Obama wants payroll tax on incomes above $250,000

AP via Yahoo! ^ | June 13, 2008 | CHARLES BABINGTON

[Brilliant]

I don't make anywhere near $250K a year, so I guess I don't have a dog in this fight, but I will say that this tax increase is not going to fix social security or medicare, it's going to hurt the economy, and at some point, the Democrats are going to have to build a fence to keep Americans from leaving the country, if they continue down this road.

[ilgipper]

So, the tax where we pay into our own health care and retirement, should be going to pay for everyone elses’ health care and retirement. I do not think Mr. Obama has a grasp of the concept behind these programs...or maybe he is a marxist. One or the other.

[DManA]

Give inflation a chance to work for about 10 years and your dog will be getting gored.

[originalbuckeye]

Probably both. No, wait, definitely both!

[Argus]

So much for the pretext that Social Security is “insurance” that’s kept in a lockbox somewhere waiting for you to retire.

[Jeff Head]

He will raise taxes on the very people who have the money to create the jobs and the wealth this nation relies on.

In addition, he will raise taxes on anyone selling a house, their stocks, who has an IRA, etc., etc.

He will rasie taxes in different varieties on people across the board.

THE AUDACITY OF TRUTH ABOUT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

[RightWhale]

A lot of people making over 250,000 aren’t doing it on wages. What is O’Bama talking about? Does he know what he is talking about?

[EBH]

The presidential candidate told senior citizens in Ohio that it is unfair

It is not about fixing these programs...it is about making things "fair."

[rabscuttle385]

Democratic Sen. Barack Obama on Friday called for higher payroll taxes on wage-earners making more than $250,000 annually, a step that would affect the wealthiest 3 percent of Americans.

Wrong. Wealth and income are not necessarily the same, though the Democrats would like us to believe their lies.

The 6.2 percent payroll tax is now applied to all wages up to $102,000 a year, which covers the entire amount for most Americans.

It only affects wages. The truly "wealthy" have a significant portion of income derived from interest, dividends, and capital gains and would thus be unaffected. So too would anyone who operates his own business and shifts his compensation from wages into capital gains or dividends.

[Uncle Miltie]

pay the Social Security tax "on every dime they make," while millionaires and billionaires pay it on only "a very small percentage of their income."

Does this mean the wealthy will get back much larger Social Security checks from the system? Like 10X what others get? Is it an insurance system?

Or is Social Security really just another massive transfer of wealth from the more capable and hard working to the lazy?

[FMBass]

“The total Social Security tax rate of 12.4 percent is evenly divided between workers and their employers.”

And if you are self employed, you pay the full 12.4 percent.

[rbg81]

How many of those millionaires and billionaires ever even apply for social security? I’m sure that Bill Gates can’t wait till he turns 62 so he can apply for that huge Government check.

[the anti-liberal]

I think he thinks most people get their jobs from poor people. That's right, they may have trouble affording groceries, buying gasoline, and paying for their daughters' piano lessons - but they sure can afford to hire people and pay them good 'living' wages.

Right?

So penalize wealth. We don't need wealthy people and besides, no one in their right would ever want to wealthy themselves, right?

[Chode]

now there's a way to win friends and influence people...

wonder why Dale Carnagie never thought of that???

[Popman]

The total Social Security tax rate of 12.4 percent is evenly divided between workers and their employers.

No, the company does not pay for 50 % of Social Security tax

The cost of the employer share is built into the cost of doing business by lower wages or higher costs, so the employee or consumers actually pays for it in the long run, not the company

[NativeSon]

So penalize wealth. We don't need wealthy people and besides, no one in their right would ever want to wealthy themselves, right?

Penalize the engine of creativity, advancement - the chance, the right to rise to the highest level - and watch the (modern) world grind to a halt.

[antonia]

I thought that we hadn't even solved poverty in America; hence the continuous need for Affirmative action and welfare, medicare and hundreds of other programs. Oh my bad! it's something that can never be 'solved' just continually bureaucratized and then American tax payers can financed the whole thing! FOREVER!

Obama's going to have to tax more than that to come up with enough to finace his "Global Poverty Act': $845 billion mor.e for global poverty Democrat sponsors act OK'd by Senate panel that would cost 0.7% of gross national product

Annual Cost of Improving the World
• $19 billion: Eliminates starvation and malnutrition globally.
• $12 billion: Provides education for every kid on earth.
• $15 billion: Provides access to water and sanitation.
• $23 billion: Reverses the spread of AIDS and Malaria

The Cost in Perspective
• $522 billion: U.S. Military budget this year.
• $484 billion: Cost of Iraq War thus far.
Sources: World Bank, National Priorities Project

Silly me! I have always thought that this is what all that money that we have been giving the United Nations was going towards. But no the money that we have already given them with no representation only went for programs to finace such spectacles as the UN World Hunger Summit, see menu:

Times Newspapers June 4, 2008 Leaders at UN Food Summit Tone Down Menu over Fears of Hypocrisy
	Six years ago, at another Food and Agriculture Organisation summit in Rome, The Times got hold of the menu for the sumptuous opening day lunch. Its publication caused a scandal. The 2002 summit had set itself the target of halving the number of hungry people in the world by 2015. It began by feeding the heads of state lobster and foie gras and letting them wash it all down with an array of fine wines. Of the world's wealthier nations, only Italy, the host, and Spain, the holder of the EU presidency, sent heads of state or government. The British sent Alun Michael, then Minister for Rural Affairs. By contrast, dozens of presidents, prime ministers and even monarchs arrived from the developing world. They included President Mbeki of South Africa and, of course, Robert Mugabe.
(Philippe Wojazer/Reuters) Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian Prime Minister, jokes with Food and Agriculture Organisation Director General Jacques Diouf before sitting dow to lunch in Rome
Perhaps mindful of accusations of hypocrisy levelled at them six years ago, world leaders tightened their belts this year and were offered a far more modest menu of pasta, mozzarella, spinach and sweetcorn at the equivalent fixture. " It does not look good if leaders discussing global starvation are seen to be dining lavishly," an FAO official said. "At the last summit in 2002 we did not give enough thought to the menu and were open - unfairly, in our view - to the charge of hypocrisy." 2002 Menu Foie gras and toast with kiwi fruit Lobster in vinaigrette Fillet of goose with olives Seasonal vegetables Compote of fruit with vanilla Vins multiple fine wines 2008 Menu Vol au vent with sweetcorn and mozzarella Pasta with cream of pumpkin and shrimps Veal olives with cherry tomatoes and basil Fruit salad with vanilla ice cream Vin Orvieto Classico Poggio Calvelli 2005
And this just in: Western leaders expressed outrage yesterday as Robert Mugabe flew into Rome in defiance of an EU travel ban to attend a United Nations world food summit while millions of people are starving under his brutal rule in Zimbabwe

[Jeff Head]

He is an abject Marxist and his entire persona is one of class struggle positioning him, of course, to be in charge of making it all right for the rest of us...because he and his idolaters are the enlightened ones, don’t you know.

[chris_bdba]

This looks like something that could kill most small buisnesses and the jobs they provide.

[jeffc]

I’m sure that Bill Gates can’t wait till he turns 62 so he can apply for that huge Government check.

Not being one at Gates's level, I must admit, I don't get it. Isn't Gates eligible for SS at 62? If I have to pay SS taxes on 100% of my earned income, why shouldn't anyone else that will be eligible for it when they retire? Not that Gates will apply for it. He probably won't. But he'll still be eligible!