tax hikes for wealthy

[jwallbank]

If the government stops the tax breaks for charitable contributions, that will only hurt the charities, because a lot of rich people won't donate as much. I'm sure some of them are charitable anyway, and not doing it just for the deductions, but a lot of them probably only do it for the tax break, not because they care about the charitable organizations.
Since the income tax is tiered, the rich people already pay a much higher percentage of income taxes. Taxing them to pay for all the public assistance programs that buy votes will only discourage people from working hard to try to become rich, thereby effectively eliminating the American dream. As it is it is hard to ever improve yourself, because if you take a second job, or work a lot of overtime, it automatically puts you in the next income bracket, and then all your extra earnings get taken away in taxes.
Anything the government does will not touch the super rich, anyway, because they have their assets in foreign countries. It will just raise taxes on corporations, causing them to move more of their operations overseas as well, and lose even more jobs for Americans.

I totally agree. I am retired but, when I was working in 2009, I used to hate to do overtime. I was put in that higher bracket and it seemed half of my pay was then taxed. It is a big difference, so if you do alot of overtime and say make 1000 a week in overtime, the tax system is now taxing you on a higher bracket but, if you only do maybe 4 weeks of o/t you do not go into a higher bracket because it is temporary. The government always lays down this rederick "tax the rich". An independent survey has said that if you taxed the rich 100 percent of what they make, it still would not be enough to make up what we are spending. Over the last 3 years we have spent more than a trillion a year than the last administration, and 1.5 trillion more a year than we are taking in. This is a fact, weather you are dem, rep or ind. This still remains the same. And if we tax the so called rich, making over 200,000 a year, that could be considered barely making it in places like NYC or CAL. Even if it is on the super rich, you don't think they will move their money somewhere else and then the Government is worse off then they were in the first place (something is better than nothing). They need to get jobs back here in the US and they need to get the money back here that they have brought overseas where by the way is lower in taxes to operate, I guess that is why they move there!!!

[miriah1brandon]

I am not sure if this is a good thing or not.  I think they need to cut back the amount that it takes to take care of the president.  I mean all the cleaners, gardeners, ectra, I wish I could make that kind of money for that kind of work.  Everything is paid for the president and his family so why does he need such a hight pay rate.  He should get paid but not as well as he does. I got a job and all my houseing is being taken care of buy that doesn't count my food, personal products, clothing, gas you know what I mean?

[gaylasue]

There are always loop holes in the tax laws for the wealthy to find to keep them from paying much in taxes.

[kay7]

"Wealthy" is really relative and of course, is only a teaser to get support from the clueless for backdoor taxes on everyone.  The only people who won't get taxed are the truly rich who can afford to find ways to avoid them. 

[jaymz462]

Definitely necessary, although I don't see how it'll happen.  The rich own the government, after all.

Viva la revolution!

[Azanne07]

Needed! I was watching the news and some famous singer addmitted that he only pays 15% tax (less than his secertary) I only make about 1100 a month and pay 15% tax. whats up with that

[davidh121]

Definitely. There was a news segment I saw recently and a number of the top earners are paying a smaller percentage than many of us (i.e. Warren Buffett).

[liz01331]

i think this tax hike is going to be a lose lose situation if the government keeps spending money the way it does. i think that if politicians really care about this country they should take a pay cut, and give that money to schools.

[Tresbn00]

A few years back, Steve Forbes (Editor in chief for Forbes magazine, suggested going with a flat tax.  One single tax rate of say twenty percent across the board for everyone.  I like this idea.  Warren Buffet, second richest man in America, in an interview with the New York Times said that he was paying seventeen percent when his entire staff paid over thirty percent. Buffet said that he did this without the use of tax advisors.  I don't like Obama's plan because it isn't a flat tax but appears to be an attack on the rich which would inhibit job growth and creativity.

[lgemini]

I am glad about the tax hikes. 

[lvstephanie]

Definitely. There was a news segment I saw recently and a number of the top earners are paying a smaller percentage than many of us (i.e. Warren Buffett).

When super-wealthy, like Warren Buffett, proclaim that they are spending less percentage-wise than their staff is somewhat misleading... For starters, they are usually able to write-off more for charitable contributions, but like a previous post pointed out, they are planning to give to charity anyways; financially it would make no sense to spend more money on charities than you'd get to write-off in taxes. If the charities are not getting their funding thru private sources, they will either cease to exist or will try drawing from the public sector, thereby increasing government spending (and the need to tax the "rich" even more). Also, the super-wealthy save money and later can live off of their savings. So if the income taxes get too high, they can stop receiving any income from their business and just live off of the savings. For example, there's a Google exec that boasted that he was receiving an income of 1-cent (he could do this, because he's just live off of the interest and dividends from his stocks in Google). Remember that when we are talking about taxes, it is usually income tax that we are talking about; I the the "Buffett Rule" would be more aptly named if it was targeting dividend taxes which is where Buffett is getting most of his money from.

[acurtsinger2]

they should have been doing it all along, but politicians are wealthy and arent willing to incease their own tax bracket...and many own oil stocks and are unwilling to take care of outrageous gas pices.  the more we pay for gas, the more profit they make off of their stocks

[mjdoug03]

If a rich person is taxed 3% more, they'll still be rich.  If a middle class/lower class person is taxed 3% more, they'll have to choose between food and/or other important necessities.  Rich people drive me nuts!  Quit complaining.  You'll be okay.

[hawkeye3210]

If a rich person is taxed 3% more, they'll still be rich.  If a middle class/lower class person is taxed 3% more, they'll have to choose between food and/or other important necessities.  Rich people drive me nuts!  Quit complaining.  You'll be okay.

Which is why the "rich" are already taxed 20% more than the middle class.  Raising taxes on the rich isn't going to put money back in the pockets of the middle/lower class, so what is the point?  So, the government has more money that they can waste?  Count me out.

[eman27]

This will hurt small to medium size businesses especially with health care costs consistently rising.  However, if you do make a substantial amount of money and are considered wealthy I think it would be fair to incur tax hikes for a specified period of time and see if it helps or not.  The disparity between rich and poor is increasing in this country and no one seems to care.  We need to ban together and truly work with one another to bring our country back to a respectable level in the international areana.