Comments on: Obama’s tax cut for the rich http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/09/30/obamas-tax-cut-for-the-rich/ A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: gascar http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/09/30/obamas-tax-cut-for-the-rich/comment-page-1/#comment-22928 Mon, 10 Jan 2011 03:58:56 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=5587#comment-22928 Everyone (and I mean everyone) should read the book “The Trouble with Billionaires”. I won’t explain…just read it.

]]>
By: TFF http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/09/30/obamas-tax-cut-for-the-rich/comment-page-1/#comment-18996 Sat, 02 Oct 2010 19:57:19 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=5587#comment-18996 Many aspects of the income tax system ARE indexed to the CPI, including the tax thresholds and the standard deduction.

A tax increase doesn’t necessarily mean that the government is becoming less efficient. Sometimes it simply means that the government is borrowing less money to provide the same services at the same cost. The Bush tax cuts were never matched by spending cuts, thus their reversal should not be matched by spending increases.

]]>
By: Curmudgeon http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/09/30/obamas-tax-cut-for-the-rich/comment-page-1/#comment-18985 Sat, 02 Oct 2010 13:50:57 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=5587#comment-18985 @y2kurtus and MattJ: Both represent legitimate ways of looking at the situation. But from the standpoint of the average taxpayer, it will feel like a tax increase, because their paychecks today will be smaller than their paychecks were yesterday. Don’t try to tell the taxpayer that their taxes will be the same as nine years ago, because their financial situation was likely very different (for better or worse) at that time.

]]>
By: MattJ http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/09/30/obamas-tax-cut-for-the-rich/comment-page-1/#comment-18962 Fri, 01 Oct 2010 20:10:41 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=5587#comment-18962 y2kurtus-

The comparison should not be between 2010 and 2011; the comparison should be between 2011 under current law and 2011 after Obama’s proposed changes. Obama is proposing a tax cut to partially offset the tax increases Bush signed years ago. The Republicans are proposing a tax cut to completely offset those tax increases. Neither is proposing spending cuts to offset the revenue loss.

]]>
By: y2kurtus http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/09/30/obamas-tax-cut-for-the-rich/comment-page-1/#comment-18957 Fri, 01 Oct 2010 17:05:33 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=5587#comment-18957 Felix,

You’re a great finance writer… the best in my opnion. But I will say again that it is not your writing that draws in most of your readers… it’s your willingness to get your hands dirty and crunch some numbers that seperates you from the pack.

Crunch some numbers on what you wrote… “Take Chait’s example of someone earning $300,000: they might pay a higher tax rate on the last $50,000 of their income, but they will also pay a lower tax rate on the first $250,000. As a result, their overall tax bill will go down, rather than up.”

So lets test that… $50,000 of income is taxed at a 4% higher rate… so that’s a very modest $2000 tax increase for someone making 300,000.

The issue I have is that this is NOT going to be offset by the lower tax rate on earnings below $250,000 when compared to current 2009 tax law.

The $2,000 increase is exactly that… it’s a tax increase and that is the net number for someone making $300,000.

Put another way, Obama is NOT proposing a tax break for someone making exactly $250,000… he is proposing that current law be extended and that they be taxed exactly the same in 2011 as they are in 2010. How you can call that a tax break is beyond me.

I for one would like to see higher sin taxes, higer gas taxes, and perhaps even a tax on consumption… start with a national sales tax on all non food items at 5%. Force all funds to flow into 401k style individual accounts via an expansion of the earned income credit.

Keep up the great writing

]]>
By: comment1 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/09/30/obamas-tax-cut-for-the-rich/comment-page-1/#comment-18947 Fri, 01 Oct 2010 13:45:11 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=5587#comment-18947 There’s a fundamental point about tax rates that is often overlooked — the rate does not matter for the super rich whose wealth is mostly in appreciated securities. They are not taxed at all until sale, but can borrow against the securities and spend the proceeds tax-free.

So the rate could be 100% and Warren Buffett, Bill Gates and Page & Brin won’t pay any appreciable amount of additional tax. These guys can borrow against their holdings (at 3% interest rates) indefinitely without paying any tax. In fact, Larry Ellison famously borrowed $1 billion against his Oracle stock.

The only way to level the playing field and tax the economic income of investors on a par with wage earners is to impose a mark-to-market tax on the publicly-traded securities of the super wealthy (say $5 million or more of investable assets).

For more on this see http://www.cadwalader.com/assets/article  /120505MillerTaxNotes.pdf and http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/taxreform panel/meetings/docs/miller_052005.ppt

]]>
By: hsvkitty http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/09/30/obamas-tax-cut-for-the-rich/comment-page-1/#comment-18946 Fri, 01 Oct 2010 13:31:27 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=5587#comment-18946 Holy crow, the other article in that “debate” was even more ridiculous. Trickle down theory… my gluteus maximus…

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/201 0/09/27/tax-cuts-the-trickle-down-argume nt

]]>
By: maynardGkeynes http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/09/30/obamas-tax-cut-for-the-rich/comment-page-1/#comment-18940 Fri, 01 Oct 2010 03:58:37 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=5587#comment-18940 I think the point is that 300K being earned by a couple working 80 hours a week combined is not the same as 300K on 40 hours a week. A tax system that equates them is idiotic.

]]>
By: Curmudgeon http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/09/30/obamas-tax-cut-for-the-rich/comment-page-1/#comment-18935 Thu, 30 Sep 2010 21:53:38 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=5587#comment-18935 It seems to me that this entire debate has been poisoned by the political rhetoric that equates rich with high income (however both terms might be defined). I think Fortune’s Shawn Tully captures that distinction well with his HENRY (high income, not rich yet) acroynm. You might argue that a high earned income will translate to rich sooner or later, but there are a lot of confounding variables. And since investment income (so-called unearned) is often taxed at a lower rate, we are missing an entire category of rich.

]]>
By: KidDynamite http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/09/30/obamas-tax-cut-for-the-rich/comment-page-1/#comment-18933 Thu, 30 Sep 2010 21:16:47 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=5587#comment-18933 why don’t we just put in more marginal tax brackets at higher income levels as well – and avoid the issue alltogether?

]]>