HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Since President Obama's r...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 11:57 PM

Since President Obama's reelection, the top rate of income tax on the rich has increased by 4.6%.

The top rate of tax on interest income for the rich has increased by 8.4%.

The top rate of tax on capital gains for the rich has increased by 8.8%.

And much of these increases is dedicated to strengthening Medicare.

So perhaps President Obama is not a *complete* corporatist DINO sell-out.


35 replies, 1736 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 35 replies Author Time Post
Reply Since President Obama's reelection, the top rate of income tax on the rich has increased by 4.6%. (Original post)
Nye Bevan Apr 2013 OP
Shrike47 Apr 2013 #1
DevonRex Apr 2013 #3
Iliyah Apr 2013 #25
neverforget Apr 2013 #2
JDPriestly Apr 2013 #7
neverforget Apr 2013 #8
JDPriestly Apr 2013 #9
avaistheone1 Apr 2013 #29
HiPointDem Apr 2013 #4
hfojvt Apr 2013 #5
IfPalinisAnswerWatsQ Apr 2013 #14
merrily Apr 2013 #16
Marr Apr 2013 #34
JDPriestly Apr 2013 #6
ProSense Apr 2013 #10
JDPriestly Apr 2013 #12
ProSense Apr 2013 #15
merrily Apr 2013 #17
ProSense Apr 2013 #19
merrily Apr 2013 #21
hfojvt Apr 2013 #18
ProSense Apr 2013 #22
hfojvt Apr 2013 #31
merrily Apr 2013 #23
JDPriestly Apr 2013 #24
merrily Apr 2013 #26
hfojvt Apr 2013 #30
merrily Apr 2013 #32
merrily Apr 2013 #20
merrily Apr 2013 #11
bvar22 Apr 2013 #13
merrily Apr 2013 #27
Iliyah Apr 2013 #28
merrily Apr 2013 #33
GeorgeGist Apr 2013 #35

Response to Nye Bevan (Original post)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 12:05 AM

1. Assuming any of them pay it.

It appears that mostly, they don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shrike47 (Reply #1)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 12:12 AM

3. Link to facts needed to support your claim

that nothing good will come of the rate increases that Obama got on the rich. That the rich just won't pay the increases. Every single one will just not pay. Not just anecdotal bullshit. Facts with links to support them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DevonRex (Reply #3)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 02:02 AM

25. It means that voters allowed

it to happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Original post)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 12:11 AM

2. So that means that the Chained CPI is totally cool.

Sure that's great and all but that doesn't mean that it's okay for the C-CPI to be offered to Republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to neverforget (Reply #2)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 12:40 AM

7. To learn the reality behind the chained CPI, the DLC, the Clintons

and Obama's budget proposal, read this.

Posted by another DUer to whom I give credit and my gratitude.

http://americablog.com/2012/05/pete-petersen-hosts-bill-clinton-paul-ryan-simpson-van-hollen-to-discuss-social-security-compromise

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #7)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 12:43 AM

8. This isn't about us

it's about them, the 1%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to neverforget (Reply #8)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 01:11 AM

9. Yes. They want every last penny. It's so stupid. Who do they

think is going to buy their stuff and keep them in business and having the fun they somehow seem to have in selling junk to us.

I do not understand this. They are killing the geese that lay the golden eggs. They are supposed to be the smart ones. Don't they realize what they are doing?

Poverty oozes up. Wealth does not trickle down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #7)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 02:29 AM

29. Just did a quick skim. JD looks like a revealing article.

Bookmarking this for a read tomorrow.

Appreciate your sharing it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Original post)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 12:13 AM

4. capital gains taxed at a lower rate than ordinary wage income. wage income to be taxed up to

 

45% in 2013.

cap gains max = 25% (including the medicare surcharge).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Original post)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 12:24 AM

5. and all of that was either

a) from ACA, which passed in 2010, or
b) was automatic with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts

However, thanks to Obama

1. the rich still benefit from lower taxes on their first $400,000 in income (saving them about $12,000 a year in permanent tax cuts)
2. the rich pay lower tax rates on dividend income
3. the rich not only pay a lower rate on the estate tax (45% instead of 55%) but they enjoy several million more in exemptions on their estates

Of course, thanks to Congress, Obama was powerless to prevent those three things from happening. In order to stop all those tax cuts for the rich, Obama would have had to do - "nothing".

But the guy who campaigned in 2008 on the slogan "yes we can" was unable, even after his re-election, to do "nothing". Instead, he just had to pass $1.3 trillion in tax cuts for the top 5%.

But sure, why not give Obama credit for his failure to let the Bush tax cuts expire, and his failure to even attempt tax cuts that would benefit the working class. Let's pretend those tax cuts never happened and tell the idiot masses that Obama actually increased taxes on the rich. Most of them will be distracted and amazed at the fiery ball of lies and won't notice the facts behind the curtain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #5)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 01:28 AM

14. Applause

 

Bravo.

Bra fucking vo!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #5)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 01:33 AM

16. Good points, but the Bush tax cuts, by their terms, expired automatically 12/31/10

Congress and Obama could have made them expire before that, on the ground of the extreme crisis we faced in January 2009, but they chose not to. So, they expired in accordance with their terms on 12/31/10.

At that point, Bush had no power to cut or raise taxes. He didn't try, either. As of January 1, 2011, though, the Obama tax cuts took effect. They were identical to the Bush tax cuts, but they had nothing to do with Bush.

I think it's useful to label them in a way that does not obscure that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #5)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 03:07 AM

34. Yep. And yet they'll still tell you he had to compromise with Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Original post)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 12:39 AM

6. It is still not as high as it was when Bush came into office and our

budget was balanced.

And that is utterly no excuse for cutting Social Security, veterans' and other benefits.

Put the tax rate on the rich back to where it was before Bush fought his two wars and gave the rich their huge tax break.

Then we will watch our debt dwindle. And while we are done with it, tax capital gains, money hidden overseas and the incomes and bonuses of people on Wall Street.

Plus, get regulators who will come down hard on the banks and make sure they do not get the economy into any more trouble.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #6)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 01:14 AM

10. Actually,

"It is still not as high as it was when Bush came into office and our

budget was balanced.

And that is utterly no excuse for cutting Social Security, veterans' and other benefits.

Put the tax rate on the rich back to where it was before Bush fought his two wars and gave the rich their huge tax break."

...they are higher. They're higher than Clinton's rates.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022660715

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #10)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 01:21 AM

12. The link says that they are at best the same as Clinton's rates.

I am suspicious of that article because that is the first time I have heard it said that Obama has achieved rates, passed rates on the rich that are as high as those Clinton had.

What about the capital gains taxes. Has Obama raised those on the rich?

And what about taxing Wall Street bonuses? Obama is not taxing carried interest or those bonuses, is he?

Obama is not closing the loopholes that need to be closed. A number of corporations pay no taxes. I do not know. Does Obama's budget close their loopholes?

If we are imposing taxes as high as they were under Clinton, then we should not be cutting Social Security, veterans' benefits and other programs with the chained CPI. It really should not be necessary.

We need to close bases overseas. We have a lot of bases we really do not need in this digital age.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #12)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 01:32 AM

15. No,

"The link says that they are at best the same as Clinton's rates."

...it states that the health care tax is not included, which brings the rates higher than during Clinton's.

In fact on income, the top rates are higher than the 1990s.

"What about the capital gains taxes. Has Obama raised those on the rich? "

The OP includes that information.

And there are other proposals.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2664556

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #15)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 01:41 AM

17. The individual mandate could be considered an Obamacare tax

"What about the capital gains taxes. Has Obama raised those on the rich? "

The OP includes that information.


Yes, but without any source info.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #17)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 01:47 AM

19. Well,

"The individual mandate could be considered an Obamacare tax"

...for the two percent who decide to opt out, they can consider it a contribution to their own emergency care. If they have health coverage it doesn't apply.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #19)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 01:51 AM

21. People won't "decide" to opt out. They'll be unable to afford premiums. And more than 2% is very

possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #12)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 01:44 AM

18. the link is nonsense though

it ignores the fact that dividend income is now taxed at only 20% instead of the same as wage income, like it was under Clinton.

Also, it may depend on WHICH Clinton rates you use, considering that Clinton himself signed into law a big tax cut for the rich - in his 2nd term (so obviously he needed to do it so he could be re-elected).

In 2010, Mitt Romney had $4.9 million in dividend income. Instead of being taxed at 39.6%, it will be taxed at 20%, saving him almost a million a year. And those tax cuts are permanent, thanks to ATRA.

And no, in spite of what his supporters will claim, Obama did NOT raise capital gains taxes on the rich.

That did happen, automatically, on Obama's watch, when the Bush tax cuts expire.

But I guess that we should be glad Obama did not cut those rates, like he did with the estate tax rates, and then call it an increase, like he did with estate taxes.

Maybe Obama should get some credit for letting some of the Bush tax cuts expire. So I will give him 15%, which is about the percentage of the Bush tax cuts that expired.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #18)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 01:51 AM

22. Nonsense.

"it ignores the fact that dividend income is now taxed at only 20% instead of the same as wage income, like it was under Clinton."

It's taxed at a higher rate because of the health care tax.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #22)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 02:45 AM

31. A higher rate than 20% - true

but NOT a higher rate than 39.6%.

Not even close.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #18)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 01:55 AM

23. More good points. Thanks. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #18)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 01:56 AM

24. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #18)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 02:08 AM

26. I am not understanding this part of your post:


Also, it may depend on WHICH Clinton rates you use, considering that Clinton himself signed into law a big tax cut for the rich - in his 2nd term (so obviously he needed to do it so he could be re-elected).


Did you mean his 1st term? That is when he would have had to do it in order to help his re-election chances. I

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #26)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 02:40 AM

30. no, it was in his 2nd term

I was just being sarcastic, because that is always the excuse conservadems use when one of their sell-outs betrays the working class and gives big bonuses to the rich, then they say "but, but, but, he/she needs to be re-elected."

Here's CTJ's analysis of it. A tax hike for the bottom 20% and 46.4% of the benefits going to the richest 5% and 77.9% (!!!) going to the richest 20% http://ctj.org/html/desc97.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #30)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 02:52 AM

32. Thanks. Sorry I missed the sarcasm. I do that a lot, even though

I use sarcasm in my posts without using the symbol

that is always the excuse conservadems use when one of their sell-outs betrays the working class and gives big bonuses to the rich, then they say "but, but, but, he/she needs to be re-elected.


Yeah, no one who betrays the working class needs to be re-elected

Senator Sanford seems to have no trouble at all getting elected, even though his wiki describes him as Democratic Socialist. Go figure.

I need to pack it in. Although I am not totally sure of the literal meaning of that phrase, I mean that I need to stop posting.

Have a great--what is it when it's almost 3 am? Well, whatever it is, I wish you a great one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #10)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 01:48 AM

20. They should be higher. Jobs are gone, so is the bailout money, etc.

The situation now is very different from 1992, even from 2000.

Additionally, Clinton balanced his budget in part because Reagan had raised taxes several times and Poppy once; and Presidents from Carter to Clinton had been deregulating apace.

The fiscal plus side of all those measure had built and built. And, then, when Clinton "ended welfare as we know it" lo and behold, a modest surplus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Original post)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 01:20 AM

11. Links to your sources please?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Original post)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 01:23 AM

13. Historically, those are miserly increases.

In the 50s and 60s,
the top rate was 91%, set by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who insisted that the RICH pay their share of the National Debt.

The Top Rate was lowered to 70% in the mid-60s by JFK AFTER the War Debt was Paid Off.


The truth is,
today's "New Democrat" Party is fighting to Keep Taxes Historically LOW on the Rich,
especially when weighed against what is necessary to get us back on our feet again.

The Party leadership has done just enough to frame themselves as Taxing the Rich
without causing ANY distress to the very wealthy.


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone


photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #13)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 02:09 AM

27. Very good points, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Original post)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 02:11 AM

28. Oh my GAWD, he's a dictator

No House nor Senate, just him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iliyah (Reply #28)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 02:54 AM

33. Not a dictator, but not helpless either.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-01-16/politics/36899872_1_barack-obama-key-economic-priority-items-entitlement-reform

Check the date on the article. No House, no Senate, just him--and his love of DLC policies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Original post)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 06:26 PM

35. If you love him so much ...

Why don't you live in the USA?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread