House Dems look at Surtax on the Wealthy

[The Hope Mobile]

Source: AP

(edited for copyright purposes-proud patriot Moderator Democratic Underground)


House Dems look at surtax on the wealthy

WASHINGTON – A plan to raise taxes on the wealthy is emerging as the leading option among House Democrats looking to finance health care legislation that President Barack Obama wants.

Numerous officials say that under the proposal, an income tax surcharge would be imposed on individuals earning more than $200,000, with a higher threshold for couples.

The same officials say earlier options under consideration have been abandoned. Among them was a proposal to raise the payroll tax that finances Medicare. The officials spoke anonymously to discuss private discussions.

House Democrats hope to unveil legislation on Friday that reins in the overall growth of health care spending, at the same time it extends coverage to millions who lack insurance.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Democrats edged away Wednesday from their goal of passing ambitious health care legislation by early August amid heightening partisan controversy over tax increases and a proposed new government role in providing insurance to consumers.

"I think the ultimate goal is to have a bill by the end of this year" that is signed into law by President Barack Obama, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said in an interview with The Associated Press. He said Democrats would make "every effort to stick to the timetable" that included initial Senate action by August.

Separately, Republicans who met with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he expressed flexibility on the timetable, indicating he was willing to allow more time before legislation is brought to the floor.

(snip)

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090708/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul;_ylt=AkxQ6qme0hVM3WjWe6Xpch9H2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTM3Z2tlZm9vBGFzc2V0Ay9hcC8yMDA5MDcwOC9hcF9vbl9nb19jby91c19oZWFsdGhfY2FyZV9vdmVyaGF1bARjcG9zAzMEcG9zAzMEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yaWVzBHNsawN

---

NOW THAT'S THE KINDA CHANGE I'M LOOKING FOR!!!

[kestrel91316]

1. Works for me. The only way I could EVER make anywhere near $200k

is if I won the lottery and made big bucks on interest and capital gains on invested winnings. And then I'd be happy to pay taxes. I don't have an extravagant lifestyle, and don't desire lots and lots of material possessions.

[The Hope Mobile]

4. He should be taxing the crap out of the extremely wealthy to make up

for what's been stolen from the rest for the last few decades but especially the last 8 years.

[Optical.Catalyst]

8. Employ the the Tax Code in a targeted manner to recoup the windfall of Bush's tax cuts for the rich

It is time to get back the money the wealthy owe the American people with interest.

The marginal tax rate should be very progressive on the richest of the rich.

[The Hope Mobile]

9. Right, exactly!

[natrat]

41. i agree -mega tax on 2million and up-

[KakistocracyHater]

75. 5 million & up would be good, also agree to collect businesses' taxes

they owe the golden state quite a bit. In exchange for this, the businesses wipe out all state debt. What is money anyway? You just take their 'paper' back taxes & pretend they've paid in full, FOR EXCHANGE CA gets deficit wiped, clean & good.

It's all just on paper-what is debt, what is wealth?

[No Elephants]

80. Or even just the past year.

[wtbymark]

2. this isn't

a so-called public option "can only have one purposes ... to lead to a single-payer program" under which all policies are issued by the government.

"That is a non-starter," he said.

Dear Prez. Obama,
if there's not a STRONG public option, you must send a STRONG message back to the senate. VETO

[No Elephants]

81. That is exactly why Baucus's stated preference for a bi-partisan bill is code

for no public option.

Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., who did not attend the meeting in Reid's office, later told reporters a so-called public option "can only have one purposes ... to lead to a single-payer program" under which all policies are issued by the government.

"That is a non-starter," he said.

Did not attend the meeting. Didn't want to risk having a fact or two confuse him, I guess.

Of course, that public option has only the purpose of leading to single payer is one of those BIG LIES of which Republicans seem so fond. The purposes of the public option are to make sure Americans have affordable health insurance and that consumers have real choices about health care, not only a choice between Tweedle Dum Insurance Co. and Tweedle Dede Insurance Co.

BTW, where the hell do the non starter minority Republicans get off dictating to the voters' overwhelming choices? Why do Democrats even allow this?



The one bright note: Gregg never became Obama's Secretary of Commerce.

[Gman2]

3. This is huge. They need to get anything they do past the GAO!

They are going all pragmatic. And not pulling their punches.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

5. Misleading title, its income, not wealth that is being targeted

The two are not the same. Also there is that gross/net thing to address.

[The Hope Mobile]

7. I didn't choose the title - the AP did nt

[texastoast]

6. Oh, this won't work

We need a luxury tax. Any car over $15,000 should have a tax. Yachts should be taxed. Second homes. Harleys if you have other transportation. Jewelry. Van Goghs. Boats for Texans who have to drive more than 200 miles to get to the water to put them in. :7

Crap you don't need that once you get it, all it does is cause worry--insurance and insurance claims (making premiums go up for the rest of us), dusting, storage, wrapping in plastic (for storage, you see--oh, war for oil for plastic wrap), tree removal for storage units, filing for titles, filing cabinets to keep all the paperwork, etc.

Now that I read this, should my handmade in America shoes be luxury taxed? I buy only two pair every three or four years (nothing like shoes handmade by an old hippie who gives a good foot rub while getting measured). Wouldn't want the artists to go wanting.

[PSzymeczek]

24. There are no cars

that cost under $15,000. My '03 Saturn cost $16,000. Over $30,000, maybe.

[texastoast]

51. Okay, over 30

But you can drive a new car for under $15,000.


http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/new-cars-under-15000.htm

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1133850/top_5_new_cars_under_15000.html

http://www.buyingadvice.com/new-car-prices1.html

[earcandle]

32. Oh I want to meet him! Is he local? (San Francisco)

[texastoast]

50. He's local to you

Do you want me to PM you with the info?

[earcandle]

67. Yes, thank you!

[WriteDown]

44. Yeah, because nothing spells revenue...

like taxing items with low sales volume :eyes:

[texastoast]

49. Low sales +

High price = some revenue. We need all we can get and this is one of the many coffers.

[mainer]

92. And unfortunately, this will but American boat builders out of work

A lot of fine American craftsmen work on boats here in Maine. For all the revenue the government would get on taxing yachts, it'd be more than lost when those craftsmen go on unemployment.

[Hulk]

10. Geeee...what a novel idea.

But what about all the "trickle down shit" we are still looking forward to?

Guess there are going to be a lot of folks moving off shore, eh?

I wonder how those rich ass holes are feeling now with the Swiss banks dropping their names out of the dark?

It's rough to be rich. My sister is probably cursing and swearing up a blue streak at the Democrats now.

[No Elephants]

82. We already got the trickle down. Problem was, that was followed by a tsunami up.

[Mr. Sparkle]

11. The sooner they do this the better, imho. Hopefully it will soak up some of the money that goes to

right wing organizations, which there seems to be an unlimited supply of.

[wurzel]

12. $200K is too low. Go after the really rich. $1000K+ @ 75% rate

[ProgressiveProfessor]

16. ll they do then is hide their income...its easy to do under the current tax code

[Lucky Luciano]

20. $200K is too low...but 75% is too high no matter the income. nt

[The Hope Mobile]

22. agreed!!!

and the tax code needs to be changed!!

[No Elephants]

83. Almost a quarter of a million dollars per year is a good starting point for a progressive tax.

A rate of 75% is not going to happen and, IMO, would be confiscatory.

[mainer]

93. Everyone always thinks the other guy is rich.

Anyone making $10 K more than they make is "too much." You have to start somewhere, and $200 K sounds about right. Otherwise the pool of "donors" is too small.

[KamaAina]

13. Class warfare! Class warfare!!

Why do those Democraps hate America so much? :sarcasm:

[mark olson]

14. Brother challenged me that I consider anybody with a car, house, & a job as rich.

What the hell can I say. He is on my case every night. We get into big fights over politics. He points out how the definition of rich & wealthy keeps changing and then he says and laughs his ass off "pretty soon anybody with a job, a house, and a car will be considered rich". Piss me off.

[wroberts189]

17. How much does he make? Ask him if he thinks he is rich .. hehe nt

[No Elephants]

84. Please keep moronic Republican spew to yourself, regardless of its alleged source. No one here cares

[wroberts189]

15. Baucus: "by far a better approach is a bipartisan approach."

And why would that be?


What a load of bull.

[ProudDad]

66. Bipartisan - the Insurance corporations and Drug Companies are BOTH happy! (n/t)

[No Elephants]

85. Please see Reply # 81. And "you ain't just whistlin' Dixie!"

[wroberts189]

18. btw KNR

[dysfunctional press]

19. the money can only come from where the money is.

simple physics.

[No Elephants]

86. I get it, but that's much like the justification for "trickle down economics."

[Psephos]

21. What happened to the promise that no family under $250K would see a dime more of tax?

That was simple declarative promise with strong resonance across the country. It said "trust me, I understand the economic trouble you're facing, and I promise not to increase what you pay to the government."

Meanwhile, tobacco taxes have already been raised, which as everyone knows (but pretends to forget) are extraordinarily regressive. (I.e., they suck money out of poor pockets much more than from rich pockets.)

They're also floating proposals to stiffly increase taxes on alcohol and soda, too. More regressive taxation. Going after your beer and your Cokes.

Note that all of the above, being tax increases on families making less than $250,000, also break the campaign promise to a sizable majority of the "exempt" families.

Here's actual vid of Obama's pledge.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8erePM8V5U

"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase...not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not *any* of your taxes."

This is uncool. One of the things I looked forward to most after finally flushing * down the drain was again being able to trust that what the President says is true, and what he promises, he will abide.

[christx30]

36. Obama is a politician.

He said what he had to in order to get elected.
Thanks to * the country is broke. The government is going to make up for what it lost in the last 8 years... and probably then some. Taxes on Coke or cigarettes is just the beginning. When both parties are done, no man, woman, or child in this country is going to be able to breathe without paying some kind of tax on it. The weathy will pay gobs of money in income taxes. The poor will pay in their own way, in the form of increased fees, traffic enforcement,
Call it regressive or whatever. Complain all you want to about it. It's just the way it is.

[24601]

70. So did Bush (1st) - I remember "Read my lips" and how it sank

him in 1992. Despite the reason for the increase, it was taken as a direct betrayal of a core promise. He never recovered from it and lost reelection even with Desert Storm.

[No Elephants]

87. The economy and 41's apparent clueness about it had a great deal to do with his defeat.

[brendan120678]

46. Rule number 1 of elections...

Never EVER believe a single word that comes out of the mouth of someone campaigning for office.

[No Elephants]

89. Should we base our decisons on the candidates' wardrobe, then?

Voters need to start holding politicians accountable for their campaign bs. It takes more work than posting "I'm not surprised" on a message board and hoping that seems terribly wise and sophisticated, but it's necessary. And we hold them accountable by reminding them every chance we get, by reminding the media to remind them, and by primarying them if all else fails. Enough of lifetime seats in Congress and lifetime relationships with K Street.

[ProudDad]

72. Ok, tax anyone who makes over $250,000 or has assets over $10 million

at 110% !!!

There, pledge honored...

[24601]

96. I've heard of proposals before on taxing wealth instead of

income. Under your system, when someone has over $10M assets, how does this work? Let's look at the numbers of an example. Say for example that the Kerrys have $900 Million in assets - so you would tax them - I'll presume a one time shot - at 110% - which results in their wealth tax being $990 Million. After they liquidate all their homes, cars, stocks & insurance policies, let's say that, although unlikely, they were able to get 100% of the appraised value which they paid, leaving a debt of only $90 Million. So at this point, he has no property save the clothes on his back, OK be generous and let them each keep a suitcase of clean clothes - and a Senate job worth paying under $200,000 per year.

While the guy who had no income, but assets of $9 Million still has it all. How is this fair or right?

But I suppose the Kerrys got of easy, with your plan Bill Gates and Warren Buffet both go broke and owe Billions!

Nice Job ProudDad.

[mainer]

100. Let's call a wealth "surcharge" what it really is: confiscation.

What Germany did to Jews before the Holocaust.

But an income tax surcharge is a different animal. One I could support (even though I'll get dinged by it.)

[Zhade]

99. Uh, have you not noticed Obama breaking promise after promise?

Like, say, restoring the rule of law?

Face it, he talks a good game -- but it's all talk.

[PSzymeczek]

23. It's time to return

to a truly PROGRESSSIVE income tax! And make the damn corporations pay their fair share!!!

[Abq_Sarah]

27. How much more are you willing to pay

For goods and services? Jack up the taxes on corporations and it gets paid by customers.

[heliarc]

29. Exactly... Tax the individuals who take home inordinate salaries. nt

[Abq_Sarah]

33. A couple of years ago

I read an article that posited the average American pays 40% of their income in taxes when you figure payroll, federal, state, local and all the myriad products we use that Congress and the states slapped taxes upon. It doesn't seem we're getting a whole lot of bang for our buck down here in the middle class. Taxing businesses at a higher rate always comes up in revenue generating discussions but in the end, it harms the middle class and poor far more than it harms the wealthy.

[Lasher]

38. But corporations are people.

Didn't you get the memo?

[heliarc]

55. corpus... for body nt

[heliarc]

54. Enact and enforce laws on offshore hedging and slush funds...

And maybe it would be different.

We're getting a bang for the buck in Afghanistan. Problem is, I'd rather our tax dollars didn't go to Raytheon and Halliburton.

[Lasher]

61. Other industrialized nations have health care for everyone.

And yet we pay about the same amount of taxes that they do. The thing is, we spend our money on different things, like the new aircraft carrier USS Poppy Bush.

[ProudDad]

64. 'cause most of it goes for war and corruption, NOT services... (n/t)

[ProudDad]

73. Average is a bullshit concept

The rich and the corporations are hardly taxed at all.

The poor and working classes are hit heavily with regressive taxes.

As I said earlier; 110% marginal rate on incomes over $250,000 and assets over $10,000,000...

[ProudDad]

65. Nope, gets paid for by the "shareholders" if you do it right (n/t)

[mbperrin]

88. Taxes are only paid by customers if the company is already selling at

their merchandise at less than market value.

Otherwise, the market price is what they can get. Any tax increase comes out of their profits, as it should.

If they could just raise prices to compensate for tax increases, they could just raise prices indefinitely, and no business would ever fail. But they do, so they can't.

I deal with this myth in the classroom every semester when we get to taxes. Company pricing power is limited (thank gawd), and once a company is charging all that people will pay, any increase in taxes, wages, regulation, resource prices, rents, utilities, comes out of their hide.

So basically, only the customers of companies too dumb to know they're selling under market will see an increase in prices due to an increase in taxes. One of the purposes of any tax is to recover infrastructure costs incurred by the taxed. If it isn't, infrastructure crumbles with no money for maintenance, upkeep, or replacement.

There is no doubt that companies of any size are severely undertaxed and that you and I subsidize their existence with our taxes and general debt.

[NBachers]

25. Harry Reid: "Please give repukes more time to sabotage us. Please"

"Separately, Republicans who met with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he expressed flexibility on the timetable, indicating he was willing to allow more time before legislation is brought to the floor."

Why oh why is this Vichy Democrat still in charge?

[No Elephants]

91. Obviously, Reid's in charge because a majority of Democratic Senators want him in charge.

If you have one or two Democratic Senators, please contact him, her or them and object.

[ezdidit]

26. Yes. Tax them to within an inch of their lives, or make Wall Street CEO's work for a living.

Or, throw them all in jail - for a century in the oubliette. Feed them well and sell tickets so people can view them from a grate above and spit, piss or shit on them as they walk the queue of the viewing line. I'd go. Many others would, even though we haven't lost a dime.

It's just for what the Street and AIG did to our country that I want recompense in blood. See this appraisal from an expert marksman, from back in March: http://www.rgemonitor.com/financemarkets-monitor/256152/the_hollow_men_of_the_aig_debacle

[heliarc]

28. Fuck Yeah!

Mmmh mmmh... I mean. Excellent. Good news.

[Divine Discontent]

30. OKAY, but make it even HIGHER tax for those that make a million!!!

[knixphan]

97. YES.

[bjobotts]

31. Roll back the Reagan Tax cuts on the wealthy and rebuild infrastructure as well

[mntleo2]

34. It about time! Been writing about this for awhile

Here is a website that talks about who pays taxes. Hint: the poor pay more than the rich, a WELFARE mother's portion of her income is MORE than the richest of the rich.

This should make you mad as hell: Check out this study (pdf). It is from this institution, a think tank.

I spoke last week with Robert McIntyre. He is one of the authors of the above study. I wanted to know if a more recent study is coming out that updates the last release Who Pays Taxes,. He told me a newer study is coming out this months on their home page with the link above. He did not say what was in it, but from our conversation something told me that the numbers are even worse. Meaning that the poor continue to hold up the rich as do the middle class though they do not have as much of a burden.

Admittedly my state (Washington) forces the poor to pay the most taxes in the nation, but in ALL states, the poor pay more than the rest of the population. In my state we are $9.2 billion in the hole. We have two of the richest men in the world living in our state, Bill Gates and Paul Allen, both Microsoft Billionaires. Bill's income alone is $70 billion dollars. In our state the rich pay less the 5% of their income in taxes, the poor pay 19% of their incomes in taxes. If Bill Gates alone paid what a welfare mother pays of his income, 19% being $13 billion, not only would his taxes alone get us out of the hole, we would see a $4.billion dollars surplus. In our state also, if the Caseys (UPS), the Weyerhausers (wood products), The MCCaws (cell phones), the Nordstorms (Upscale department store), paid what a welfare mother does we would be swimming in money. And my state is not the richest state in the union per capita, New Hampture is.

And the freeloading gets even worse. Corporations are freeloading too. In my state, Boeing, has not paid taxes in decades, they even got a BILLION dollars back, I guess for being such wonderful people. Yeah right, they import thousands of people into the state, employ them for awhile and then lay them off ~ leaving them destitute and then expecting the state to find them jobs and support them. Check out what this think tanks says about corporations in this PDF

This has been going on for decades. In the 1990s the campaign to blame the welfare mother for this greed worked well as they knew a single mom could never defend herself and they used her as a smoke screen for their own rapacity.

I suggest that We The People use the same tactics that was used on the welfare mother and shame these leaches with the same methods:

For doing nothing to contribute and just for sitting by the pool collecting their dividends, we should call them all lazy. For not paying their fair share of taxes, we should call them freeloaders. For being on the dole from the government and literally taking food out of the mouths of babes, we should call them welfare queens. For doing nothing at all to help our nation's wars we should call them unpatriotic. And for doing little or nothing for our failing infrastructure or economy while making ZERO sacrifices unlike what the middle class and poor do, we should call them leaches.

And no, we did did not start this class war THE RICH DID. It is time to make a stand and tell the rich they need to pay their fair share.

Cat In Seattle

[dave_m34]

35. I read the study ...

and I'm not impressed. You mention Bill Gates. His INCOME is not $70B, he is worth about $50B, his annual income is around $170M. Washington does not have an income tax so his state taxes are limited to property and sales tax. Obviously the PERCENTAGE of tax paid is going to be lower the more money you make, but what about the dollars paid? Gates pays millions a year to Washington state, thats a hell of a lot more than the lower income people. And what about federal taxes? I'm sure Gates pays a fortune every year to the IRS.

Boeing doesn't pay Washington state because they made a deal with the state. Boeing brings in a ton of jobs and money, and your state govt decided those jobs (and subcontracts given to local companies) more than made up for the loss of tax revenue from Boeing. Raytheon in Massachussetts has the same deal. Why don't you try to do what Mass tried to do to Raytheon in 1995? Mass wanted to tax Raytheon, Raytheon said they would move their HQ and all those jobs to another state. After looking at the net impact, the idea of taxing Raytheon went away fast. You want to improve the financial situation in Washington, just make the money magnets leave. Thats real smart, kind of like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[Lasher]

37. So in your brave new world there are no corporate taxes.

And it's good for the wealthy to pay lower taxes than the poor, based on percentage of income? If that's what you're saying I disagree.

[DatManFromNawlins]

78. Corporate taxes are indirect taxes on consumers

How about, instead, we have earnings taxes that replace the current income tax structure? Exempt retirement accounts, and tax earnings at a progressive rate. Eliminate corporate personhood. Eliminate deductions. Then come up with a new tariff philosophy that taxes incoming goods at the same rates as other countries tax OUR goods.

Simple. Fair. Progressive. Lowers costs of goods for consumers, both through taxes and through all the money spent keeping accountants active trying to find loopholes to jump through.

[mbperrin]

90. Companies can only pass on tax increases to their customers if they are selling

their merchandise at less than market value.

Otherwise, the market price is what they can get. Any tax increase comes out of their profits, as it should.

If they could just raise prices to compensate for tax increases, they could just raise prices indefinitely, and no business would ever fail. But they do, so they can't.

I deal with this myth in the classroom every semester when we get to taxes. Company pricing power is limited (thank gawd), and once a company is charging all that people will pay, any increase in taxes, wages, regulation, resource prices, rents, utilities, comes out of their hide.

So basically, only the customers of companies too dumb to know they're selling under market will see an increase in prices due to an increase in taxes. One of the purposes of any tax is to recover infrastructure costs incurred by the taxed. If it isn't, infrastructure crumbles with no money for maintenance, upkeep, or replacement.

There is no doubt that companies of any size are severely undertaxed and that you and I subsidize their existence with our taxes and general debt.

[DatManFromNawlins]

101. Thanks for the info

Screw em then. ;) But I would still rather seen an earnings tax with no loopholes or deductions than an income tax full of them.

[mntleo2]

45. LOL! And the rich shouldn't have to pay their fair share

....when they in fact have far more to live on if they did pay their fair share.

Look, whehter or not you are "unimpressed" by the facts, my point is that the rich do *not* pay their fair share and the same out of their incomes than the poor and they would have a helluva lot more left over from their riches than the poor does.

My point is, just do the math: let's talk about a family of 2 living on $10,000 a year,which is far below the poverty line. 19% of that income leaves them about $675.00 a month to live on. In my state that wouldn't even pay the rent for a studio apartment. Forget food, heat, electricity, or anything else ~ like transportation to get to work, much less health care, toilet paper, or even a way to fix a broken car.

On the contrary, if someone making 10 x the smount of this poor family, say about $1,000.000 a year paid the same 19%, they would still have enough to live on, around $810,000 a year ~ 67,500 per month.

But the family making $1,000,000 a year pays only 5% of their income in taxes and and lives on almost $80,000 a month. So they have LOTS more than a poor family left over to live on.

As for Boeing, believe me they cost us far more than they give. I've lived through several of the depressions they have caused, what they have put my relatives and friends through, and seen the way they treat their employees while expecting the citizens of this state to pay their bills when they lay them off, get injured and retire. I have a friend right now suffering with a back injury and life long pain from an injury he got on the job and he is being forced to sell his home and pay thousands in medical bills because Boeing is using their billions to claim they shouldn't have to pay for his injuries they caused. In the 100 years they have been in my state, they lay off hundreds of thousands of people that they imported here from other parts of the world and this country, and then claim they "pay too much in unemployment insurance." Uhhh, no, they've left these people bereft and without jobs and no place to go. Guess who gets to support them and find work for them and take care of them? Not Boeing! WE do, the poor does. Then our governor cries and says she doesn't have enough revenue coming in, while Boeing give their CEOs who tried to run their company into the ground $500,000,000 in golden parachutes and then gets A BILLION DOLLARS a year back for being "so nice." Oh and should I even mention things like the millions it is going to cost the city of Kent who were strong armed by Boeing into giving up huge blocks of prime land for one of their factories that they abandoned? It is now leaching pollutants into the community, grass growing through their parking lots, and leaving the whole community depressed with thousands of laid off workers, while they make plans to do the same in N Carolina?

According to you Mr Gate's "only" makes 170 MILLION DOLLARS, but he is still paying less than 5% of that in his taxes. So even with his underground bunker to pay for, he and his three children and wife are living more than fine going to private schools (like he did), having a Divinci collection hanging in their house, and a 300' yacht tied up their door, the private jet awaiting them to take them anywhere in the world, thank-you very much. Oh yes I am SURE they are suffering SO much! According to you, the poor man and his family *only* have $13,348,333, a month to live on. With all those "necessities" to pay for, why OF COURSE he doesn't make enough to pay 19% of that like a welfare mother does! Poor baby!

The burden of taxes are heaped on the head of the poor. It is nationwide. And the rich and corporations do not make the same sacrifices to pay these taxes as the poor does. They have a helluva lot more left over TO pay what a low income family does not but is forced to pay anyway. Face it.

Cat In Seattle <---who never worked for Boeing or Microsoft, just suffered THEIR consequences that a few others and I have tried to address as activists who "get" to see the consequences of the rich not paying their fair share every day.

[No Elephants]

94. By 2000, though, many had repented of having knuckled under to Raytheon in 1995.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-8611784.html

[Yupster]

39. So Texas needs a state income tax?

I wouldn't run on that platform.

[LeFleur1]

40. Why Do Elected Officials Want So Desperately to Stay In Office?

It has been proven that it isn't for the good of the country (environment) and it isn't for the good of the people. So it must be for the good of them...the elected officials. We need to contact our 'elected officials' and raise hell. I'm sick to death of campaigns that go on and on and on all of the time begging for money and getting money from rich punks who expect favored treatment, and as we see, get it.
Health care isn't some really really new idea that takes exceptional brain power to implement. It isn't as if the US is the only country that has ever made health care available to their citizens. The stumbling block is the reluctance to cross the insurance companies and their mighty money handouts.

I wish there were a way we could sweep our government clean of all and start anew. I'm not even sure the people in office are well enough connected to the run of the mill citizenry to know what should be done. They tippy toe around as if health care for the masses is some puzzle that can't be solved. For God's sake can't they get some courage and do the right thing? They are most likely so self absorbed they can't recognize the right thing any more.
They have been corrupted. They need to be deleted and the original system put back in place. Government of the people by the people and for the people.

[mntleo2]

47. Nor would any politician but it is the fairest way ...

...Regressive taxes causes more sacrifice because it is not based on income but on an arbitrary amount put on goods and necessities. It disproportionately burdens the poor, especially, but also the middle class. The commons, such as roads, utilities, and government services (such as the courts) are used FAR more by the rich and corporations than by the poor and middle class ~ who btw pay for those services too in many fees. Yet it is the poor and middle class who carry the most burden paying for these things.

I know what you mean though. My legislator acknowledges that the rich and corporations would relieve the state enormously if they actually paid what the poor pay in taxes. But she told me that, even though she has introduced bills calling for it, they are consistently defeated because the general population does not understand how they are the ones paying, which is why I keep writing these articles.

Perhaps if more people understood what is coming out of their hide then they WOULD support legislators who are trying to address this problem. But they remain ignorant. Whether this is from practiced ignorance where they actually want to believe these elitists actually DO something for their communities, they just don't understand, or what, the truth is they are the ones paying while the elitist keep the mirage alive that they are the ones upholding this country when in fact they COST us. But the common American does not seem to get it.

All I can say to this ignorance is, I am a low income woman with little formal education and if I get it, why can't they if they but heard the truth? Thus I write ...

Cat In Seattle

[Lasher]

62. I'll be looking forward to seeing the new study when it comes out next month.

It will be particularly interesting to see just how much damage of this type that Junior and his lapdog GOP Congress did during the last 8 years.

[Ms. Toad]

42. Fine with me - BUT

I do hope they get that DOMA thing repealed pretty soon.

My family has very lopsided income - there are a few taxes on the "wealthy" taxes that hit us because one of us makes 10x what the other makes (one pays the bills - the other donates most of her services to civil rights work). As a married couple (which we are legally), we're solidly middle class and nowhere near the phase out numbers for anything (AMT, IRA, College tax deductions/credits). As two single individuals (which is how the feds recognize us) we pay a premium in the form taxes on the "wealthy." This year it was a couple thousand dollars extra in taxes.

This particular tax (unless they have a LONG phase out) wouldn't come close to us, and in general I have no objection to being more heavily taxed because we are fortunate enough to make enough to live on with some to spare. BUT I get awfully tired of paying an additional premium because the feds have decided that we are not really married.

(That said, it would be nice if Obama honored his promise relative to not raising taxes on $250,000 or above - even with his blind spot on gay rights, I hope he serves two terms and I would hate to see increasing taxes on people earning between $200,000 and $250,000 become a barrier to a second term.)

[mntleo2]

59. DOMA is important!

...Gay couples are just as married as single ones. As a straight person I have been divorced TWICE. I cannot TELL you how many "unmarried" friends I have who are couples and gay and who have been together 20, 30, 40 years and more. This is a sham and a shame that they are treated as if they just hooked up and have no rights in the hospital room, the tax offices, or the courtroom. It is time to legalize these marriages so they can have what they deserve and should have a right. Sheesh!

Cat In Seattle

[Ms. Toad]

60. 28 years as of September 11.

Thanks for your support.

[Uncle Joe]

43. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, The Hope Mobile.:thumbsup:

[paulk]

48. rescind the Bush tax cuts

inatead of just letting them run out.

that would be a start, if any of our elected Dems had any courage.

[SomeGuyInEagan]

56. One step further, bring back the income tax rates before Reagan ...

... which was about 70% on highest earnings (currently 35% on earnings about $373k and more) or even back to the levels of the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (ERTA or "Reagan Tax Cuts") where the top rate dropped from 70% to 50%, phased-in. That's when the seeds for running to the country into the ground began, helped along by Bush, Clinton and Junior with a clueless and compliant Congress for the most part.

Note: it is a *progressive* tax system, I pay the same percentage on the first $50,000 of income as Bill Gates or the paperboy, a point most reporters, commentators and politicians either don't understand, are unwilling to admit or not savvy enough to throw back into the Ayn Rand/Reagan worshipping rubes in discussions.

[paulk]

58. that would work

but that, too, would take some political will, something our elected Dems seem to lack.

[ProudDad]

74. Or Eisenhower -- 90% top rate... (n/t)

[Thothmes]

79. One step further

bring back the income tax rates before Kennedy.

[fascisthunter]

52. about time

[damntexdem]

53. About time! Way past time!

But will Congressional Dems have the spines to do it?

[Vidar]

57. About time.

[sarcasmo]

63. A great idea, but way to many spineless reps to make this happen.

[mitchum]

77. Exactly...those whores will be loyal to the Johns who paid for the date

[steven johnson]

68. It's time for 'trickle down' N/T

[Flaneur]

69. Tax the rich now or eat the rich later?

[ProudDad]

71. May I suggest; 110% surtax on anything over $250,000

(Edited from $200,000 to $250,000 to not break Obama's "promise")

[mitchum]

76. "Okay, we looked at it...now we need to look at something else"

I can't imagine those toadies doing anything more

[No Elephants]

95. "Yes. Let's tax our biggest contributors! Er, on second thought, let's think this through more."

[w4rma]

98. Good! But, the percentage should be higher on the higher incomes. It shouldn't just be one number

for everyone over $200,000. We have to tax the people who have the money. There isn't any money to be retrieved from those who don't have money.

[premiumblend]

102. stop thinking and just do it.