Of course he quickly reversed that position so I don't think anyone woud hardly want to base anything on that.

even more and screws the middle class to do so.

in terms of the number that matters: the $$ owed in taxes.

The top rate only impacts a small fraction of tax payers.

It is the rates in the lower brackets, and the credits, that impact the middle class. Unless you earn more than about $100K/yr Obama's plan is better for you personally.

It's not a ruse, it's a perfectly logical implementation of the liberal safety-net ideology. If you don't like it then vote Republican... just don't be surprised if spending doesn't actually get cut (look at their record), leading to continued growth in the debt that will require higher taxes and/or savage spending cuts at some point.

(Also, not all of Obama's proposed spending is financed by tax cuts. Decreased spending on the war is a huge financial saver, and there are other claimed savings; for example, projected net economic gains from streamlining health care could in theory also help.)

12% and 0% in federal income tax instead.

BTW, 27% seems not only high but odd. How much of your income is taxed at 27%?

I pay 0% in State and 0% in Federal income taxes.

I've actually never paid Federal income taxes because I've never made enough after deductions and credits, and due to my income this year (~$4,000) I doubt I'll pay any again.

Link 1 doesn't work. Use the "preview comment" button!

Link 2 does some nice sleight-of-hand. No workers need to be laid off unless our friendly businessman demands the same profitability as last year. And if the guy is making $400,000/yr, he should be paying $170,000ish in taxes.

Link 3: Naked stocks aren't meant for retirement. 401(k)s and IRAs are. I'm not losing any sleep.

Link 4: The Democrats have tried to amend the estate tax to fully exempt family farms, but the Republicans have voted it down. And if we look at this handy document

Despite the fact that the argument has been made over and over again for years, no one has found an example of a farm that was lost because of estate taxes. Last year, a New York Times article cited the unsuccessful search of an Iowa farm economist for one family farm that was lost because of the estate tax. That same April 2001 article notes that the American Farm Bureau Federation could not cite a single example.

That shouldn't be a surprise. Very few farms are affected by the estate tax.

In 1998, less than six percent of all farms had a net worth of $1.3 million, the amount of an estate that is completely exempt if it includes a family-owned farm. By 2009, estates of up to $3.5 million will be completely exempt. Less than one percent of all farm estates would be subject to estate tax at that point.

Farms are a small portion of taxable estates, about one-quarter of one percent of all assets in taxable estates in 1997. Farm and family-owned business assets accounted for less than four percent of all assets in taxable estates of less than $5 million.

Not to mention the guy is now a millionaire through no "fault" of his own. I wouldn't be sneezing at that.

I don't know how common the 2nd and third scenarios, but the 4th obviously isn't.

And finally, after looking at the last link, I'm pretty sure Obama doesn't go far enough with the top tax rate (I'd prefer something near 50%) or with capital gains (I'd also prefer something near 50%).

THERE ARE THINGS CALLED "EXEMPTIONS"

The devil is in the details.

Fight to include exemptions instead of acting like there is no such thing, the POTUS can write bills, but the POTUS cannot introduce bills or pass them through the House.

ditto on Stinerman's remarks