Barack Obama proposes lowering taxes on anyone making less than a quarter of a million dollars a year.

As this article points out, that's the top 1.9 percent of the population.

So all the claims that "Obama and the Democrats will raise your taxes!" a claim widely heard, widely made, widely believed, is complete nonsense unless you're in a tiny percentage at the very top. To the vast majority of those hearing it, I mean vast, 98%, it's complete nonsense. In fact it's a lie.

It doesn't matter whether you "feel" rich, that has nothing to do with it. I knew a guy with ten million dollars who didn't feel rich.. Because Bill Gates had billions. Debating what it "feels" like to make a quarter of a million dollars is meanigless in this context, it's far, far more than almost everyone else in this country makes.

The idea that taxing those in that bracket is taxing "everyone" or the common person or the majority or all the other BS thrown around is simply a lie.

So you think the people who pay the most in taxes should pay even more?

The top 2% of wage earners pay close to 50% of all taxes collected by the Government.

If I own the Company and you come in and say"You have to give me more", do I stupidly say OK or say......

I refuse to pay more and REDUCE my business and income to get under the the income ceiling?

I will reduce production, do away with jobs while keeping more of my money.

Who gets hurt the most? Not me.

The cost of my product goes up because there is less of it. You the consumer pay more.

Less people working.

Less tax revenue for Government

MORE People looking to the Government for help

Seems like common sense..not meanness

not to mention that we need to start paying down our debt...

When the income tax was first started in 1913, the rich paid 100% of those taxes, not 50% like they do now. In fact that was the whole point behind the income tax. Rich people use to brag about how much income tax they paid. It was a badge of honor back then.

CountryRuger: The top 2% of wage earners pay close to 50% of all taxes collected by the Government.

LeRoy: I believe you must have meant to say "The top 2% of wage earners pay close to 50% of all income taxes collected by the Government.

Otherwise, your statement would be blatantly false.

And you wouldn't want that, would you?

Orion, what's your point, in 1913, the top tax rate was 7%. I'm not against progressive taxation, but class politics is classless. Also classless is ignorance of the fact that the top 5% earn 33% of income but pay 57% of the taxes.

If the biggest consequence of being considered rich is having to pay more taxes, then I'll take it. I don't even see why it's a big deal. The taxes are taken from my check before I get it, so it's not like I miss it that much. Plus, rich people are good at itemizing and getting all kinds of deductions and credits. And you only really have to think about taxes when you're filling out your forms or taking your W-2 forms to the guy in the tax prep store. The rest of the year, being rich gets you all kinds of perks in life, like having people respect you and kiss your bum, having brunch at the country club, taking vacations, shopping at Neiman Marcus and Williams-Sonoma, going to the spa, riding in a Town Car, and doing whatever the heck else rich people do.

Instead of complaining about how much you have to pay in taxes, you should be thankful that at least you're financially well-off than most people, and that the biggest dilemma you face daily is foie gras or confit, not how far you can stretch your take-home pay after bills and living expenses.

TonyDavisNelson: the top 5% earn 33% of income but pay 57% of the taxes.

LeRoy: I have already pointed this out once, in this very same thread, but your statement, as written, is false. You could make it correct is you wrote:

The top 5% earn 33% of income but pay 57% of the income taxes.

I am guessing that, once you get to some sufficiently high level of income, you don't give a flying French fart about the Social Security taxes, sales taxes, and so forth.

Barack Obama proposes lowering taxes on anyone making less than a quarter of a million dollars a year...

So all the claims that "Obama and the Democrats will raise your taxes!" a claim widely heard, widely made, widely believed, is complete nonsense...

Or it could be he's not being truthful about how much money he's really going to need and where it's going to come from.

Alternatively, it could be that he's not being truthful about how much he intends to spend.

If he makes it to office I expect he'll 'discover' his math was wrong and he needs to soak pretty much everyone and not just the rich. I also expect he's going to find the need to spend *more* and not less.

As far as I am concerned, neither candidate takes the budget deficit (and national debt) as seriously as they should. But it is a fact that John McCain's 'plans' are simply ludicrous. Here are a few brief excerpts from an article comparing the fiscal plans of Obama and McCain that was in The Wall Street Journal a few months ago:

"With the national debt soaring to $9.1 trillion from $5.6 trillion at the start of 2001, the crucial question about the candidates to succeed Bush is 'whether they are helping to fill the hole or make it deeper,' said Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan organization that advocates deficit reduction...McCain's plan would appear to result in the biggest jump in the deficit, independent analyses based on Congressional Budget Office figures suggest. A calculation done by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in Washington found that his tax and budget plans, if enacted as proposed, would add at least $5.7 trillion to the national debt over the next decade."

LeRoy: I also note that if the government ends up 'bailing out' Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as many observers expect, that could add as much as another $5 trillion to the national debt. Meaning that the national debt could more than double under McCain, from $9.1 trillion to something close to $20 trillion by 2018.

To paraphrase the late, great Senator Everett Dirksen: You know, a trillion here and a trillion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money.

McCain's fiscal plans are almost hilariously irresponsible.

But it's not a laughing matter anymore.

As far as I am concerned, neither candidate takes the budget deficit (and national debt) as seriously as they should.

Agreed.

But it is a fact that John McCain's 'plans' are simply ludicrous.

With a fully Dem controlled congress, imagine Obama in charge. Do you expect the Dem's to *not* try to pass massive social programs? All sorts of people who have backed them will be calling in their markers (starting with Big Labor and their 'no Secret Ballots' ideas).

One of Bush's bigger faults was he never opposed Congress's spending while the Reps were running it. Obama's entire history of operating is "go along to get along".

I can picture good things (i.e. less spending) coming from McCain and Congress fighting. It's hard to see how Obama continuing Bush's rubber stamp on Congress's spending resulting in "less" spending.