Go BamBam!! I don't think it's a bad idea, but I don't think he can win with this.... He might want to keep that under  wraps until after November....

Hey Jimi!!! *no college-aged Kellz-trial support team*

How many households bring in more than $250.000 a year? About 1.5%. If your making that much you can afford to miss out on an extra $7500 a year so that those on the opposite side of the bell curve can have the basic necessities i.e. health care, access to quality education. Right?

Totally opposed to this - I'm a self-employed businessman, and my reward for my hard work and personal risk is an even bigger tax bill?  No thanks, comrade.  It's like having a student work hard all year for an "A" and then knocking it down to a B and bumping someone else's "D" up to a C in the name of equality.

Letting me keep that money and invest it or spend it will generate far more economic activity than benefits my fellow citizens than paying some government flunky to collect it, redistribute it, and then tax it again.  It's Econ 101.

I think it is far better for the wealthy to have higher tax rates than the non-wealthy. They made the money and now have that extra to spare, while the poor also made money but they need more of it to keep food on the table.

If Blackwater and Halliburton had their war profits confiscated, there would be no need to take my money.  

Stunning.  Some of us really need to come up from our soy mocha latte's and join the real world. I paid a fortune for my elite education, but I still can't comprehend no matter how hard I try why the blessed and privileged, see no nothing wrong whatsoever with their lack of empathy for people who just want to eat every now and again.  I guess it's my poor working class Black roots, but I will never understand it.

Poor people pay higher taxes than anyone else on the planet. They pay a higher food tax; poor people live in communities where local supermarkets jack up prices because there's no competition making it much more expensive for them to buy the basics like milk and eggs nevermind the luxury's like fresh produce, and even than their limited to iceberg lettuce, cucumbers, and plantains.  

Poor people pay higher taxes for gas, because no matter high high or low, it's always going to be a higher percentage of their disposal income than for anyone else.

Poor people pay higher medical tax because they're usually under or uninsured; when you're uninsured you don't go to the doctor until the last minute so by the time that they do go to the doctor they're so sick that they often lose their jobs or go bankrupt because the hospital send the creditors after them for unpaid medical.  

Poor people pay higher insurance; when you're poor your address makes you vulnerable to creditors who DO discrimate against poor people by jacking up premiums under the pretense that certain areas are "high risk" when reports often indicate otherwise.

The point is, if you take a break for a moment from drinking your soy mocha latte's  you might find that paying a little extra in tax, when YOU CAN AFFORD IT, so that other people can eat too, is not only your civic duty, it's the human thing to do.

Sigh...so despite the fact that with our current tax system I pay far more in taxes than say 4 people with my combined income, it's not enough.  That I've got no right to sock away my earnings to pay for my children's college education, save it for a rainy day or when times aren't so good, or heaven forbid use it to employ more people.

Tax people to death for more social services and you'll have France - see how much they like double-digit unemployment and universally lower standards of living than us.

And just to comment on the rest of Obama's economic plan, it's awful: higher income taxes and Social Security taxes on the successful, higher capital gains taxes on everyone, trade protectionism, and more entitlement spending.  Anyone that's taken a basic economics class can tell you that any one of those things is a drag on the economy, but put them all together and you've got a program that guarantees that the current lull will persist for quite some time.  It's standard Democratic boilerplate, and it just doesn't work.

Letting corporations run amok certainly hasn't worked.  

What is that supposed to mean?  I know that blaming 'corporations' (a pretty broad and nonspecific term) is sort of a liberal parlor game, but your sentence doesn't actually say anything.  

Want more taxation of corporations and more regulation?  Do you think preventing them from taking risks and making money is going to lead to more employment and economic growth?  Do you think the clowns in the US Congress - most of whom, I can testify from personal experience, know nothing more about any given issue than what their staff or the Congressional Research Service provides - can craft legislation that would strike some magic balance between 'corporations running amok' and prudent restraint that would head off all future economic turbulence?  If your answer is yes, then your faith is sadly misplaced.

Jimi I hope you make over $200,000 a year, because if you do not: what are you complaining about. I mean there are so many important issues at stake that effect the average American, however Obama's tax increase on the rich is not one of them. It kills me when I hear people who will not be effected by this tax increase complaining. This does not concern the vast majority of Americans. So stop crying over issues that do not concern the everyday person. But then again maybe you are really pulling real cash flow from the root.

Someone's got to pay for new services with all the problems our economy is going to continue to have.

Rob from the rich to give to the poor.....hmmm....if anyone else did this, they would be thrown in jail. Why should someone who makes more money be forced to give it to those who don't make as much money?  To give for the "greater good" sounds like socialism to me.  There will always be the poor.  Apply a flat tax to everyone and those who don't make enough will have more incentive to get the grades, training or degrees to help them make a good living instead of sitting around whining. The government is VERY liberal in the lending of money for higher education.  I know some people cannot work and they need help but an enormous number of people who could be productive workers just don't want to work.  Why should the successful be punished and taxed more than anyone else?

love that plan!!

I think it is the ultimate in hypocracy.  He wants to punish me for getting of my lazy a** and making something of myself...all in the name of helping the less fortunate.  Meanwhile, this millionaire politician gave less thatn 1% of his personal income to charity last year.  Here is what Mr. Obama doesn't get.  People with excess don't mind giving to the less fortunate.  Most of us gave a heck of a lot more than 1% to charity last year.  What eo do mind, is turning more of our hard earned money over to the government so that they can sqaunder and misappropriate it.  Can anyone name one government run program that isn'at mis-managed?  Let Americans give from their heart and help those in need...but keep the government's hand out of our pockets.   I love the brother, but he can't get my vote with that tax plan.

How about using the billions that Halliburton and other corporations have STOLEN from US taxpayers to fund universal health care and decent care for wounded veterans?  How about using the taxpayer money being used to help build a high tech police stae in China to solve some of America's problems?  How about penalizing companies that cut corners by manufacturing overseas where there is little or no regulation, resulting in the importation of products that turn into date-rape drugs when children put them in their mouths? Or kill pets?  Corporations could care less about creating jobs.  They care about the investment, accumulation, and appreciation of capital.  Letting corporations run amok hasn't exactly led to the creation of skilled jobs in the US, though I'm sure China, India, and Europe are quite happy with the current state of affairs.  

I think it is funny how people keep buying into the tax the rich scheme.  Penalize people who actually work to get ahead.  Most of the rich people in the country are self made.  They didn't inherit their money they worked hard for it  (excluding some celebrities).  Some of them even went bankrupt a few times to become wealthy.  They already pay their fair share.  No, I am not one of the rich.  But the only person that has stopped me from becoming wealthy is me.  You can blame it on the government, the corporations, or your race.  The fact is that it is up to you to make it big if that is what you want.  By they way, there are a lot of "poor" people who pay zero tax when you figure in the government subsidies they get.    

Also, it is amusing when I hear people say that corporations need to pay more taxes.   Most of the time it is the oil companies that take the hit for this.   Try this, do some research into the profit margin of oil companies.  You will probably find it at 8 to 9%.  I consider that to be fair.  I wonder what the profit margin on a bottle of water is?  Want to see something really funny? Check into the profit margin of breakfast cereal.  I seen reports of it being as high as 50%.  No one is squawking about that.  You want to see prices go up more?  Go ahead follow Obama.  He wants to "level the playing field".  Tax the corporations more?  Reality check.  Corporations only collect taxes.  They do not pay them.  Taxes to a corporation are an expense.  If taxes rise they will only pass the cost of the new tax to the consumer.  Go ahead and experiment vote Obama into office.  In four years come back and tell me how you like the higher cost of living, crappy health care, and high personal taxes.  I am not only picking on Obama.  McCain is almost as bad.   The problem today is that people are more interested in what is happening with their favorite sports team or a celebrity than what is happening in the government.  By the way have you seen how much those yahoo celebrities make and how little they contribute to society?   Maybe they should pass a dead weight tax specifically for them?  

My suggestion is not to focus on the presidential race.  Focus on the congressional races.  This is where you vote gets the biggest bang for its dollar.  Boot some of these lobbyist loving losers out of office.  Pick people that have a successful business background and understand how to maximize the use of business to improve life in this country.  Obama pereaches change.  It is time to change.  Take the county back.  Vote.  Clean house.

I'll second that last comment about needing to clean house...my first job out of college was working on the Hill and I got a nice close-up look at many members of Congress.  Most are losers that I wouldn't leave in charge of a popsicle stand.  The problem is that far too many are career politicians or academics - people generally completely unfamiliar with business, both in the sense of how you have to scramble to make things happen as well as how well-intentioned government policies have lots of unforeseen consequences.  A congressman's default mode is "don't just sit there, legislate something" and that's not a good thing.  Some people get mad when they learn that virtually all Congressional action takes place on Tuesday-Thursday, thinking that these people should be working more.  I don't - let's cut their pay in half (now over $160K a year) and cut their schedule back to a few months a year in DC.  The whole country would be better off.

The only thing that gives me pause with Obama is the tax plan.  It is a bit too socialist leaning.  I certainly don't want more taxes or to be told where to give my money in terms of charity.  It doesn't impact me yet, but one day I'll be in that income bracket - hopefully.  Increasing the percentage of tax paid by wealthier individuals is not leveling the playing field nor is it equitable.  Perhaps, deeper credits for the less fortunate would be better to assist living expenses.

Corporations need to be encouraged to stay within the USA, higher taxation drives them away to 3rd world countries.  Jobs that Americans should have are being given away.  There's got to be a better way than more taxation, like greater government accountability.

Again honestly are any of these people complaining would they really be effected negatively by Obama's plan? It is amazing how people have this false consciousness. Why do people support policies that they do not personally benefit from? It is amazing how working class people are so eager to help the rich. It is just bizarre. When Clinton did exactly what Obama is proposing the economy improved for everyone so what is the problem?

I make more than $200K, and I think Obama's plan is great.  There is no good reason why those of us with more should not contribute more.  An extra couple of thousand of dollars means a few less designer shoes for me, but trying to impose greater burdens on the less affluent could very well force some families into poverty, or if not then at least push families to the breaking point.  

The rich often want to cite patriotism and love of country, but ask them to forego the marble tile upgrade in their condo and all of a sudden there's a problem....?  And it doesn't reward laziness or unproductivity either.  I don't know anyone who enjoys being poor, and no one says to themselves "well, i'll have to pay more in taxes if I go to med school, so I'll just become a social worker."  WTF....

Americans were suckered into the "give all the money to the rich" and let the money trickle down to everyone else for almost 30 years.  over that time, the working class and middle classes saw their income stagnate and fall against inflation.  while the top %1 saw their wealth balloon.

on top of that bad policy, the rich exploit every loop hole they can to cheat the tax system.  they set up fake shell corporations to get better tax rates and play all sorts of shifty games.  

AND America has one of the *lowest* charity rates of the entire developed world.  so that speaks loudly of the rich people in this country.

Read Ben Franklin's autobiography and you will learn that this country was built on the community coming together and chipping in $ for improvements.  paved roads, fire houses and libraries etc.  paying taxes is an expression of patriotism and believe in making the community stronger.

I have no sympathy for unpatriotic tax dodgers. misers.  scrooges.  hysterical liars.

For me it comes down to the simple fact that our current budget runs a monsterous deficit.  That is completely unacceptable.  Thus far, it does not seem like we, as a people, have the will to significantly cut that budget.  (Yeah, I said *WE* - Remember, politicians work for us and do our will)  Therefore, I am fine with the government taking a bit more out of my paycheck to get us out of debt.  I hate being in debt.

Now, of course, the real question is who pays how much of that large amount?  The system as a whole provides a lot of benefits for all of us.  (Roads, laws, regulation, etc)  I am perfectly fine with better-off folks paying a bit more of their discretionary income into that pool.

In a lot of ways, the tax system tries to tax the "above survival" money.  That is why a family of four making 25k a year doesn't pay all that much (percentage wise, even) in taxes compared to a single person making 250k.  The person making 250k a year has a much greater proportion of income that s/he could do without than the family making 25k or even 50k.  That is what I mean by discretionary.

I am certainly not advocating 80% tax brackets over 250k or anything.  Don't kill the goose that lays the golden eggs...but our government should not be limited to simply staring longingly at the stack of gold eggs, either.  I think Mr. Obama's plan sounds pretty reasonable.  I don't remember feeling oppressed by the taxes during Mr. Clinton's terms.  While Mr. Bush's tax cuts put more money in my wallet, personally, it hurt a lot more to see us, as a great nation, go back to our spendthrift ways.

Interesting that almost no one on this post seems to think that it's possible to keep taxes just as they are if we axed a few hundred billion in spending...why shouldn't we look in that direction?  Surely in a $2.7 trillion budget there are lots of places to cut fat or end duplicative or ineffective programs.

Any basic economics textbook will tell you that the effect of higher levels of taxation is slower national economic growth...perhaps there are times in which a rising economy can afford to be slowed down.  But to take action that will slow the economy when it's already underperforming?  Just totally stupid.  

Arclight,

Decreasing taxes and government regulation really worked out for us, huh? Maybe you haven't heard about this subprime mortgage mess.

As of 2005, the latest data available, the cutoff for the top 1% was adjusted gross income of $364,657. The cutoff for the top 5% was $145,283. Obama has proposed a host of increases that would raise the federal income-tax rate on top earners -- and not just that 1% -- to 52% from 35%, according to an analysis by Investor's Business Daily. That calculation includes applying the 12.4% payroll tax that funds Social Security to some income above the current $102,000 cap, and letting some of President Bush's tax cuts expire. According to the Tax Foundation, this group accounts for 21% of total adjusted gross income nationwide but pays 39% of all individual federal income taxes.

There is absolutely no reason that top earners should be paying a significantly larger share of the taxes - to the tune of 20% more than the average American.  The average worker doesn't understand just how hard or how much risk a person earning in the top tier has taken to earn that kind of money.  They deserve the right to keep it.  I don't think the solution is to tax the rich more and more. That just discourages hard work and entrepreneurism. I think the government needs to quit giving so many handouts and start giving hand-up's. It run's along the lines of you give a man a fish/teach a man to fish concept. I have known people under 25 on social security because they have ADD, huh??? Let them not get cash and starve a week or so they'll regain focus. I have seen people live in nicer places then me on welfare. I know a few single moms, who get thousands a year from child support, then all of there taxes back. I think if anything they should give businesses a tax break based on the amount they pay to employees. The better the wages the better the breaks. This would encourage higher wages, less illegal immigration, and people would want to go to a job thet could give them a decent standard of living. Not to mention taxing the crap out of companies just makes them relocate out of the country.  I read an article in the Associated General Contractors advisory paper that claimed Obama wanted to require that foreign nations to whom we provide foreign aid be required to support unionism in their countries. That is what has caused us to become so uncompetitive with such nations as China.  How does the average person actually think this is going to help them - they think they will earn more?  Hell no, there will be less jobs done by Americans - more jobs going overseas!  People think!

Logic - the subprime mess is a result of POOR EDUCATION.  Any educated person can do the math, look back over history to see the rates increasing and see that they shouldn't sign on that dotted line.  It is discussions of stupid social stuff, feelings at school. instead of hard facts, math and science that have gotten us into this mess.

The only connection between taxes and the subprime mess is that people want to use other people's taxes to bail out folks that made foolish decisions.  No one held a gun to these people's head when they signed on the dotted line.  It's sad, and I do know people that made this mistake, but my sympathy does not extend to taking dough from people that did things right and bail out people who made a financially reckless decision.  You have to sleep in the bed you made, after all.

For all you folks who want to take other people's money to pay for poor people, why don't you give more of your own.  The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes in

2002.   The numbers have not changed a lot since then.  Also, the higher the rates go, the more rich folks will get creative (rather pay a tax lawyer than the G).  Effectively, the rich pay more when incentives to hide income are reduced-meaning when the system seems fair, and not rigged against the ones who are footing the bill.  If a person chooses to give money to the poor, great for them. But as a society, there is no good reason to give money to the government to use it inefficiently (stupid wars, bridges to nowhere, a Jesse Helms center for diplomacy, etc.).  

-Republic for Obama despite his tax nonsense

Roxy Rhae,

I agree that poor education is a contributor to the subprime mess but what about the lenders who took advantage of them? Why do lenders get a pass for poor behavior but the consumers don't?

People who comment about the rich "carrying" the poor or "get off your ass", obviously don't understand economics. The distibution of scarce resources in an environment of unlimited desires. In other words, EVERYBODY CAN'T BE RICH! IF YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT HUMAN SUFFERING THEN YOU WOULDN'T TALK LIKE YOU DO.  As black people, I expect more from you.

Taxing the rich won't bring back any jobs.  And he can't tax enough to pay  living wage to all the poor and working class folks who can't compete with illegals and Chinese wages.  And he certainly can't tax enough to support a free welfare system, free retirement system and free medical system ON TOP OF the 20 million or so illegals he wants to legalize AND their kids AND their spouses.  Particularly since Social Security receipts have been devastated with the loss of American jobs.  And particularly since the monster rich don't make their money from "income" but from capital gains.

Its a nice start, but its going to have about as much effect on poor folks as rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

If he was using his head instead of thinking about raising taxes he would think about creating a tax base.  He would do what the Chinese do and have an industrial policy that encourages productive investment in America.  Read Pat Buchanan.  The Chinese are doing exactly what America USED to do up until a few decades ago and their economy is growing at 8-10% per year.

Trade protectionism is working phenomenally well for the Chinese.  As one who has to negotiate with them, I know whereof I speak.

Sorry, Arclight.  Moving your money offshore to make higher profits in China isn't "investing" in America, it is abandoning it.

Part of the subprime mess was a lack of education on the part of the borrowers, but a larger part of the problem was the creation of risky lending vehicles based on flawed economic assumptions, and the bundling of that debt into risky investment vehicles.   Taxpayer money has been used to bail out Bear Stearns, not foreclosed lenders. There is a lot of talk about how corporations deserve their large profits because they take risks.  The fact is, the risks are socialized, and the profits are privatized.  When these ventures fail, as they have many times over the past 2 decades (Chrysler, the Savings and Loans, Long Term Capital Management, Bear Stearns), the corporations are not left to sleep in the beds they make, a key tenet of the laissez-faire economic philosophy that conservatives espouse.  It has been the taxpayer that has bailed out these corporations for their reckless risk-taking, and they are repaid with foreclosures, poverty, exportation of jobs, and stagnant wages caused by cheap overseas labor.    

How high should marginal taxes be? 50%? 60%? 70%? 80%? While it would be great to take money from those who don't need it and give it to those that don't, we are talking about taxing people on what they earn (not their wealth). At some point people will work less.

He should be promoting a flat tax across the board for individuals and corporations.  This and only this will make it "fair" to the little people and make the rich pay their equal share instead of getting through loopholes.  So if I made 200K at a 10% tax I would know I owed 20,000 at the end of the year.  Making 2 million, I'd owe 200,000.  A guy who makes 5 million a year would balk at paying his fair share of 500,000.  The rich get richer and the poor get the picture.

It's a good tax plan and it's fair. Maybe you'd prefer that the Bush's tax cuts for the rich were made permanent. The affluent have been getting a free ride on the backs of the middle class for the entire 8 years the Republicans have been in power....time to pay the piper.

I thnk its ridiculous to suggest that just because a person earns less that they arent working hard. think about that when you are moving or the utility guys are out vrestoring your power or even farmers there are a lot of hard workong jobs which don't pay millions but provide needed services

I dont want to see any more taxes ...period! I would much rather see the people demand some accountability for the taxes currently being collected. Throwing more good money after bad is not the answer. Too many career politicians are involved in the collection and distribution of tax dollars for me to trust them with one more red penny than I am giving them now. I dont make 250k a year. How many of us work for someone making that or more though? Tax our employers into oblivion and sooner or later you kill their incentive to keep us employed. Taking from the rich and giving to the poor may appear golden, but remember...Robin Hood was a thief after all.

"Maybe you'd prefer that the Bush's tax cuts for the rich were made permanent. The affluent have been getting a free ride on the backs of the middle class for the entire 8 years the Republicans have been in power....time to pay the piper." (bmaggiemay)

"Though tax cuts for the rich were bigger than those for other groups, the wealthiest families paid a bigger share of total taxes. That is because their incomes have climbed far more rapidly, and the gap between rich and poor has widened in the last several years." (New York Times www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html)

The rich pay much higher taxes percentage wise than the other classes. The gap between the rich and the poor probably has more to do with fiscal irresponsibility on the part of the dissolving middle class ( cashing in equity, maxing out credit limits, generally living beyond their means, etc.). The mob will always lay the blame at the feet of those who achieved the most. If you took all the rich peoples money and gave it to the poor, we might all enjoy a good dinner on what it yields. After that, we have no jobs, no health care and no hope because we killed the goose that laid the golden egg. There is no law stating that the poor have to remain poor. They make choices just like the rich do.

It's not about how much, it's about paying your own fair share and taking care of others "Am I my brothers keeper". Taxes are simply an equation of goods to services. In order to reduce tax burden what goods are you willing to give up; EX: police, fire protection, paved streets. garbage pick-up, clean water, providing for others or national security. Taxing of the American people should not be a political ping pong, it is simply mathmatical. If you have the means to provide for others you should.

.

Whether or not we increase taxes for the wealthy or decrease them for those with more modest means is NOT the the issue, because even if those who can afford to part with a greater percentage are mandated to do so, the government will just find ways to SQUANDER the additional revenue (i.e. IRAQ).  You can't possibly convince me that there isn't enough money and resources in this country to take care of the needs of EACH AND EVERY person in it.  It was, is and will always be a question of allocation.  If the legislators weren't all in the back pockets of corporations, maybe someday we could actually see a total elimination of homelessness, joblessness, poverty, lack of health care, and with those things a drastic reduction in crime.  The majority of the people of this nation are becoming increasingly desperate, while the CEOs and their peers find new ways every day to squeeze more blood from the stone.  Obama may have the noblest of intentions with his tax plan, but he can't believe that this will win him favor with those who ACTUALLY run this country, which can only be called an oligarchy at this point.  

Oh my God!  Listen to yourselves.  LISTEN!!!!!!  Somebody has a lot, more than $250,000 a year and you think that it is right, "More Fair" TO TAKE IT FROM THEM.

NO!!!!!!!

I was born in Sherman Gardens in Detroit Michigan.  My family has worked their butts off since we got here in 1906 from Finland.  I could not afford college and joined the Navy, 17 years ago, in the hopes that I might better myself.  I have a college degree, I have gone from enlisted to become a commissioned officer.  My wife and I scrimped and saved and she graduated college and is a successful Interior Designer.  All us, no help, and now that we are closing in on $250,000 a year.  And we earned every cent, you think that we should pay more?

Well, Ive got news for you.  WE ALREADY DO!!!!!!!!!

Whatever the Tax rate, call it 25% to make the math easy.  At $250,000 a year I'd pay $62,500!  At 36% $90000!!!!!!!!!

A millionaire pays $250,000 per million!

Make $18,000 and you pay what, currently just about nothing.

How dare you suggest that a person who has worked their butt off for 40 years owes more (a greater percentage) than someone else.

"Logic" you can go straight there with your statement, Its only 1.5 % so who cares right.

There is a word for taking more from those who have more.  Stealing.  Marxism.  Socialism.  All three are wrong and have been proven time and again to fail.