Obama’s plan was to let the Bush tax cuts expire, for those making $250,000, which they were already set to do. He had no plan to extend the tax cuts for this group, or to raise taxes beyond their previous amounts.

If you are going to say it was his plan to raise taxes on those making more then $250,000, then I think it’s also important that you say his plan was to reduce taxes for most people under $250,000, because his plan was to extend the Bush tax cuts for those groups of people.

So if he is responsible for “raising” taxes for one group, then it was also his responsibility for cutting taxes for a majority of everyone else. People seem to like to fault him for raising taxes on a small group of people while not giving him credit for lowering them for a much larger group of people.

The reality is, his plan was only to let the tax breaks expire on schedule for a certain, very small group, of tax payers. He had no additional plan to raise taxes then the law that was already in place.
Total Comment by Norm: 1

For an all-encompassing look at the financial side, you’ll want to look at this:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/09in11si.xls

The foilks with AGI of $200K+ have a combined AGI of $1.964 trillion and pay taxes of $434 billion trillion (significant chunks of income at this level are likely due to capital gains; also, AGI will be reduced by deductions). That’s 26% of total AGI (7.6T) and 50% of income taxes paid (866B).

There’s a ton of data available at the IRS web site:
http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=134951,00.html

You do need to pay attention to what you’re looking at, though, as some spreadsheet are looking at a sub-total of the population (such as returns with itemized deductions).

I’ll probably break down that spreadsheet into an article when I get the time.
Total Comments by kosmo: 589

I won’t try to respond to your entire comment at once. However, I’ll look at this:

“So assume that all of these folks pay the current top bracket rate of 35%, the contribution of this group amounts to ~700 Billion. If we then follow through on the (Obama) premise that the top tax rate rise to 48%, the additional take would bring that up to ~$1 Trillion. We could also just pretend that the principle of ‘fairness’ were to be taken to an extreme, that the US suddenly became a socialist enterprise, and the government simply took the historical top rate (from 1944/45, which was 94%) from these folks, we see that (just to make the math easier) it could approach $2 Trillion of additional income.”

Actually, it wouldn’t approach $2 trillion of additional income from this goup, but $2 trillion of TOTAL income. We’d have to subtract the current $700 billion from that amount, leaving somewhere around $1 trillion of additional revenue.

Liberal or conservative, I think most people would agree that some level of spending cuts are necessary. The trick is getting opposing viewpoints to agree on what to cut. Cut defense spending or food stamps?
Total Comments by kosmo: 589

Roger is correct.

If we take a rough interpolation of the (updated) chart, and estimate the combined AGI for ALL taxpayers earning more than $200K/year, it looks to be somewhere in the neighborhood of $2 Trillion (give or take a few billion – someone please check my math). So assume that all of these folks pay the current top bracket rate of 35%, the contribution of this group amounts to ~700 Billion. If we then follow through on the (Obama) premise that the top tax rate rise to 48%, the additional take would bring that up to ~$1 Trillion. We could also just pretend that the principle of ‘fairness’ were to be taken to an extreme, that the US suddenly became a socialist enterprise, and the government simply took the historical top rate (from 1944/45, which was 94%) from these folks, we see that (just to make the math easier) it could approach $2 Trillion of additional income.

This is not without precedent, in fact, the top tax rate remained above 90% for more than a decade in post WWII America.

Still, we must come back to the issue of the scale of the debt. Even if the above (94%) could be done, half of the additional revenue would be used up filling the annual deficit – and at that rate, it would take more than 14 years to retire the debt. All of this assumes that the patient remains in robust health while this nearly audible bleeding is taking place.

So in the end, this can’t be considered a serious solution, and the argument that it would stall growth can’t be ignored, at least not IMO anyway.

I grow sick of listening to respected leaders ‘inform’ us that the US citizens are undertaxed relative to their European counterparts (as if the whole of Europe were). Look around. We have a fairly advanced standard of living, a military that is 2nd to none, a health system that draws heads of state, as well as others from around the world seeking treatment, a pretty great transportation system, relatively clean water and air (ever been to China?), and yet somehow this is all paid for at a lower rate than anywhere else… based on what calculus? J.P. Morgan said that compound interest was the 8th wonder of the world, and that is just what is going on. The most painful current reminder of this phenomenon might be gasoline, where in my state almost $0.35/gallon is tax – but whatever the example, we are taxed on income at federal and state (and sometimes, even local) levels, and the goods and services are usually taxed as well in the form of excise or other partially hidden levies, sales taxes, and sometimes both. It compounds to truly scary heights. I challenge all to make an attempt to calculate your true tax rate, and I bet it would simultaneously scare and anger most.

Has anyone repudiated Hauser’s Law? All of this just screams that revenue is NOT the problem. I’m not even sure it is as much a (lack of ) growth issue – even though there are very good arguments that support that belief, as much as it is a glaring size of government (spending) issue. Sure, the ponzi scheme is out of control, and healthcare, and even military spending are all in need of balance, but the issue is nearing a tipping point… and our leaders can’t even find a dime without looking like clowns. Now we face the repercussions of no longer having our debt rated AAA. It may be “the economy stupid,” but I do believe the 800 lb. elephant is the deficit, and the resulting debt. Do we continue this nonsense, or just mail the keys to China?

Our leaders should be required to know basic math. I stand down from the soap box.
Total Comments by Taylor: 5

Let’s turn the tables and spotlight on the 47% of households who pay NO federal income tax at all. To an America that calls itself a democracy, a nation of, and by the people – how is this possible? Why don’t these households have a financial stake, and a say, in their government? Of course, some simply escape their responsibility with tax loopholes and such. But I would remind that the uber-radical lefties who clamor for higher taxes are the first ones to demand their accountants shelter their income from taxes. So, if the roughly 47% of households who currently pay NO federal income tax were to pay, let’s say, an average of $250 a year – it would generate more than $20 billion in extra revenue, per year. That money, which is a paltry amount by almost any but the most impoverished standard, is “a privilege” and “the patriotic thing to do” according the VP Biden – and it helps to “spread the wealth around” more fairly, if indeed fairness is what President Obama means when he talks about shared sacrifice.

As a result, those households might have a stake in the outcome of elections and votes on legislation that affects them. Invested, that money will grow exponentially and contribute significantly to the disastrous debt that Obama has exacerbated in less than 2 years.

So why isn’t anyone in the country, or in Congress, suggesting that everyone in the nation pay something? You have to wonder.
Total Comments by Roger: 2