Obama common sense on soc security

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080814/pl_bloomberg/aoloto_lr1pa

Just another substantive solution to a lingering problem unaddressed by the republican administration.

The total economic plan would not raise taxes on anyone making below 250K.

And the Soc Security on upper incomes would still be less than what the rest of us have to pay, so that will placate republicans who want special treatment for the wealthy.

(also would not kick in for ten more years...)

So his tax increase wouldn't take effect until AFTER he left office. And who said he wasn't the same old same old politician!!!!!

I do have one question for you Sherm.

Why should the rich have to pay more? Should they be punished for being successful?

The nature of his question is prescient, sherman.

Obama has pledged to retain the Bush tax cuts for the poor and middle class (up to $250,000). The problem is that the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are already factored into budget forecasts. In order to meet his spending goals of $300 billion he will have to forego (as Clinton did) his tax cuts for the middle class. The net result will be that eight million low and middle income tax payers who escaped the tax rolls entirely under the Bush tax cuts will be added back to the list of tax payers. Taxes will have to be raised creatively and massively to avoid an even larger deficit. All this is without even challenging liberal orthodoxy that tax cuts do not raise revenues.

Dr. Jason Furman, Obama's primary economic adviser and a heavy quoter in your link, has said that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts skewed to the rich because "...percentage changes in taxes cannot be calculated for households with negative net tax payments, so analysis using this measure cannot include refundable tax credits or transfer payments." That is, once you drop low and middle income tax payers from the rolls, sure, the benefits redound to the rich - the top 1% who pay 39% of all taxes now.

Furman also said that, "However, despite decades of stump speeches about unnecessary government spending, the political process has been persistently unable to identify significant outlays that voters will blithely forego." That is, spending cuts are not politically palatable and will, therefore, not be considered.

Looks like business as usual to me. Only I'll be paying more for virtually everything. Happy days are here again.

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2008/06_taxcuts_gale/06_taxcuts_gale.pdf

Well OC I feel your pain.

If I made over 250K I would probly whine too.

They say the more you make the more it takes.

But did you notice that those making over 250 K still will not pay as much percent of income in soc security tax as us working class do?

(Plus between 100K and 250K will pay nothing at all. Maybe that is not rich but it sure seems well to do so why shouldnt they pay too?)

You're right. The idle rich have been coasting for too long and ought to be carrying some of their own weight.

Did you read anything that I wrote? I wasted a whole post, didn't I?

No, you didn't waste it Jimmy. I printed the Distributional Effects of the 2001 and 2003 Tax Cuts: How do Financing and Behavioral Responses Matter?

I read some of it but work keeps interfering. I'll take it home and read it over tonight.

And Sherm, dollar wise, those making over $250K pay the maxium amount possible. But of course you would focus on the percentage. Here's a clue though. The only people who buy that argument are in the choir.

I do have one question for you though Sherm. Between your WVSP pension, your truck driver's salary and your wife's income, you make over $100K. Are you saying you (or your wife) should be paying the same percentage of your combined income as someone making $30k?