Obama puts out plan to pay for American Jobs Act, suggests raising taxes on the wealthy, removing su
79 replies, posted
[release]President [URL="http://topics.bloomberg.com/barack-obama/"]Barack Obama[/URL] asked lawmakers to again consider increasing taxes for high earners, private equity managers and oil and gas companies to pay for his $447 billion job-creation package. The bill Obama sent to Capitol Hill yesterday included previously proposed revenue-raising provisions, such as a cap on deductions for upper-income taxpayers, which have failed to advance in Congress in recent years. The administration also proposed new ideas, such as curbing the amount of interest from municipal bonds that top earners could exclude from their income.
Obama also wants to raise $18 billion by taxing the carried interest, or profits-based compensation, of private equity managers, real estate investors and venture capitalists as ordinary income, instead of more lightly taxed capital gains. That would affect companies including [URL="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=BX:US"]Blackstone Group LP (BX)[/URL] and KKR & Co. LP.
Release of the plan sets the stage for a political fight with Republicans in Congress that will frame Obama’s strategy for a re-election campaign next year. In remarks yesterday to a forum of majority African-American community organizations, faith groups and college students, Obama sought to enlist his supporters behind the jobs proposal. Interactive One digital network was a co-host of the gathering.
“I want you guys to pump this up,” Obama told the group at the White House. “I need people to be out there promoting this and pushing this and making sure that everybody understands the details of what this would mean, so that one of two things happen: Either Congress gets it done, or if Congress doesn’t get it done, people know exactly what’s holding it up and we’re able to continue to apply pressure.”
[h=2]Revenue Raisers[/h]
Obama would use the revenue in part to offset the cost of cutting the payroll tax for employers and middle-class taxpayers along with infrastructure programs. Republicans, who control the [URL="http://topics.bloomberg.com/house-of-representatives/"]House of Representatives[/URL], have signaled they may be willing to support some of the tax cuts while expressing skepticism about Obama’s spending and tax increase proposals.
“It would be fair to say this tax increase on job creators is the kind of proposal both parties have opposed in the past,” [URL="http://topics.bloomberg.com/michael-steel/"]Michael Steel[/URL], a spokesman for House Speaker [URL="http://topics.bloomberg.com/john-boehner/"]John Boehner[/URL], an Ohio Republican, said in a statement yesterday. “We remain eager to work together on ways to support job growth, but this proposal doesn’t appear to have been offered in that bipartisan spirit.”[/release]
[I]Source: [url]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-12/carried-interest-to-help-pay-for-jobs-bill.html[/url][/I]
Previously, carried interest was considering capital gains, and not income to be taxed. This proposal would change this around to make carried interest be taxed the same way as income.
I wholeheartedly support this idea.
Ooh I can't say I agree with removing oil subsidies. I'm afraid that making it more expensive for the average worker to get to and from work, and taking more discretionary spending out of the hands of the poorer Americans will not serve the economy that well.
[editline]13th September 2011[/editline]
This will also effect electricity bills in areas with gas and oil power plants, making people pay more for electricity(this is bad).
[editline]13th September 2011[/editline]
Other than that it's a good idea.
what a fucking wordy ass title you got there
[QUOTE=Death_God;32264312]what a fucking wordy ass title you got there[/QUOTE]
I wanted it to be precise.
everything in the title after the comma was unnecessary
[QUOTE=Parakon;32264377]everything in the title after the comma was unnecessary[/QUOTE]
Perhaps, yes. However if we could move on to discussion about the topic at hand, that'd be great.
Good luck Obama. You're going to need it.
Seriously.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;32264299]Ooh I can't say I agree with removing oil subsidies. I'm afraid that making it more expensive for the average worker to get to and from work, and taking more discretionary spending out of the hands of the poorer Americans will not serve the economy that well.[/QUOTE]
[URL="http://www.good.is/post/it-s-official-oil-subsidies-don-t-keep-gas-prices-down/"]Those of us in the real world[/URL] aren't that concerned about that.
And so, it was at that point in history where then president Obama knowing his ratings are dropping going with the flow decided to fly in the face of his shadowy lobbyists. He proposed a revolutionary economic plan that many American citizens alike can agree to. However which one will win out? The interests of the many or that of the few?
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;32264428][URL="http://www.good.is/post/it-s-official-oil-subsidies-don-t-keep-gas-prices-down/"]Those of us in the real world[/URL] aren't that concerned about that.[/QUOTE]
Well I'll be damned; Why the fuck do we have those subsidies if they don't effect the corporations whatsoever? Also get the stick out of your ass you're not better than anyone.
[editline]13th September 2011[/editline]
That also doesn't say shit about gas subsidies. Which [i]may[/i] still impact electricity prices for those who rely on a gas plant.
It's 115 pages long.
Where's the picturebook for the tea party populists.
BUT THE WEALTH IS JUST ABOUT TO START TRICKLING DOWN, YOU GUYS
ive been waiting since fucking regan dont ruin this now
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;32264572]It's 115 pages long.
Where's the picturebook for the tea party populists.[/QUOTE]
Doesn't matter how concise it is, they'll oppose it.
[editline]12th September 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lankist;32264599]BUT THE WEALTH IS JUST ABOUT TO START TRICKLING DOWN, YOU GUYS
ive been waiting since fucking regan dont ruin this now[/QUOTE]
I see it trickle every day from my broken sink faucet!
He's going to tax my .01 interest!?!
How dare he.
Republicans will block it.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;32264299]Ooh I can't say I agree with removing oil subsidies. I'm afraid that making it more expensive for the average worker to get to and from work, and taking more discretionary spending out of the hands of the poorer Americans will not serve the economy that well.
[editline]13th September 2011[/editline]
This will also effect electricity bills in areas with gas and oil power plants, making people pay more for electricity(this is bad).
[editline]13th September 2011[/editline]
Other than that it's a good idea.[/QUOTE]
Well the government can either get rid of their subsidies or start making them pay the taxes they owe but haven't been paying over the last several decades.
It's pretty sad when a business pays less tax than its secretary.
America will riot once they even start paying close to what the rest of the world pays for fuel, while this is a good idea, Americans wont accept this.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32265906]Well the government can either get rid of their subsidies or start making them pay the taxes they owe but haven't been paying over the last several decades.
It's pretty sad when a business pays less tax than its secretary.[/QUOTE]
Frankly I don't give a shit about the morality of the tax code right now. What I'm concerned about is "what are the results". These subsidies apparently do nothing so lets get rid of them. However, if tax cuts to corporations benefits the economy(and they generally do), then it doesn't matter if it seems wrong. In the end if it benefits the poor fuck then that seemingly bad means justifies the end.
Eh. I haven't really been keeping up-to-date with economical terms - I'm assuming this is a good thing, right?
He should tax scientology.
[QUOTE=Kazumi;32266271]He should tax scientology.[/QUOTE]
Excellent plan! [B]GET ME THE WHITE HOUSE![/B]
Watch this get slammed up and down the right side for months before they finally let it go through. If they let it go through.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;32266116]Frankly I don't give a shit about the morality of the tax code right now. What I'm concerned about is "what are the results". These subsidies apparently do nothing so lets get rid of them. However, if tax cuts to corporations benefits the economy(and they generally do), then it doesn't matter if it seems wrong. In the end if it benefits the poor fuck then that seemingly bad means justifies the end.[/QUOTE]
What's the point of giving tax cuts to corporations that don't have to pay their share in the first place?
Tax
Reform
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32266394]What's the point of giving tax cuts to corporations that don't have to pay their share in the first place?
Tax
Reform[/QUOTE]
The point is that it will help the economy. They can pay their fair share when the economy is doing good. However the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and the recession is my enemy.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;32266573]They can pay their fair share when the economy is doing good.[/QUOTE]
Me too then.
Wonder what would happen if millions of Americans refused to pay their taxes until corporations had to pay theirs?
If they raise taxes for oil companies, they will just rise their prices.
What a great start to improving the economy. Even if it does raise the price of oil, that just means alternative clean energy sources will become more competitive.
I came in here waiting for the punchline, something like "and then the Republican congress shot it down instantly", but if this is for-serious then good on him.
Gas Prices do what they do because the oil companies control it. How come barrels of oil suddenly spike during high travel months... is it just a coincidence that we suddenly can't find as much oil during those weeks or something? Psh. They could sell that oil for $40 a barrel right now if they wanted to, and still make billions in profits a year, but, like everyone else, they're too greedy
So tax the rich, agreed. They already have tax cuts as it is, please remove them
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;32265660]Republicans will block it.[/QUOTE]Certainly seems to be their answer for everything these days.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.