Obama's State of the Union Address

[eeyore1954]

Thank you. I've been asking for this for some time and people just ignore me. Could you provide a source?

Taxes go up dramatically when the rates dropped from 29 to 21% and also when rates dropped from 39%. Although clearly there could be other factors.
Revenues did drop also in 2001 but because of 9/11 there were many losses.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=161

IMO 30% is too high for a CG rate even on the very rich and 15% might be too low.

I have seen people with large gains on the sale of property where once you factor in taxes (including state) and inflation they actually end up with losses.

 

[Beth]

Do the employees also have to return part of their paychecks? Or did the CEO drive it into the ditch all by himself?

A company going under may not be entirely the fault of the CEO, general economic conditions, industry changes, and other factors all play a role. But since the CEO has the job of steering as well as being responsible for providing the employees with goals and the means to acheive them, the CEO must take the responsibility/blame when the company goes under. Short of actual sabotage, individual employees have little control over whether or not a company is profitable.

Taxes go up dramatically when the rates dropped from 29 to 21% and also when rates dropped from 39%. Although clearly there could be other factors.
Revenues did drop also in 2001 but because of 9/11 there were many losses.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=161

IMO 30% is too high for a CG rate even on the very rich and 15% might be too low.

I don't think this follows. Taxes paid on capital gains goes up when the tax rate goes down because people like Mitt categorize milliions of $ of what would otherwise be considered ordinary income as capital gains, thus increasing the total of money classified as capital gains. I think a more nuanced analysis is needed to determine the actual effect on the both total taxes paid and economic growth.

Using the numbers from your cite, the correlation between "Taxes Paid on Long-Term Capital Gains" and "Average Effective Tax Rate (percent)" is only -0.14 which is not statistically significant.

 

[eeyore1954]

A company going under may not be entirely the fault of the CEO, general economic conditions, industry changes, and other factors all play a role. But since the CEO has the job of steering as well as being responsible for providing the employees with goals and the means to acheive them, the CEO must take the responsibility/blame when the company goes under. Short of actual sabotage, individual employees have little control over whether or not a company is profitable.



I don't think this follows. Taxes paid on capital gains goes up when the tax rate goes down because people like Mitt categorize milliions of $ of what would otherwise be considered ordinary income as capital gains, thus increasing the total of money classified as capital gains. I think a more nuanced analysis is needed to determine the actual effect on the both total taxes paid and economic growth.

Using the numbers from your cite, the correlation between "Taxes Paid on Long-Term Capital Gains" and "Average Effective Tax Rate (percent)" is only -0.14 which is not statistically significant.

You are right what I did was something that at a glance to me looked as if there may be some connection. I also realize there are many other factors such as stock market conditions, economy etc.

I don't believe that the majority of large capital gains are cases like Mitt Romney. If it is and they are truly abuse those laws should be changed and/or the IRS should look more closely.

 

[RandFan]

You are right what I did was something that at a glance to me looked as if there may be some connection. I also realize there are many other factors such as stock market conditions, economy etc.

I don't believe that the majority of large capital gains are cases like Mitt Romney. If it is and they are truly abuse those laws should be changed and/or the IRS should look more closely.

My next point was going to be that we need to address hedge fund managers and situations like Romney where there no longer is a risk.

I'm not opposed to providing incentives for investing. However it needs to be rational and targeted to specifically increase investment.

 

[RandFan]

Taxes go up dramatically when the rates dropped from 29 to 21% and also when rates dropped from 39%. Although clearly there could be other factors.
Revenues did drop also in 2001 but because of 9/11 there were many losses.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=161

IMO 30% is too high for a CG rate even on the very rich and 15% might be too low.

I have seen people with large gains on the sale of property where once you factor in taxes (including state) and inflation they actually end up with losses.

Thank you.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So the CEO isn't an employee? Or is he the only one who received a paycheck?

I don't understand how this follows from anything I said.

Are you denying that there have been cases when a CEO (or other management) ran a company into the ground to the great detriment of the workers (who were laid off), and then was rewarded for his performance?

When someone suggested that CEOs somehow be accountable for poor performance, you asked whether workers ought not also be held accountable for a company running downhill (your point, I suspect was to say that workers don't have the ability to make that kind of effect on the company, so that's why CEOs get the lion's share of the rewards or something like that), and I pointed out that the workers nearly always suffer first when a CEO runs a company into the ground.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I don't believe that the majority of large capital gains are cases like Mitt Romney. If it is and they are truly abuse those laws should be changed and/or the IRS should look more closely.

I agree, and I mentioned this as one of the cons to the Warren Buffet rule. There are relatively few people in that situation. And the million dollar cut-off misses people making large 6 figure incomes who may be doing the same thing, being able to treat their earnings as capital gains to enjoy the lower rate.

(But again, remember that the GOP was willing to play chicken with the government over support for Planned Parenthood, an issue that would've had nearly negligible impact on the budget.)

It's largely symbolic, though it would recapture at least some revenue, and it would certainly give some of us a bit of satisfaction to know that these millionaires are paying their fair share and not essentially hiding their earnings as capital gains.

I'm certainly open to solving this problem by other rules or laws, but I'm not sure if there is something else that's workable.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

("The Great Communicator." Which I'm sure is all the reason you needed to approve of his policies, am I right? Or did you form your opinion of Reagan and his policies based on something other than his ability to tell a good bedtime story? Why on earth would you do that?)

No, but I admitted that his oratorical skills were a good qualification.

The tacit assumption you're making is that when Reagan or Obama give a really great speech that it's also devoid of any information that a voter can use to form an opinion. (Again, that's the pejorative use of "bedtime story", I think. You deny that there is any content.)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

There is already a minimum tax called the AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax) - Obama is simply blissfully ignorant of the tax code he is charged with enforcing. Or he thinks the general USA population is (ooh, he might be correct on that one).

Oh--so are you claiming that Warren Buffet and Mitt Romney are required to pay the AMT and Obama is merely letting them get away with IRS code violations?

Somehow I think if Obama tried to do what you suggest, his opponents would have a field day--especially the ones who already claim he's usurping powers he shouldn't have and acting in violation of the constitution!

Funny to hear one of them say he shouldn't ask Congress to solve a tax problem but should just do it on is own under executive authority!

 

[AlBell]

...

the rebuttal talked at length about how Obama refuses to change entitlement programs when Obama had just said that he was willing to change entitlement programs in exchange for some tax concessions from the GOP.

-Bri

People with several working brain cells notice the two statements are not the same.

 

[DavidJames]

People with several working brain cells notice the two statements are not the same.

Of course silly us, it's obvious Obama should just do exactly what the Republican's want and not work to find a reasonable compromise.

That really defines the Republican mindset - my way or the highway.

 

[AlBell]

I know you're not actually making it, but I don't get this argument. We're talking about personal income for these CEOs, not company profits. What jobs are these folks creating with their personal fortunes?

The jobs needed to build the cars, houses, boats, airplanes etc that they buy; that and support staff for the meals, clothes, and other usual purchases.

And they do pay a large share of taxes.

 

[eeyore1954]

Third, if you're an American manufacturer, you should get a bigger tax cut. If you're a high-tech manufacturer, we should double the tax deduction you get for making products here. And if you want to relocate in a community that was hit hard when a factory left town, you should get help financing a new plant, equipment, or training for new workers.

No one views this as just another tax break to the wealthy 1% owners?
The last part reminds me of some provision Governor Walker was chastised for. Offering a break to companies that moved into Wisconsin.

 

[RandFan]

People with several working brain cells notice the two statements are not the same.

Isn't that her point? I think so.

 

[AlBell]

Of course silly us, it's obvious Obama should just do exactly what the Republican's want and not work to find a reasonable compromise.

Any "reasonable" compromise helps only Democrats. Doing nothing is a better course.

Strange that most here accepted SOTU as anything other than usual, retread, campaign lies.

That really defines the Republican mindset - my way or the highway.

Works just fine for me, since voting Obama out is Priority #1.

Repeal Obamacare, cut taxes, cut spending for social programs, increase defense budget, start building Keystone pipeline, reverse onerous EPA and financial (Dodd/Frank in particular) regulations.

 

[DavidJames]

Any "reasonable" compromise helps only Democrats. Doing nothing is a better course.

Strange that most here accepted SOTU as anything other than usual, retread, campaign lies.


Works just fine for me, since voting Obama out is Priority #1.

Repeal Obamacare, cut taxes, cut spending for social programs, increase defense budget, start building Keystone pipeline, reverse onerous EPA and financial (Dodd/Frank in particular) regulations.

Thanks I appreciate your honesty.

 

[RandFan]

Any "reasonable" compromise helps only Democrats. Doing nothing is a better course.

Politics is the art of compromise. Biting your nose to spite your face hurts people. It is antithetical to Democracy. It is presumptive and ignores thousands of years of social philosophy and social progress.

Social progress is the synthesis of the dialectic --Hegel (paraphrased)
Social progress is the equilibrium found in an adversarial system --Sandel (paraphrased)

Repeal Obamacare, cut taxes, cut spending for social programs, increase defense budget, start building Keystone pipeline, reverse onerous EPA and financial (Dodd/Frank in particular) regulations.

Ignores the empirical fact that many such programs are negatively correlated to nations low in GDP and measurable well being. Though I would hasten to add that no social program is sacrosanct. Any should be subject to cancellation.

If rhetoric trumped facts I'd likely still be a staunch conservative today.

 

[eeyore1954]

In the next few weeks, I will sign an executive order clearing away the red tape that slows down too many construction projects. But you need to fund these projects.

I am just wondering what red tape is this?

Take the money we're no longer spending at war, use half of it to pay down our debt, and use the rest to do some nation-building right here at home.

Does anyone believe 1/2 the money no longer spent at war will be used to pay down the debt?

 

[RandFan]

Does anyone believe 1/2 the money no longer spent at war will be used to pay down the debt?

No. I believe it will reduce the deficit though.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Speaking of the SOTU Address, Politifact analyzed just 2 of the claims made in Mitch Daniels' rebuttal:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/jan/26/fact-checking-republican-response/

Summary: he was 0 for 2!