth.

We really don't want it redistributed,we just want all to pay their part.

Taxes aren't the problem. Government spending is the problem. If they stopped printing so much damn money, people wouldn't be nearly as upset about taxes, because their money would actually be worth something.

What's their part? How much should the top 1% make for example? 20% of all income? 10%? 5%?
You can use a flat tax like 15% but the rich are in a much better position to accumulate more and more money/capital. Unless the government intervenes the inequality gets worse and worse.

Government intervention is what makes the inequality worse and worse. Government is a weapon used by the wealthy to protect their wealth from everyone else. It is a method by which rich people legalize theft and use the overwhelming military power of the government to protect their "property".

Do you blame Bush for ANYTHING? I'm sure you do. pot/kettle. [/quote]

Yes, there are plenty of PRESIDENTIAL ACTIONS to blame Bush for without blaming him for acts (or inaction) of Congress.

Rockman, yes you're right. One of the reason why I call the US government inefficient. Inefficient in the sense of doing whats good for the entire population.

It could be different though, other nations show this.

The government is just a scapegoat.. Large corporations are really the ones running the show.

snawdog, of course I'm not saying that "the rich" should pay nothing. I'm saying that they shouldn't be paying a drastically higher proportion of their earnings than anyone else. And I agree with you that a flat tax is the most fair system we could adopt.. and a wonderful side effect is that it would make your tax filings much simpler. No accountant needed! What I vehemently disagree with is my government stealing -and subsequently wasting - almost half of what ANYONE earns.

Rockman nailed it though (not surprisingly)

The Federal Government, via the Federal Reserve (a scheme devised by collaboration between big banking and government, BTW) makes the money you save for your retirement worth less every year. Politicians on both sides of the aisle are laughing at us, at how easy it is to pit us against each other, and use that division to increase their own power.

How many of you here actually believe that the 100 billion in cuts from the TERRIBLE FISCAL CLIFF would spell disaster for us? 100 billion is less than 3% of the annual Federal budget. Or how many of you really believe that that returning to Clinton-era tax rates (for EVERYBODY.. just to be fair) would spell immediate doom?

They're just putting on a show for us all, as they steal more of our freedom every day. "Hey, yeah we passed a bill eliminating [insert Constitutional protection here], but we protected you from [insert manufactured crisis here]"

Magellaan: In my opinion, the desire to avoid one form of tyranny (communism) does not justify instituting a different form of tyranny (class warfare).. Hell, the two are practically the same anyway, and neither can ever work, because those in power always use their power to their advantage.

DISCLAIMER: I started my New Years Eve celebration early, and am somewhat drunk, so if anything in this post doesn't make sense to you, just drink more.

State-led capitalism is not practically the same as communism.

Magellaan, you stated that the government should have the right to take more from some in order to give to others, to eliminate "inequality" if I'm not mistaken (and if I am, then I sincerely apologize)

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" - Karl Marx. Can you tell me how that differs significantly from "Tax the rich more, so that the government can give it to the poor"? I honestly don't see any difference.

By allowing the tax rates to go back up on everyone (including the middle class who Obama is supposed to be protecting as he wants everyone to believe) the government just got 500 billion dollars richer.

Supertodd, I wouldnt want to eliminate all inequality. If someone's work hard for something they should be able to have more, and people need some motivation to get to work.
If you ask someone if they want the same income distribution as in western europe they say usually say no.
But in surveys held in the US asking people what kind of income distribution they think is fair the results are similar to what the income distribution is in western europe, even for Republican voters.
This is kinda odd.

Also the difference between state-led capitalism and communism is that capital is private in the former system and public in the latter. I really wouldnt want the government to control businesses. Except for the things they are better at, like healthcare, infrastructure, education.

The government isn't better at any of them things.

Well, I'd disagree that the government is better at healthcare or education. Adjusted for inflation, spending on education is up 300% since the creation of the Federal Department of Education, and the results we have for that massive increase in spending are... nothing.

Health costs have risen dramatically ever since the Federal Government decided to start meddling via Medicare and Medicaid. And from what I've seen, countries where the govt takes over the health care industry (UK, for example) have care that is inferior to the US.

I'll agree with you on infrastucture. If we could limit the Federal Government to only doing what the founders intended (of which infrastructure was a part) we'd be in a lot better shape today.

And I still don't see any significant difference between what you call "state-led capitalism" and communism. Both take from some in order to give to others (specifically, take from one small group, give to a much larger group, gain power over all) Corruption is rampant in both systems. Neither produces results that are superior to the free market.

Actually if I don't keep the bush trimmed, it...oh nvm wrong bush :P

Well i am quite sure that if ALL Americans(yes corps included) paid a flat rate of xx%, everyone would be much happier(except the rich) and the National debt would start being paid.
The problem seems to be the rich that say "If you tax me i can;t hire folks"..Hell they are NOT hiring..They are getting fatter as we get more desperate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/..._tax_in_the_United_States

Note the end of that article: "The United States has the highest marginal corporate tax in any of the world's developed economies". If higher tax rates on those greedy corporations are the answer, then we should be in great shape!

What's the percentage that equals "fair share"?

If your answer is anywhere below 100% you're not liberal enough for these boards.

I don't know enough about the US education system. On a whole I believe its pretty good. Some things could be done to improve public schools in poorer areas, from what I understand they are funded in large part by local taxes? So if a county is poor the schools will be too. You could decouple this, and make government more efficient at providing good education for all.

The World Health Organization ranks the UK healthcare system as the 18th best and the US system as the 38th best in the world(yet the most expensive).
Medicaid and especially Medicare are expensive because they provide insurance for those groups that make the most costs. Elderly people need more healthcare right. If you correct the figures for this they are actually doing a decent job.

It seems like costs are socialised while the private sector gets the profits. So government is doing something wrong. I think it'd best to at least make these things either entirely public or entirely private so you get less corruption. Of which I prefer public.

The free market without government is disastrous, countries with a weak government do horrendously bad. Government doesn't have to be big per se but it needs to be strong and able to regulate the market.
Many state-led capitalist nations have very low corruption, like the Scandinavian nations. Some do a lot worse though, like China. You can run it in good ways and bad ways just like you have well run and poorly run businesses.

The mega corporations don't pay nearly that though as they make deals or evade taxes by exploiting loopholes. Corporate tax rate should be lowered but equal for all corporations, large and small.

What is the percentage?
Equal for ALL..Across the board..No loopholes

And there, we agree 100% Magellaan. Some corporations are able to buy politicians to use their power (power they should never have had in the first place) to create tax exemptions for them.

Giving our "representatives" this kind of power was where we started to go wrong in the first place. 15% flat tax across the board would be great, IMO.. and would be a major tax savings for the vast majority of businesses in the US.

What is the percentage?
Equal for ALL..Across the board..No loopholes
You make $10 billion a year..I make $12,500.
Honestly..Who is getting hurt the worse if we had a flat 15%?
ME..But at least the Fat Man is now contributing towards the debt,we poor folks will never pay it down.

Well then I'm in agreement with you too, snawdog. Although I think you'd be hard pressed to find very many of "the rich" who don't already pay 15%.

Even Romney, the man that Obama and his drones held up as the example of "the rich" not paying "their fair share" paid 14% of his income in Federal income tax. I believe Warren Buffet pays about that as well (could be wrong on that.. don't remember precisely)

As a business owner myself, I'd absolutely LOVE a 15% tax rate. Last year, not including my "fair share" of my employees' taxes (SSI and medicare) that I paid, I ended up yielding 25% of my profit to the feds. And my business doesn't even make half of what Obama says is "rich".

I would venture that your company did not gross $5 million in sales/service..Nothing against you,but that is still small business.
The larger companies pay 0% in Fed tax and we know it.

Oh yeah, definitely a small business. Less than 20 employees, some of those part timers.

Yes, some mega corporations do pay nothing in Federal taxes, and I agree with you 101% that this should not be. Perhaps I misunderstood your initial point in this thread. I thought you were arguing for higher rates on wealthier people, which I think will do absolutely nothing (due to the already existing loopholes which you've already mentioned)

Unfortunately, our "representatives" are more interested in putting on a dog and pony show than actually solving any fiscal problems. They know that if they win the battle of the theater, they'll win enough votes to stay in power. They'll raise rates on "the rich" back to nearly 40%, keep spending the futures of our children and grandchildren on wars and incompetent bureaucracies, and continue to blame the other side. It isn't going to end until we boot both of these corrupt - bordering on evil - parties out of power, and return to the limits on Federal power that the Constitution set.

My apologies if I completely misunderstood you. Again, I blame beer. Drink more beer.

I don't mind a flat tax for corporations much.
Personal income though.. why do CEOs make 7 times as much as 25 years ago while income for workers has remained stagnant?

I mean.. if production increases by lets say 50% dont you think it would be fair the workers get a share of that instead of all the wealth going to the richest? If the government needs to force this through taxation I don't see how that is unfair.

Well, my take on it is....

It is unfair because you are denying both parties, the worker and the employer, the ability to bargain for what either believes is fair pay for the work done.

Nobody in America is forced to work for any employer. If a worker is not worth what he or she is being paid, then another worker will offer to do the job for less. If an employer refuses to pay the fair value of someone's work, then the employee is free to work for a different employer, or start his/her own business.

The idea of the government forcing wealth redistribution through taxation is a fallacy anyway. Let's say that once politicians are done targetting the current income bracket that they're demonizing, they decide to come after my bracket. Am I going to just decide to take less after tax pay/benefits than my employees? Certainly not! I risked my future on this business, I'm the one who has to answer the phone when it rings at 3:00 AM on a Saturday, whether I'm on vacation or not.. I trade 2 weeks a month with my family for running out of state operations, so that I can provide for my family's future.

So what will I do? My employees will see lower wages, less hours, or my customers will pay more for the service we provide. When my customers pay more for my services, guess who pays for that.. the every day consumer, AKA my employees.

So we've pretended to help with income equality, accomplished absolutely nothing except for driving inflation, and sent countless dollars through the fiscal black hole that is DC.

I agree 100% that spending is this issue. However the second that the government makes cuts you get people stepping up complaining about it and calling the government every name under the sun. You can't have a larger portion of your population who are lazy and rather then working for their own benefits they put there hand out and expect the government to pay for them. Then cry when the government makes spending cuts.

I think social benefits and unemployment benefits need a reform. There should be a time limit that people get unemployment benefits before they are either forced into training or do not get any benefit. Obviously disabilities, injured, and seniors are the exemptions. Single parents once kids are at school age need to get employment. Small businesses are the back bone to any economy and if you talk to them they are crying for people who ACTUALLY WANT TO WORK. The media promotes to society that lets all just live a party life and expect everything to be given to us, kids grow up not wanting to work, or take some jobs cause it 'aint cool to their friends'.

Government needs to make cuts, just make them and live with it. The problem is that the people in government don't LIVE with the effects of the decisions they make so there is no 1st world impact on them personally. Obama can raise tax, lower tax, do this do that and he feels nothing. In Australia here, we were crying about government wasted, so the new government party was voted in here in Qld, then we whinge when they make the tough calls and make cuts. Stupidity. People need to educate themselves and be prepared to work for what they want instead of hand outs.

Qld government just saked 17,000 government staff over here and nothing has changed in terms of service levels. My question is what the fluff where they doing before hand????

Government accountability, and a real democracy where the people make the decisions is best.

Two 40 year old men live in the same state and one paid more money in taxes this year than the other will make in his entire working life and yet the big tax payer is EVIL.

Come to find out that that idiot than created Facebook that has being campaigning for Obama to increase taxes on the rich, well it came out last week that Facebook had some pretty ingenious strategy to avoid paying any taxes at all.

@crest true story? Links?

http://yro.slashdot.org/...es-on-134-billion-profits

Oh yea bigw...Large corps pay $0 into our tax base..Better start believing.

Do you folks down there have a tiered tax system like up here? e.g. $100,000 income - taxed 0% on first $15,000 10% on next $15,000 20% on next $15,000? Or is it just a flat tax on all your income based on how much you make?

hawkeyee right now its a tax bracket system. Different income levels are taxed at a different rate. Also different forms of income are taxed at different rates. There are loopholes, there are ways to get out of it, our tax code is too complicated and doesn't work very well.

America is in need of a tax code reform. No reason it needs to be so complicated yet so in effective.