Obama wants sharp increase in marginal tax rates

[Terryray]

The Tax Foundation crunched the numbers and found that Obama's tax plan would cause the top effective marginal tax rate to rise "from 37.9 percent to roughly 48 to 50 percent."

Marginal tax rates are very important. They are the change in one's tax obligation as income rises--in a large part, they determine incentives to make money (expand business, higher more employees, etc.)

The Tax Foundation paper also has interesting link to study that found Clinton's 1993 tax increase "damaged the economy and shrank the size of the federal tax base."

 

[Chadman]

Thanks, Terry. Will take a look at this. Although I am fairly liberal when it comes to taxation - at face value when neither side wants to give anything up to make up the difference, I certainly think off the top of my head that 50% in taxes for anyone to pay is entirely too much. I can see the 37%, although that is certainly arguable, and I would understand lowering that if we could agree on what to cut to make up for it. Or at least come to sensible discussion about it.

 

[saint]

If that were to happen I'd work up to the point where I'd hit the 50% tax level and then stop working.

If that means my 20 employees will lose some of their health benefits for themselves and their families, well that's the hand the government will force me to make.

That "loss" of income I'd see not getting that extra 50% revenue won't kill my business but the amount of time I would shut down sure would hurt my employees in their daily life. WTF would I bust my ass and get raped paying 50 percent tax when i could be at home with my children.

Nothing like punishing hard work.

 

[IntenseOperator]

I am damn glad I got a very good accountant that knows how to work in the "grey" areas. The best thing about earning your living via your own business is how you structure your taxes each year.

 

[IntenseOperator]

The 1993 record: It is always hard to say what would have happened if Bill Clinton had not raised tax rates. But how damaging were the higher tax rates in economic terms? Economic research suggests that the two higher tax rates he passed on wages damaged the economy and shrank the size of the federal tax base, leaving less income exposed to those new rates. As a consequence, the increase in tax rates raised 40 percent less in revenue than some might have thought.

 

[shamrock]

IO, what is your home business if you don't mind me asking.

 

[IntenseOperator]

I deliver bread.

Wouldn't call it a home business. More of a franchise.

 

[shamrock]

Your own product?

 

[IntenseOperator]

no

I am contracted for a specific (now very good) territory. They make it, I take over from there.

 

[shamrock]

Have my masters in rehab psychology, I counsel individuals that have catastrophic accidents. Debating going on my own.

 

[shamrock]

Interesting, so do you have any ownership or percentage (stock) in the product.

 

[IntenseOperator]

Lotta plusses and minuses working on your own. I think it takes a certain type of individual. There are a million points on each side of the chart. Bottom line, I personally probably could never work for another person/company again.

I better squeeze in a few day vacation in the near future or start looking into BigGayCappers email address when my gf leaves me.

 

[IntenseOperator]

Interesting, so do you have any ownership or percentage (stock) in the product.

Territory itself (the business) is worth a bit. It carries equity, like a house. Paid straight commision on net numbers each week. More volume (net sales) each week, the more I get in commisions and the more the weekly average increases. Then the worth increases. I hope to split it (again) within the next year or so. I own/handle all company business within my territory. I have excusive rights. This is what separates my situation from many others. Also, 100% credit on all returns. Open a hot White Hen/McDonalds/Subway, the corporations will open another a block away sooner or later and kill yours.

 

[shamrock]

Sounds like a good deal. I'm guessing you must hold the territory including all the quality dining establishments around Chicagoland. From what I hear, lots of good eating in Chicago.

 

[shamrock]

Daryl Stingley that used to play for the Patriots was a good friend of mine. Several times I was supposed to go out to Chicago to visit him, and never made it. He just passed last winter.

 

[djv]

I don't care who said what about Clinton. or some chart that goes up/down/side ways. All I know other then his B J that was wrong. I payed less taxes under him and maid a killing in stock markets. and watched a record amount of people get jobs that started to pay taxs for first time. God bring him back. Bush has been a total screw up. And it looks like Mc Cain wants to follow Bush. holy cow we can't have that.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

DJV We went through the value of American Standard under Clinton and under Bush before.

Why do you continue to say the opposite every year or so.

Bottom line you had had lots of opportunities to make money under both--and lose money under both. Actually lots of paralells of the 2.
Both ran well well till end of term--then tanked.
Both came in power off down turn in market which made advances almost a given--
Biggest diff between the 2 was Bush admin had far greater catastrophes to over come--but market in general was cheif reason for the resilience not admin.

On issue at hand--I fail to see how anyone can think the gov with all the wasteful spending can can get better mileage out of a $ than business or individual- who for most part have to balance their books.

Show me one solvent (in the black) gov program--show me one that cost what it was projected to by either party.