Obama proposals include retirement plan changes
Alan Hawes
The Post and Courier
Barack Obama
The election is over and the message is clear — the economy is priority one. The big question now is how some of President-elect Barack Obama’s campaign proposals will affect retirees and workers with 401(k) and other retirement accounts. Looking at them a bit closer may reveal some clues.
Q: What are some of the ideas Obama has proposed that could impact my retirement planning?
A: One issue Obama has endorsed may get serious consideration before he takes the oath of office in January.
Obama proposed a temporary suspension of the required minimum distribution rule, which forces tens of millions of retirees to take money out of their IRA and 401(k) accounts once they turn 701/2. The rule is designed to give the government its share of the taxes on the money, which has been accumulating tax free. Failure to take out the money results in a 50 percent penalty assessed by the IRS.
Suspending the mandatory withdrawal would allow people to keep the money in the account and possibly recover some of their losses when the market recovers.
Obama’s plan would temporarily waive the penalties and taxes on withdrawals made after age 701/2. There’s interest in Congress to get it done — sooner rather than later.
The chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor, Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., has asked Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to suspend the tax penalty immediately.
AARP, the Washington-based group that represents 39 million people aged 50 and older, also has urged Paulson to take the action right away.
David Certner, the group’s legislative policy director said the required withdrawals essentially force retirees to take money out of the market at the bottom, recording large losses, rather than letting them keep their money in the account to potentially recoup the losses when the market improves.
Department of Treasury spokesman Andrew DeSouza said Wednesday he had nothing to report on the issue and declined to comment further.
“There’s absolutely no reason to force people to take out a larger share of their current account at the bottom of the market,” said Monique Morrissey, an economist with the Washington-based Economic Policy Institute. “It doesn’t make any sense at all.”
Ethan Kra, chief retirement actuary for business consultant Mercer, agreed with the idea of suspending the mandatory withdrawals.
“We’re seeing the greatest poverty among those who are the oldest,” he said. “I understand the IRS wants its money sooner rather than later, but you really don’t want people spending all their money in their early retirement years and not having it in their older years.”
A second proposal made by President-elect Obama would allow workers to make hardship withdrawals of up to 15 percent of their balance from individual retirement accounts or 401(k) plans this year and in 2009. A withdrawal of up to $10,000 would not be subject to the 10 percent early withdrawal penalty charged by the IRS, but normal income tax would be due.
Some economists believe too many 401(k) plans already are underfunded and too frequently tapped for loans or early withdrawals, and making such a change sends the wrong message.
“I know people are feeling pain, but if you raid the piggy bank every time there’s market downturn or recession, you will not have enough left in the piggy bank for old age,” Kra said.
Other reforms Obama has supported include:
—Eliminating income taxes for seniors making less than $50,000 a year. This would provide an immediate tax cut averaging $1,400 to 7 million seniors and relieve millions from the burden of filing tax returns.
—Creating automatic work place pensions by requiring employers who do not currently offer a retirement plan to enroll workers in a direct-deposit IRA account that is compatible with existing direct-deposit payroll systems. Employees may opt-out if they choose.
—Matching 50 percent of the first $1,000 of savings for families that earn less than $75,000 a year. The savings match will be automatically deposited into designated personal accounts.
—Regulating pensions more strictly by ensuring that bankruptcy courts cannot use pension funds to pay creditors ahead of some other company assets, prohibiting companies from giving executive bonuses while cutting worker pensions, and limiting the circumstances under which retiree benefits can be reduced.
Michael T. Townsend, vice president of legislative and regulatory affairs for Charles Schwab & Co. Inc. said Thursday that Congress could include the penalty-free withdrawal and required minimum distribution freeze ideas in a proposed new economic stimulus package expected to be considered if not in the lame-duck session of Congress, perhaps early in the next session.
“Obviously the financial crisis and the impact that has had — and that the market downturn has had — on people’s retirement savings, has really brought this issue much more to the forefront than we might have thought even a few months ago,” Townsend said. “There’s going to be a lot more attention paid to it.”
Obama’s organization was moving quickly this week from campaigning into planning the White House transition and the level of priority to be placed on the retirement issues wasn’t immediately clear. Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to comment Wednesday.
Townsend, who is based in Washington, said the excitement of the historic election is softened by the troubled economy, which was reflected in Obama’s acceptance speech. “I was really struck by just the tone that he set in that speech, which I think was acknowledgment to the reality of the economic state that he’s going to be inheriting.”
E-mail this story 
Printer-friendly version
Notice about comments:
The Post and Courier is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. The Post and Courier does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our Web site.
Full terms and conditions can be read here.
Comments
This article has 34 comment(s)
Posted by exorcist_pencocky4u on November 9, 2008 at 3:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You are sitting out there salivating for the bigger welfare check you just know is coming your way and you won't have to work for it..........
By January 2, 2011, America will have experienced the most massive tax increase in its history. Be careful what you pray for, it might just come true........
On January 1, 2011, the Standard Deduction for Joint Filers will shrink from 200 to 167 percent of the standard deduction for single filers, creating a marriage penalty.
Dividend rates paid on insurance policies and any other sources of dividends will rise to match standard income tax rates on January 1, 2009.
The Child credit will shrink from $1,000 to $500 per child on January 1, 2011.
Low-income taxpayers will see the 10-percent tax bracket disappear, and they will have to pay taxes at the 15-percent rate starting Jan 1, 2011.
These “TAX REDUCTIONS” were enacted under President George Bush by the “EVIL” Christian Republicans and set by the Socialist Democrats to completely expire by Jan 1, 2011.
This is a tax increase set in motion by Peloski, Reed, Obama, Dodds and Barney Frank, a time bomb set to go off January 1, 2011.
Posted by SimplyMad on November 9, 2008 at 7:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
He will not cut one tax. Taxes will go up. despite the fact that unions are the biggest part of the auto industries problems, the gov. will bail them out. "Blue" a team set up around the year 2000 to design small, fuel-efficient cars to compete with the Ja_panese, didn't get far because no one could figure out how to make money on low-priced compacts with Ford's high labor costs.
hope and change? I didnt see one new face standing behind him at his little dog and ponie show.
This guy is still an empty suit. the good news is, the democrats can just keep blaming Bush, the bad news is as things continue to get worse, the democrats will be in complete control, and they will be proven to be in-effective, inept, and exposed for the socialists they are.
all those that looked to obama to solve all your problems, good luck, because the same folks that got us here are still running both houses of congress.
Top all that with Russia basicaly laughing at obama, and threatening to put missles faceing poland. obama now saying he isnt sure about the missle shield, cutting the legs out from under an friend in Poland, NATO and the EU, now seeing a Russia that is not afraid of America under Obama. Iran, that sees obama as weak.
Israel, warning obama that "talking" to solve problems in the middle east is seen as weakness...
God help us!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-JTd-8vU...
Posted by SimplyMad on November 9, 2008 at 7:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by Liberaltime
The republican party is falling into one big steaming pile of crap
___________________________________________________________
Yep, and Obama and the democrats along with their sheeple, are rising out of that same pile of crap.
Liberaltime - I can see by your posts that debating you is useless, (your mind is distorted by hate and bitterness) you understand nothing about free markets, corporations create jobs, higher taxes destroy jobs.
But you dont care, you and your ilk are all about sticking it to the "man"..
Hate to break it to you, but your democrat friends are some of the richest folks in this country. Obama will be nothing more than a mouth piece for the same failed policies of tax and spend democrats, just as Bush went from conservative to the big spender, so will obama, he is not going to cut taxes. Obama VOTED for bushes energy plan.
fools.
Posted by SimplyMad on November 9, 2008 at 8:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
“I was really struck by just the tone that he set in that speech, which I think was acknowledgment to the reality of the economic state that he’s going to be inheriting.”
LMAO - he inherited it from HIS democrat friends, some of the bills they passed, HE voted on. So he is saying he is going to clean up his own mess!
Posted by SimplyMad on November 9, 2008 at 8:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Obama proposed a temporary suspension of the required minimum distribution rule, which forces tens of millions of retirees to take money out of their IRA and 401(k) accounts once they turn 701/2."
McCain's, idea, proposed during the debates.
________________
"A second proposal made by President-elect Obama would allow workers to make hardship withdrawals of up to 15 percent of their balance from individual retirement accounts or 401(k)
Some economists believe too many 401(k) plans already are underfunded and too frequently tapped for loans or early withdrawals, and making such a change sends the wrong message.
“I know people are feeling pain, but if you raid the piggy bank every time there’s market downturn or recession, you will not have enough left in the piggy bank for old age,” Kra said." - Why should they care Mr Kra? Uncle Sugar will bail them out, right?
______________________
What happen to that Social Security piggy bank? Oh yeah, the democrats have been raiding that for decades.
Posted by SimplyMad on November 9, 2008 at 8:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The only losers here are the hard woking American families, (non-union) and it will only get worse with every re-hatched failed socialist proposal Obama and his team of "experts" try.
Opps, that didnt work, lets try this...
Posted by moonpie on November 9, 2008 at 8:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey "liberal" if your for it then you must be on the welfare doles. Tell me where it says in the constitution that it's governments job to take care of your every need? Healthcare, your babies, "your mortgage, your gas"??
The Gov by both parties has gotten out of hand and is getting ready to get bigger, much bigger. Our politcis are amazing.
Posted by SimplyMad on November 9, 2008 at 10:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The weaping has not yet started, but when it does, it will be by those that depend on failed policies of government intrusion and control through liberal or marxist ideoligies, to make their lives "better".
_________________________________________________________
Socialistic wealth redistribution including any and all tax increases and big-government welfare programs.
Silencing conservatives through the Fairness Doctrine and other efforts that restrict free speech.
Open border anarchy including amnesty for illegal aliens and promotion of multi-nation “unions”.
Government-run health care that weakens our system and imposes more tax burdens on citizens.
Weakening of our military through rapid pullback from Iraq, defunding our troops and overall disarmament.
Liberal court activism that undermines faith, family and liberties while expanding government control.
Post-American globalismthat diminishes our global role and threatens our national sovereignty.
Environmental extremism, the CO2 tax,
undermining coal and nuclear, and bans on
exploration.
_____________________________________________________
His cut and run policies are already taking place, and teh socialist of Europe, will be the ones that pay the price;
Barack Obama has made no commitment that a missile defense shield in eastern Europe will go ahead, an advisor to the president-elect said Saturday, in apparent contradiction of statements by Poland.
Earlier, a statement from Polish President Lech Kaczynski after the two men spoke by telephone said Obama had said he would go ahead with plans to build a missile defense shield in eastern Europe despite threats from Russia.
____________________________________
Israel Warns Obama on Talks with Iran
November 07, 2008
Associated Press
JERUSALEM - Israel's foreign minister said Thursday that President-elect Barack Obama shouldn't talk to Iran just yet, warning that such dialogue could project "weakness" - a first sign of disagreement with the incoming American administration.
http://www.military.com/news/article/isr...
Posted by ltgrunt on November 9, 2008 at 10:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It's amazing how some of you have become so entrenched in your dogma that you don't even realize what a good step this is for American workers, especially the middle class.
Giving us more control over our retirement accounts and making it harder for failing businesses to steal money from our 401k accounts is a victory for us, not a defeat.
It's like some of you are so indoctrinated with what your party tells you to believe that you refuse to accept or understand anything that Obama or other Democrats say or do. Obama could find a cure for cancer, but let a Republican journalist write an article on it and all you'll believe is that he's trying to screw over doctors, drug companies and big business health care.
Try actually thinking for yourselves and examining the pros and cons that each candidate represents for you as an individual instead of simply buying into the rehetoric of your party.
Posted by yird on November 9, 2008 at 10:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
There's some good in all evil.
After "The One' has ascended to the throne of power he will be pushing his socialist programs, and with aid of the rest of the scum we call legislators, ratcheting up the pain level on all taxpayers.
It needs to get real bad!
So bad that people forgo niceties and procedures adopted when we were a civilized nation.
If the communistic fairness doctrine is re established you can bet your balls their coming after our guns next.
That will be the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country. Where have we heard that before?
Of course those of color reading this will see the Klan or some other insidious organization behind this.
I wonder how many of them know that many of the gun laws adopted by their beloved deomcrap leaders were designed to prevent coloreds from acquiring guns.
Hey Liberaltime, don't let the Dems use you any longer. Read some of Thomas Sowell's (a black man, if you didn't already know)writings and and learn something of value for a CHANGE!
If another war erupts on American soil it won't be between North and South. It will be them, (the federal government)and us.
If that happens one good point is it wont take years to draft and ratify a constitution. We have one that' been out of service for years but is still in working order!
Posted by guidedbystewart on November 9, 2008 at 10:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I like the idea of someone looking out for the middle and working class, we all know the republicans have not been doing so. BTW the man has been sticking it to us for a while, and nope I do not receive a welfare check.
Posted by SimplyMad on November 9, 2008 at 10:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The 401(k) was a plan, get people to save for their own retirement in addition to Social Security.
- It came into play during the Reagan years
- It reduces your taxable income.
George Miller,heads the House committee that deals with 401(k)s, said;
- we have to eliminate this tax subsidy.
- The government is losing $80 billion a year.
- We can't afford to lose this kind of money.
- There many people that don't need this tax break anymore.
- So what we're going to do, we're going to take away the whole notion that you get to deduct from your gross whatever you contribute to your 401(k).
The plan by Teresa Ghilarducci;
- eliminate the 401(k), to do it the government wants to go to people who have a 401(k), who have seen its asset value plummet because of the market plunge, go back to August levels.
- Everybody that has a 401(k), government will take you back and give you money, restore the value.
- The government will just print some money restore your 401(k) to its August amount.
- Then take your 401(k), put it in your Social Security account that the government is monitoring for you, and invest every year 3% in government bonds.
- They'll buy government bonds so that your 401(k) will grow at 3% every year adjusted for inflation.
- The most that you will be able to contribute to your 401(k) every year is 5% of what you earn.
- So the bottom line is, they'll take your 401(k) and put it in Social Security. They give you 3% a year plus 5% of your gross added, and then at the end when you retire, you get one check. Your Social Security check plus whatever your 401(k) is. The government takes over your 401(k).
- this is the kind of thing that Reid and Pelosi will go for.
Eyeing Your Pension Are 401(k)s safe from congressional Democrats?
The current system of providing tax breaks on 401(k) contributions and earnings would be eliminated.
"I want to stop the federal subsidy of 401(k)s," Ghilarducci said in an interview. "401(k)s can continue to exist, but they won't have the benefit of the subsidy of the tax break."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12247768...
Posted by SimplyMad on November 9, 2008 at 10:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by guidedbystewart on November 9, 2008 at 10:44 a.m.
II like the idea of someone looking out for the middle and working class, we all know the republicans have not been doing so.
____________________________________________
Funny thing is, we have heard that before - but it was a democrat. Now many of Bill's friends are in the Obama staff...yep, thats change!
-------------------------------------------
On Jan. 19, 1992 Bill Clinton said, "I want to make it very clear that this middle-class tax cut, in my view, is central to any attempt we're going to make to have a short-term economic strategy."
But on Jan. 14, 1993 at a press conference, Bill Clinton said, "From New Hampshire forward, for reasons that absolutely mystified me, the press thought the most important issue in the race was the middle-class tax cut. "I never did meet any voter who thought that."
On Sept. 8,1992, Bill Clinton said, "The only people who will pay more income taxes are the wealthiest 2 percent, those living in households making over $200,000 a year."
In response to a Bush-Quayle ad that people with incomes of as little as $36,000 would pay more taxes under the Clinton plan, Bill Clinton said on Oct. 1, 1992, "It's a disgrace to the American people that the president (Bush) of the United States would make a claim that is so baseless, that is so without foundation, so shameless in its attempt to get votes under false pretenses."
Yet the NY TIMES in the analysis of Clinton's budget wrote, "There are tax increases for every family making more than $20,000 a year!"
"While Clinton continued to defend his middle-class tax cut publicly, he privately expressed the view to his advisers that it was intellectually dishonest." (The Agenda, by Bob Woodward, p. 31)
In Business Week, July 6, 1992, Bill Clinton was quoted as saying, "When I began the campaign, the projected deficit was $250 billion. Now its up to $400 billion."
However in Time Magazine. 2 weeks later, Bill Clinton was quoted as saying, "When I started in New Hampshire working with those numbers, we felt the deficit was going to be around $250 billion a year, not $400 billion." Which is it, Bill?
But then he said on Feb. 10, 1993, "The deficit of this country is about $50 billion a year bigger than I was told it was going to be before the election." --our President said this after "discovering" that the deficit was $290 billion, $110 Billion LESS than he had claimed in July! Which story are we to believe from our president??
President Clinton said on March 23, 1993 at a press conference: "M economic package will cut $500 billion from the deficit in five years." Yet the projected deficit in 1998 with Clinton's budget is $234 billion, the projected deficit in 2001 with Clinton budget is $401 billion.(These figures come from Bill Clinton's budget document, "A Vision of Change for America."-Feb. 1993.
Posted by yird on November 9, 2008 at 10:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ltgrunt "Giving us more control over our retirement accounts and making it harder for failing businesses to steal money from our 401k accounts is a victory for us, not a defeat"
Are you really that f$$$ing stupid?
When you opted to participate in an Ira or 401K plan you already ceded control of your money to someone else.
Now the reincarnation of FDR is wanting to eventually incorporate the IRA and 401K plans into the miserably managed social security fiasco.
Remember super brain, what the government giveth the government taketh away.
Posted by SimplyMad on November 9, 2008 at 10:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
My Brilliant Shariah
The Daily Lobo, student newspaper at the University of New Mexico, reports on a novel proposal for curing America's economic ills:
The U.S. may be able to solve its financial troubles by being more like Middle Eastern countries.
At least that's what Loretta Napoleoni, author of Rogue Economics: Capitalism's New Reality, said during a presentation in the SUB [Student Union Building] on Wednesday.
She said the banking systems in Islamist countries operate according to religious laws and are more successful for it. . . .
Napoleoni said that in Islamist finance, banks do not charge interest for loans and that this encourages entrepreneurs.
"Money has to be invested," she said. "It has to be invested in the real economy, and through real growth, they can produce more money. This system could help us to get out of the current crisis."
According to the CIA World Factbook, in 2007 Saudi Arabia, which practices Shariah (Islamic law) had a per capita gross domestic product of $19,800. Of course America might not quite be able to match this, since the Saudis have insane amounts of oil wealth. Probably we'd end up somewhere between Saudi Arabia and Yemen, a country that borders Saudi Arabia but has no oil to speak of, where the per capita GDP was $2,500.
Then again, the per capita GDP of America was $45,800. So it's just possible we're doing something right.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12247768...
Posted by diablo_tonto on November 9, 2008 at 11:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ltgrunt speaks the truth on this matter.......
Posted by mkris on November 9, 2008 at 11:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by SimplyMad on November 9, 2008 at 10:50 a.m.:
"The 401(k) was a plan, get people to save for their own retirement in addition to Social Security.
- It came into play during the Reagan years
- It reduces your taxable income."
Horsepucky.....
401(k)s were proposed by large capitalized corporations that provided defined benefit pensions to its employees. It was sold to the american public as a way to save for retirement and increase the value of pension payouts becuase the "market" would allow the 401(k) to pay large pension payments.
IT WAS A LOAD OF CRAP... The real reason was that the defined benift plans reguired cororpations to fund the plan sufficently so that it could pay out the defined benefit
to its employees. The risk of loss remained with teh corporation throughout the pension payout. Consequently the pension rule required LOTS OF CASH. The REPUBLICANS and corporations wanted to TAP the cash... by creating 401(k) plans they were able to purchase a lower cost, but now worthless annuity (Equitable, now bankrupt) with the cash then the coropration could take the excess CASH.
REGAN AND HIS ADMINISTRATION WERE NO BETTER THAN THIEVES.
Posted by guidedbystewart on November 9, 2008 at 11:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
simply or evil or proletariat,
How full is your hard drive with info (as you would say) or propaganda (as I would say)?
just curious?
Posted by yird on November 9, 2008 at noon (Suggest removal)
GetSerious It's plain to see that like all typical liberals you just come completely unglued when confronted with logic.
Beautiful intelligent Sarah Palin scares the pants off you weak minded wimps on the left.
When she moves into what's left of the white house in 2012 she's going to take away your pacifier.
Posted by CedarPosts on November 9, 2008 at 3:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't know why anyone would even waste the keystrokes debating King Obama's plan.
Congress will approve whatever he floats past their desks.
So you might as well lube up and bend over!
Posted by SimplyMad on November 9, 2008 at 5:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
CedarPosts, you have it backwards, Obama, will approve anything that Pelosi and Reid put on his desk. After all, he has never made a stand against his own party. Biden, will be pulling the strings.
guidedby, dont know who you have me confused with.
getserious, after going through some of your past posts, it is obvious that you have a very deluded and abnormal or misguided, mind. Your thought prosseces are at best ignorant and at worst a weak and clownish attempt to provoke anger.
You are the one that needs serious help.
Posted by SimplyMad on November 9, 2008 at 6:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Farrakhan Says Obama 'New Beginning'
CHICAGO (AP) ―
In a Sunday address celebrating President-elect Barack Obama, Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan said Obama has a God-given capacity to handle any burdens he'll face as the nation's leader.
Farrakhan added that Obama will only be able to make positive changes with help from "God and people of good will," and he urged the Chicago-based movement's followers to do their part.
___________________________________________________
SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE! lol, what a bunch of hypocrites. But most sane Americans already knew that.
Posted by BlueGrits on November 9, 2008 at 6:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Jeezus krist, you repubs never cease to amaze me. President Elect Obama is proposing to ease the financial burdens of the middle class with an emphasis on the elderly.
But the right wing echo chamber of fear and loathing still continue here.
Thanks for reminding us why we so decisively voted the right-wing idiot brigade out of office.
Posted by SimplyMad on November 9, 2008 at 6:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
getserious, not sure who you mistake me for, but, my posting are very easily proved and verified.
But I dont expect a small and insignificant, 6 time deleted poster like yourself to grasp the truth. After all, D-bag, seems to be your most intellectual expression.
Now, if you and your fellow blind, Obama, worshippers can refute my posts, please do.
BTW, I didnt know the Wall Street Journal was a right wing propaganda source.
I have cut and pasted all of your accusatory posts of drug use by McCain and President Bush and sent them to the FCC and the FBI, and several media outlets.
Words, have meaning, and you are nothing more than a coward, hiding behind a keyboard, thinking there are no consequences. But alas, there are.
Posted by SimplyMad on November 9, 2008 at 6:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
An Obama Tilt in Campaign Coverage
By Deborah Howell
Sunday, November 9, 2008;
The Post provided a lot of good campaign coverage, but readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...
Posted by SimplyMad on November 9, 2008 at 6:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
bluegrits, learn a little truth about taxes;
the richest 1% paid about 39% of all income taxes that year. The richest 5% paid a tad less than 60%, and the richest 10% paid 70%. These tax shares are all up substantially since 1990, and even somewhat since 2000. Meanwhile, Americans with an income below the median -- half of all households -- paid a mere 3% of all income taxes in 2005. The richest 1.3 million tax-filers -- those Americans with adjusted gross incomes of more than $365,000 in 2005 -- paid more income tax than all of the 66 million American tax filers below the median in income. Ten times more.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB11978620...
Posted by BlueGrits on November 9, 2008 at 8:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
SimplyMad is it?
The wealthy pay a disproportionately small share of the overall tax burden. Of course this becomes easy to miss when you fail to take into consideration things like the diminishing marginal utility of currency.
The wealthy have been major beneficiaries of the revenue reduction measures passed by the Bush Administration over the last five years that your nice little chart eludes to. In particular, the wealthy have benefited from the reduction by more than half of the rate they pay on the dividends they receive (from 35% to 15%) and the reduction in the capital gains rate, since the wealthiest taxpayers are the ones who receive disproportionately more of their income in dividends and capital gains than ordinary taxpayers.
Posted by guidedbystewart on November 9, 2008 at 9:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by SimplyMad on November 9, 2008 at 6:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
bluegrits, learn a little truth about taxes;
"the richest 1% paid about 39% of all income taxes that year. The richest 5% paid a tad less than 60%, and the richest 10% paid 70%. These tax shares are all up substantially since 1990, and even somewhat since 2000. Meanwhile, Americans with an income below the median -- half of all households -- paid a mere 3% of all income taxes in 2005. The richest 1.3 million tax-filers -- those Americans with adjusted gross incomes of more than $365,000 in 2005 -- paid more income tax than all of the 66 million American tax filers below the median in income. Ten times more."
More half truthes, the things is the richest 10% own 98% of the wealth. So if they are just paying 70% of the taxes, they are getting off very easy.
You list the percentage of income not the amount. The thing is the middle class pay a higher percentage of their income the richest 10% ever thought about paying. Again flawed logic!!!
Posted by chucktonian on November 10, 2008 at 12:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
what will be priceless about the obama administration will be when all of the dunderheads that voted for him don't get their big welfare check in their mailbox.
Obama has 3 choices:
-continue to borrow and spend, eventually bankrupting the country
-raise taxes, killing economic growth
-cut spending drastically, something he won't do
america is approaching its capacity to borrow...pretty soon the chinese, indians and saudis will own everything because we cannot stop spending
Posted by yird on November 10, 2008 at 10:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
GetSerious; You and the other retard,GuidedbySewerage need to continue posting as much as possible,insuring an endless steam of entertainment for us adults.
One of you clowns majored in psychology or some such foolishness and the other (or maybe the same on,who cares?)claims knowledge of Marx and socialism acquired in an academic setting.
Both of you display the mental acuity of an adolescent chimpanzee and I know grownups shouldn't make fun of the severely handicapped but you two along with liberaltime ltgrunt and spankedbrains and other bottomfeeders are so much entertainment for others that I feel justified taking a little liberty in that regard.
Spanky and the gang for 08?
One of you,Getdelirious I think, tried to have me "booted off" and claimed not to know about it. How absolutely stupid can you be? Did you learn anything at all in psycho class?
You probably tried to have EvilGenius "booted off" also.
Looks like the best thing you succeed at is failure
Getting back to the root "topic";
kiss your IRA and 401K plans goodbye as this fool elected by fools takes them over and destroys them instead of leaving them alone.
The stock market always recovers, the government never does.
It only raises taxes.
Posted by Neponset on November 16, 2008 at 10:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I have tried to read thru the above comments, but most of them are just too long and polarized. I have given up. Try to be brief.
Here is a joke. We put an apostrophe between the “O” and “b” and he becomes black Irish, whatever that means. O’bama
From what I hear on Fox, O’bama has surrounded him self with moderates and my be he just made a lot promises that he never intended to keep and may not be all that bad. Let’s hope O’bama does not become the next Hoover, who took a big hit for the Depression.
Posted by Tides on November 16, 2008 at 3:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I have every good reason to have no trust, no faith, or no belief in this racist, radical whacko.
Don't you just love his church and their sermons? So full of hate and racism.
Posted by Tides on November 16, 2008 at 3:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Don't forget ... Obama has ZERO experience at anything! Nothing .. Nadda .. A rookie with whacked out thoughts and views and beliefs.
Already he is having trouble keeping his mouth shut on sensitive chat. He doesn't know what he is doing. And his advisors will help him drive the US train off the cliff. You will see. By this time next year you idiots who think this mixed up sick puppy is a messiah are going to eat your votes in total shame when you have all the woes he will insure to us all wash up at your doorstep.
Posted by ltgrunt on November 16, 2008 at 6:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Don't forget, Tides, Obama has more experience in government than you do. Experience and indoctrination in politics don't guarantee good leadership - outgoing President Bush is strong enough evidence of that. He's had years of experience in politics, including years spent as governor of Texas, not to mention having his family's political experience to rely on. And yet, out of the many other choices we're hard-pressed to find another president who has been so out-of-touch with and responded as poorly to conflicts and crises.
Still, it's inaccurate to say that Obama has zero experience at anything. Literally speaking, that's just plain impossible unless a person spends their entire life in a coma. Metaphorically speaking, the statement is still erroneous, as Obama's career of political and civil service didn't start with his bid for the presidency, nor did it start with his senate position in Illinois.
I feel compelled to go ahead and say that it's a cheap shot to suggest that everyone who voted for Obama did so only for a welfare check. To so insult not only the character but also the intelligence of every single person who voted for him is shameful. Honestly, your parents should have taught you better. Most of the people who voted for him did so because they believe that his plans (if he was telling the truth, which recent statistics show that campaign promises are kept more often than not) will leave the country in a better position when he leaves office than it was in when he arrived in office. People voted for him for the same reasons they vote for other politicians, and he won for the same reasons that other politicians win. Your preferred candidate lost, and that's disappointing, sure, but isn't it time to grow up and stop telling lies?
On a more flippant note, even if he doesn't live up to his promises, Obama would have to do a hell of a lot to make this country worse than it already is. After our last president, a lot of us have been killed and a lot of us are unemployed and/or poor. The only way it could get worse is if all of us were killed, unemployed and poor.