Obama Seeks $1.9 Trillion Tax Rise on Rich, Business

[Joanne98]

Source: Bloomberg


Feb. 1 (Bloomberg) -- The Obama administration wants to increase taxes on Americans earning more than $200,000 by almost $970 billion over the next decade and take in an additional $400 billion from businesses even as it retooled a proposed crackdown on international tax-avoidance techniques.

The budget released today would reinstate 10-year-old income tax rates of 36 percent and 39.6 percent for single Americans earning more than $200,000 and joint filers who make more than $250,000 as part of a broad $1.9 trillion tax increase proposal. It proposes to eliminate preferences for oil and gas companies, life-insurance products, executives of investment partnerships and U.S.-based companies that operate overseas.

“The administration proposes to restore balance to the tax code by providing tax cuts to working families, returning to the pre-2001 ordinary income tax rates for families making more than a quarter of a million dollars a year, closing loopholes, and eliminating subsidies to special interests,” the budget says.

In all, Obama proposed $143.4 billion in new tax cuts for individuals who earn under $200,000. While the budget sets out $93.5 billion in gross tax reductions for businesses, overall they would face a net tax increase.


Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aGJUjvI.Bdw8&pos=1

---

Get ready to DEFEND THIS BUDGET!

[WheelWalker]

1. Oregon's vote last week was just ahead of the curve. n/t

[bjobotts]

23. A great start.I still want to see a 1% tax on all wall street transactions

Maybe in a few years we can even repeal the Reagan tax cuts so government has enough to pay down the deficit, and rebuild our infrastructure.
Then we'd no longer see a $100 million CEO bonus if $74 million would be taken in taxes. Rather that money would go into companies inventories and expansions and job creation.

Greedy bastards would not have so much to buy congress and lobbyists with. YAAAHH! Then we'd see an economy that works...a happy economy with a well educated work force....rather than a greedy 1% stuffing their pockets while millions starve and go bankrupt paying medical bills.

[bjobotts]

25. btw...why would anyone un-rec this post.It's a f**king news report.

[laughingliberal]

37. Oh, we have the defenders of the uber rich around here, strange as it seems. nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

75. I wouldn't call a couple making 260 k uber rich by any means.

[boppers]

92. 75% of the country makes less than 50K a year.

At 260K, They're making 2-5 *times* as much money as the vast majority of the US, and US households do...

So if you don't call making a *quarter-fucking-million dollars a year* uber rich, what qualifies?

[Fiendish Thingy]

103. Depends where you live

a quarter mil in Kansas gets you a lot more than it does in the SF bay area.

Nonetheless, this is good news- the rich should pay more in taxes. The country, and especially the middle class, prospered in the 50's and 60's with personal and corporate tax rates as high as 90% for the most prosperous.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

118. So you believe a single person who makes 125 k is uber rich?

Are you serious?

[boppers]

120. I am serious, with possible exceptions (depends on how many mouths they're feeding).

$125K is in the wealthiest 6% of the country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

124. I'm not saying they aren't well off. I'm saying they aren't SUPER rich.

[boppers]

126. Very few of the wealthy in the US know how good they have it.

"Let them eat cake" became infamous for a reason... the wealthy don't seem to think they're very wealthy, and don't understand how "SUPER rich" they are... compared to the rest of the population.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

127. Compared to the rest of the world our poor are uber rich.

[boppers]

128. Yes. Which would make our "well off" uber rich by some perspectives...

It's all relative.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

129. Yes and since lots of blue collar workers make over 100 k, it's hardly super rich...

by American standards.

[boppers]

132. Blue collar making over 100K?

Define "lots"? The only ones I know pulling that kind of scratch are blue-collar+government workers...

...Which sort of has an interesting cultural clash built in, where blue collar machinists are making more than white collar bank managers, and the "worker class" is doing better than swathes of the "managerial class".

Getting back to your point though, are you partially defining "super rich" by the color of a collar, not the cash in their pocket, or pointing out the difference in the top 6% and the top 1%?


edit: typo

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

133. A few fire departments in California pay line firefighters over a 100 k a year.

Double the median household income is not my definition of super rich.

[boppers]

135. My little brother is a Firefighter/EMT.

In some cases, the wealth is more.... temporary... than others...

...and comes with much higher risks, and "diminished career outcomes", which is to say that the income boost isn't as sustained, because of high injury and job-related illness.

Oh, and I linked to personal income, not household.

Here's household (different numbers):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

Keep safe out there.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

136. But still super rich.

[boppers]

138. My brother? Yeah, he's super-rich.... for now.

3 cars, 2 televisions, a new house, wife doesn't work, etc.

[Political Heretic]

189. It ought to be.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

196. It ought to be what?

[w8liftinglady]

201. not in Texas..of course,we aren't unionized here.

most construction workers here make $10-$12/hour with little or no benefits...no pay if the weather's bad,and no job security.

[dotymed]

145. What does that

make our "uber rich"? Above the law? Our "betters"? In their eyes, yes.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

197. Billionaires.

[KayLaw]

157. No.

But the article didn't mention singles who made $125k, only $200k.

[cascadiance]

172. $125k is Oregon's law for single tax payers... $200k for this proposal. Rates start OVER this amt!

Keep in mind, that for each of these tax proposals, when you make OVER $125k in Oregon, or OVER $200k in this proposal, you aren't taxed the higher rate on ALL of your income, just the amount OVER $125k and OVER $200k.

So a person making $126k in Oregon gets taxed the same way others do under $125k for $125k of his/her income, and the higher rate for $1000. Not much! Same for the person that makes $201k under this proposal. It's only on the extra $1k that they get taxed the higher rate. Otherwise, you'd have a lot of people trying to cheat just to get under $125k or $200k, as they would wind up with more net income than someone who makes $1k more.

Also keep in mind this paragraph too:

Obama proposed $143.4 billion in new tax cuts for individuals who earn under $200,000. While the budget sets out $93.5 billion in gross tax reductions for businesses, overall they would face a net tax increase.

Those in lower brackets would pay less.

Also note that the new Oregon tax rules now parallel federal new laws on taxing unemployment benefits that exempt the first $2400 of unemployment benefits, giving the unemployed tax cuts now, simplifying the forms so that one works with the same amounts for federal and state in terms of what is tax liable.

[Political Heretic]

190. Yes. I made 50k as a single guy with no dependents and it was ridiculous

how much privilege I had. More money than I knew what to do with - certainly more than I needed to live happy. Now that I've been poor for many years I know the difference.

125,000 dollars as a single guy with no dependents is rich, yes.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

195. Is it UBER RICH? That was the proposal.

I made around 50k a couple of years working 3 jobs while my wife was in school.

[Political Heretic]

204. It doesn't matter.

Rich is rich.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

205. What level of gross income pushes the single taxpayer into the Rupert Murdoch level?

[laughingliberal]

113. No, but they can darn sure afford more in taxes than I can

When my husband and I had a combined income of just under $100,000 we were quite comfortable and the cost of housing and transportation here is fairly high. At $260,000, I'd have had no problem with a higher tax rate.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

119. They can afford everything more than most.

[EnviroBat]

156. At $12,583.00 a month take home. They sure as f*&ck can afford

a hell of a lot more than most of us. I'd love to have such "problems"!

[Eyes_wide_ open]

160. I didn't make 12 grand this whole last YEAR

so um, yeah, super rich depends on your perspective

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

185. Who said anything about take home pay?

[TankLV]

171. You're rich - maybe not "uber" - but rich.

get over it...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

186. So now 40 k a year is rich? MMMMkay.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

193. 40 k? You said 260 k. -nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

194. Reading is fundamental. My salary is 40 k a year.

My statement about 260k was a hypothetical one. I never said that my wife and I made that much.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

198. Reading post #75 again. You said 260, TankLV replied based on 260. You only said 40 AFTER that. -nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

199. I said I wouldn't call a couple making 260k uber rich. I didn't say I made that much.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

200. You didn't say you didn't. It's pretty obvious TankLV assumed that.

A reasonable assumption in context. But instead of a correction, you replied with a flamebait-y misrepresentation. And conveniently derailed the argument (which was about persons making 260 k).

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

203. I thought it was obvious that 260k is out of the salary range for a firefighter.

[rapturedbyrobots]

178. and that's the problem right there. nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

187. If you say so.

[dotymed]

144. because, this f***ing "news report"

affects everyone, from the rich, to the poor and all in between. It brings our tax structure BACK to a (pre-Gipper) sustainable, progressive tax structure. It has extreme relevance. Especially, when you see the "bought and paid for" obstructionists in Congress screaming about deficits in the middle of our worst "recession." Our income taxes were meant to be progressive in nature (definitely, not punitive)and this RESTORATION of the tax structure that "W" fucked up, will help pull America out of it's free fall. Now we will have the money to really stimulate job creation. While $200,000.00 is not rich, it is a lot more than the $30,000.00 average that most Americans have to live on. If we pass this RESTORATION then we should RESTORE the pre-Reagan tax structure to wealthy and corporations. Then the obstructionists will not be able to complain (although they still will) about the deficit spending to create jobs for the poor and working class. Wow, maybe we can even "mandate" (they hate that, even though they know unregulated capitalism is deadly to most)living wages and benefits for all.

[Bo]

202. You have to start 2 wars and cut taxes on the rich to be cool

to the idiots we have in this country. Stupid teabaggers.

[Lucky Luciano]

148. 1% tax on all trades us absurdly idiotic. nt

[Gecko6400]

149. Me too. Including

union retirement funds, teacher and public worker retirement funds, 401's, insurance companies who deal in funds, etc, all of which conduct so called "wall street transactions.

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[whathehell]

2. Yayyyyy!

[MindandSoul]

3. Sounds "almost" fair to me! I think the top 1% shoul be taxed even higher!

[dotymed]

146. Absolutely,

that is why our tax system was ORIGINALLY (before the 1% bought their Congressmen) a progressive tax.

[n2doc]

4. I love the way these numbers are maximized

It is over the next decade. I wish it were each year. They can start with the F***er who got a 100 million dollar bonus from GS. 95% should be the levy on that one.

[ImOnlySleeping]

35. i was going to complain

about how they sum it up and call it a trillion. That's BS. Especially since those in charge come up for office a number of times between now and then.

[readmoreoften]

95. Over a decade? Ah, less spectacular, especially if there's inflation. Still, I'm glad he's doing

something that isn't far-right appeasement.

[unblock]

5. i would LOVE to pay 39.6% taxes

as it would mean a big fat raise!

and as always, the numbers are presented so as to make them seem bigger and more threatening than they really are.

the taxes aren't on couples earning more than $250,000, they're on couples with an ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME of $250,000 or more. once you allow for exemptions and deductions, which most couples earning $250,000 have a whole bunch of, the actual INCOME is much higher.

so we're talking about salaries comfortably over $300,000, maybe even $350,000.

even the, that's when the higher MARGINAL tax rate kicks in. it's only the income BEYOND that threshold that gets taxed at the higher rate. so it's entirely possible that a couple earning $350,001 only has that last ONE DOLLAR taxed at the higher rate.




none of which will stop republicans from calling it a communist tax hike that will completely doom the economy.

oh, and by the way, THIS WAS ALL PART OF SHRUB'S TAX CUTS! remember, shrub and congress always had those cuts as being temporary and were set to expire, and all obama is doing is letting shrub's cuts expire just as shrub proposed and signed into law. if they should have been permanent, why did all those republicans make them permanent when they had the white house and congress?

[OnlinePoker]

13. As it should be in a progressive tax scheme.

"even the, that's when the higher MARGINAL tax rate kicks in. it's only the income BEYOND that threshold that gets taxed at the higher rate. so it's entirely possible that a couple earning $350,001 only has that last ONE DOLLAR taxed at the higher rate."

If a person earned $349,999 and paid the lower rate (say 36%), they would pay $125,999 in tax. Earning $2 more and paying 39% on the full amount, they would pay $136,500, $10,400 more. In effect, the person earning the higher amount gross could take home much less for having their full amount taxed at the higher rate.

[unblock]

17. no, that's what they want you to think, but it's wrong!

by the time you max out on the 36% rate, you're still paying far less AVERAGE taxes. it's nowhere close to 36%. why? because much of your money way taxed at lower rates. only the last part was taxed at the 36% rate.

that first dollar into the 39.6% bracket means you pay $0.396 more in taxes, period.

as far as the progressive, marginal tax rate schedules go, more adjusted gross income ALWAYS translates into incrementally more taxes and it NEVER jumps in the manner you describe -- one more dollar never means more in taxes than the marginal tax rate on that one dollar.

now, just to cover my bases, there are some very slight adjustments in our tax code, complex as it is. there are some things that get phased out at higher levels, so you might pay that marginal tax on a dollar of extra adjusted gross income AND lose some marginal deduction (making you effectively pay, say, 39% on marginal income even though you're technically in the 36% bracket) or you might cross the threshold where you become entirely ineligible for a benefit, e.g., you made a roth ira contribution and now you have to reverse it. in that case, that $1 that put you over the limit could really cost you. but that's not due to the marginal tax rate schedule, that's due to the strict cutoffs for these other tax breaks.

[OnlinePoker]

18. I was confused by your first post

It seemed like you were saying a person's total income should be taxed at 39.6% once they hit a threshold level, not just the amount earned above that level.

[Beavker]

14. Great points.

All to be completely omitted by our friends at Fox, CNBC and even the MSM as they would lose ratings by reporting actual facts.

Just have to tune into NPR I guess to get real data!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

31. Not to mention sales taxes and FICA.

It's comedic.

[L0oniX]

32. Clue: couples earning more than $250,000 ARE the rich.

If I had my way everyone earning more than $100k would be paying a lot more. People need to get a grip on what the average income is. It takes quite the imagination to think that the majority of us make over $100k a year. Most people I know make a fraction of that. I don't know what world everyone else lives in but it ain't where I live.

[unblock]

53. earning and wealth are very different, and it also depends on the ages involved

as does geography.

a 25 year-old earning $100,000 per year in a mid-west town is doing very, very well.

a 60 year-old couple earning $100,000 per year living in manhattan with 2 kids in college would not be faring nearly as well.

and of course, there's a huge difference between having a savings account with $500 in it or $5,000,000 in it. if your $250,000 per year is basically just interest on your savings and you have the luxury of work being optional, that's a whole different kind of rich.

couples earning under $250,000 per year have FAR more in common with those earning $30-50,000 per year than they do with couples earning over $1,000,000 per year. of course, they have nicer homes and cars, but more or less the same worries and concerns.

all of us who have to work for a living are in the same, or very similar boats. those who can comfortably stop working any time they choose are in the yachts.

[No Elephants]

84. True, but some "earn" (get paid) so much that they have no excuse if they are not wealthy.

[unblock]

147. agreed. though all of this is getting away from the main point

which is that any couple with an adjusted gross income over $250,000 can afford a few more percentage points on their marginal income beyond that threshold.

besides, it's not as if we're really soaking these people anyway. IT'S ONLY A FEW PERCENTAGE POINTS!

we should threaten them with a 60% top marginal tax rate and THEN settle for 39.6% :evilgrin:
or better yet, threaten them with a 60% top marginal tax rate and then NOT settle for anything less :evilgrin: :evilgrin:

[liberalmike27]

176. Yea, There's Wealth, and There's Incomes

Which is missed here--you can get a job right out of college, say, and make a hundred grand a year, and you aren't really rich, but you do have a nice salary. After working ten years, properly investing money, and not buying too much house, or having ten kids, or frivolously spending money making it rain at strip-clubs, buying lattes and a really expensive sports car, you should have saved/invested enough wealth to be rich.

I heard another guy say, we need to have a system that takes into account both income, and wealth. If you've accumulated a lot of wealth, or were born with it, perhaps you should be in a higher bracket than a guy starting out at the same salary. It seems unfair, at first blush, but it isn't really fair that Bill Gates' kids were born billionaires either. There is no fairness, but the ultimate act of unfairness is to consider how much in taxes someone pays, and not pay attention to the fact that they also take-home more money, really without doing much more, or having much more worth to society, than 99 percent of the population. If you make about 330,000 a year, that's you, in the top one percent.

Capital Gains--totally should be thrown into general income, and not taxed at a special rate. They already are much advantaged in that they can accrue income over many years, never paying taxes, so then get the added benefit of compounding on the dollars they did not pay in taxes.

Finally, and generally, I love where Obama is going with this. He's taxing the only people he can tax, without hurting the already smashed up buy-class, the demand side. The best taxes would be tariffs, which would bring jobs back home, and guess what? These jobs would bring taxes, without ever actually raising anyone elses federal income taxes. I think it is the most unmentioned part of the destruction wrought on America by globalization, in the MSM. Sure, we talk about how people lose their jobs, but we don't talk about the tax hit America takes, when we send jobs to China, or Taiwan, or an almost inexhaustable supply of third world countries, not to mention how it brings us closer to being third world ourselves.

The wealthy, for the most part, have been trained to be ingrates, and tend to be unaware of their own entitlement. I get sick of hearing someone who has a family income of 250 grand a year say stupid things like "It depends on where you live." I don't care if you live in New York--if you make that much as a family, and are having a hard time getting by, you've made some terrible decisions. Get a cheaper house, keep your cars longer, buy a Chevy instead of a Mercedes or BMW. I might add, how you live compared to the rest has a lot to do with what makes you wealthy. Believe me, I know, earning in the lower range is a real stresser, and it keeps you from ever worrying about higher things, as you struggle just to get the rent and utilities each month, in a small house or apartment.

[Romulox]

181. The only time I see any evidence of solidarity between top earners and the rest of us

is when somebody proposes to raise taxes. Then we're "all in this together!" all of sudden? I'm not so sure about that...

[No Elephants]

83. Agree, but, at some point,

you want to be able to distinguish between a two salary family that is quite comfortable and an exec whose bonus is $10 million in one year. Even an individual with a salary of 260K a year is not rich by that standard. Everything is relative.

[JHB]

139. That was easier to accomplish back when we had about 25 income tax brackets...

...rather than the current 6 (and it's been as low as 4).

In classic Washington doublespeak, they called getting rid of most of the higher-income brackets "simplifying" the tax code.

Historical income tax rates (1919-2010) can be found at:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

[liberalmike27]

177. Oh yea

Meant to mention, why is it that we still have the same old tax brackets we started way back in the seventies. Why is there not a higher tax on people making up to a million, up to ten million, up to one hundred million a year. It's time to make adjustments, and from what I can see, Congress is getting there.

There may have been a time when cutting taxes for the rich actually created jobs here at home. But now, if it creates any jobs, they are not likely here in America.

[Lorien]

45. Back when I had a good income I would pay around $34,000-37,000 in taxes a year

my accountant told me that most of her clients would fly into a rage when she told them that they owed that much and she was impressed that I would just smile and make out the check. I'd ask her "why would I be unhappy about it? A $36,000 tax bill means that it's been a very, very good year." Man, what I wouldn't give to have a tax bill like that again! It still amazes me that the wealthy can't be even the least bit grateful for what they've earned, been given or stolen-especially since the uber rich today "make" most of their money by simply moving money around!

[unblock]

49. it amazes me that people are so irresponsible or clueless as to be surprised by their tax bill

no one should ever fly into a rage when hearing the number from their accountant because everyone should have a good idea of the ballpark.

but i suppose they don't fly into a rage because it's news, they fly into a rage because they just don't like paying their fair share.

[Lorien]

184. I think you hit the nail on the head with the latter

My accountant said that the wealthier her clients were the more they resented paying their fair share. The lack of gratitude for good fortune (because ALL of us work hard, but few of us ever get rich) just boggles the mind. But that's the republican mindset for you; the thought that even a dime of their millions could go to help someone they feel is inferior and "unworthy" is intolerable to them.

[hay rick]

70. Even at the prospective top marginal rate

$1 in additional tax will entitle you to $1.50 additional spending money. I think gratitude (or lack thereof) is a habit formed at an early age.

[inna]

6. Best news I heard all... week. (Month?) KR nt

[Plucketeer]

7. Awwww CRAP!

And NO Swiss banks to hide my billions in! :sarcasm:

[mwooldri]

22. shh! I'll telling Angela Merkel all about you...

she's got a budget deficit too and she's looking about money from swiss bank accounts...

Mark.

[penndragon69]

8. It's about damn time.

If we have to pay 40% tax on bonuses (gifts) and profit sharing (which we help create)
then the rich should just STFU and pay their share as well.

But then i'd like to see the millionaires paying 60% tax again....
what will it hurt for someone with so much money ( and all the tax breaks ) to pay a little more.
Last time i looked the wealthy were doing quit well thank you.

[happygoluckytoyou]

9. Madame Defarge is knitting.... "I remember it like it was just yesterday" HAHAHA

[happygoluckytoyou]

11. "Let them eat YELLOWCAKE!!!"

[valerief]

43. Ha! Good one!

:rofl:

[MilesColtrane]

10. Good for him.

But, I'm afraid the Congress has shown little desire to pass any economically progressive legislation.

Afraid things are only going to get worse after the mid terms.

[Beavker]

12. What boggles my mind, is that the Teabaggers are against it.

I just keep thinking of all these people that are just so ignorant that they would oppose this thing. Some just out of plain principle I suppose, even though it actually helps them. But then those same people, who bitch that the government basically shouldn't tax anyone at anytime, then they cry when the streets are filled with potholes or aren't plowed in time (experience of a Midwesterner). If misuse of funds is your concern, then deal with that. Demand transparency, then demand they cut the 'pork'. But to want services then bitch about paying for them is just...ignorant...as I've said.

[Zoeisright]

20. Teabaggers are stupid. That's a given.

As in 'What's the Matter with Kansas?' repukes have gotten people like the stupid teabaggers to vote against their own best interests.

So they scream about the big bad federal government while drawing on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment, farm subsidies, and drive on public roads, get their government flu shot, etc. etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum.

[No Elephants]

89. Not Joe the Not Plumber gained fame over this very issue. They've been brainwashed.

[Skittles]

106. LOL

teabaggers are against it because their rich dittomasters TELL them to be against it - those fuckers do NOT think for themselves

[KILL THE WISE ONE]

114. but they might win the lottery

[Frank Cannon]

167. Teabaggers would cut off their noses to spite their faces

Seriously, if President Obama said he was pushing for legislation making it ILLEGAL to stick a shotgun in your mouth and pull the trigger, these people would get their precious Remington 12-gauges out and blow their heads off en masse.

Actually, that's not a bad idea.

[safeinOhio]

15. How will this affect us big shot

thousandairs? I'm already in the 14% bracket and drive one of them Cadillac health insurances.

[Hubert Flottz]

16. Bend over and kiss you @$$ goodbye the "Rapture" can't be far

off now! Tax Fat Pat Roberts and the Focus on the Family assholes. If they want to play politics they should pay taxes!

[Zoeisright]

19. About frikking time.

Now triple it and we'll get somewhere.

Wait a few seconds for the poor widdle rich folks to bleat and whine about how unfortunate they are and how SAD their poor widdle lives will be if they have to pay more in taxes. WAAAAAHHHH!

[Truth2Tell]

21. I cannot BEGIN to express

how refreshing this is.

I was starting to worry about this guy.

[mvd]

27. That State of the Union made me feel very good

While the President likely won't give me all or even most of what I want, I see a much more productive 2nd year. Feeling optimistic.

[Truth2Tell]

29. I'm not ready to say "very good."

But this does provide a ray of... dare I say it?

[mvd]

30. I understand what you mean - but..

it did make me feel very good about his ideas. I'm not sure I feel "very good" about progress until we stop trying to work with Republicans who will not compromise.

[No Elephants]

94. His campaign speeches made me feel good. Now, I just wait to see what actually happens.

[AllyCat]

50. This would make me take him seriously again

They need to put this news in its proper perspective: that this is just following the plan of allowing the Bush tax cuts to sunset.

[Truth2Tell]

90. Quite true. And most of the extra money

will go to buy bombs to drop on people in foreign lands, rather than health care, etc... nevertheless, a crack in the door, and finally a tiny breath of fresh air.

[AllyCat]

125. Alas, so sad, but true.

[BeatleBoot]

24. Someone has to pay for it - might as well be those who can afford it

Sorry all you rich pricks, time to pony up.

There are no free rides - not even for you.

[peace13]

26. Time out for a little story.

I have a friend who is very wealthy and they also had a small family business that they ran. When * gave the wealthy tax credits she was so for it. She told of how the rich made all of the jobs. Well..last fall the family business had a rough season and it was going to take an injection of funds to keep the thing open over the winter. Long story short they closed the doors in November. 90 years of business down the drain. Her comment to me was that it would lose money over the winter and they weren't about to put any of their own money into it. And there you have it. Ya know the wealthy make all of the jobs, no doubt.

[No Elephants]

88. The wealthy don't even make most of the jobs. Small busineses do that.

The reason they get wealthy while "making jobs" is that many of them don't pay the lowly help a fair portion of what their labor produces and/or they overcharge renters, consumers, whatever.

And, as a general rule, the richer you are, the more infrastracture, natural resources, etc. you use.


Any way you look at it, too many are getting a nearly free ride on the backs of workers and taxpayers who are not in the "wealthy" category. So, on the backs of their own workers or someone else's workers.

So, it's about time certain lies, er, fairy tales, were put to rest. (Pinocchio is still a timely one, though.)

[Chemical Bill]

28. AFT n/t

[L0oniX]

33. I'd say good luck to him but he's going to need a hell of a lot more than luck.

Gee Wally ...what do congress persons and senators make a year? Gee Wally ...do ya think they will be ok with paying more taxes? Do ya?

[laughingliberal]

39. Senators make $174,000 per year. Reps are less. nt

[L0oniX]

48. 237 Millionaires in Congress

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/06/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5553408.shtml

[laughingliberal]

61. Depends on where the income comes from whether the tax would hit them or not. nt

[No Elephants]

91. Nope. That's only govt. salary. They make much more. In fact, at something like 2.5 million, Biden

was the "poorest" of all the Senators. Every single one of them is a mulimillionaire. Now, tell me how they managed to get that way while spending all their lives on only a government salary.

[rayofreason]

105. Some of Senators/Representatives started off rich...

...others, somehow managed to become rich while in office.

What a coincidence.

Remember what Will Rogers said We have the best congress that money can buy

[laughingliberal]

112. Investments. I'm assuming that isn't subject to tax in the same way their salaries would be. nt

[Hippo_Tron]

57. Not really, he just needs a veto pen

The Bush tax cuts expire at the end of the year. If Congress somehow passes a bill to renew them (unlikely with Democrats in charge) he can just veto it.

[GoCubsGo]

150. They'll vote for it if they want to keep their jobs in November

With all the populist outrage going on now, voting down a tax increase that will affect them personally will not look good. Lots of people are already pissed off because they voted themselves another raise.

[Jefferson23]

34. K&R for Obama going in the CORRECT direction.

[Krakowiak]

36. great news (nt)

[guitar man]

38. Good

Time to pay the piper. When they whine we can tell them tough shit. They are supposed to be the big "job creators" and everything else and they have failed miserably.

All the "rising tide lifts all boats" horse shit that has been spewed in defense of Reaganomics be damned, if they had made sure that enough actually "trickled down" to lift all boats they might not find themselves facing the tax rate rollback. Instead, they tossed their anchors through our hulls and emptied their yacht's toilets into our dinghies, so they have no one to blame but themselves for our scorn.

I say fuck 'em , let 'em pay :grr:

[indy legend]

130. It's about time

I've spent nearly 30 years working my ass of and doing more to earn less and paying out the rear for useless insurance that keeps going up but covering less while the SOB that owned the company got richer and my pension all but disappeared. All I've ever heard from these Right wing, tea baggin bastards is trickle down, trickle down. Well it's been 30 years and I'm still waiting for someone to turn the damned faucet on. F#%k these people. When I'm doing all I can to pay a mortgage, put two kids through college and my wife and I have to drive almost 20 year old vehicles I have a real hard time giving a shit if someone worth several million dollars has to pay a little extra in taxes and may have to struggle to keep one of his vacation homes, yacht, or classic car collection.

[guitar man]

134. Welcome to DU

I hear ya loud and clear, same boat here. I refer to the first of every year as "pay cut" time at work because the increase in health insurance premiums dwarfs whatever little "raise" I might get. Trickle down? No, trickled on is more like it. I have always said I would be in favor of their so called "tax relief" for the wealthy "job creators" IF and only if the majority of those upper classes would behave responsibly. To date I have never seen any evidence that enough of them give a shit about anything other than what they can rake into their personal coffers. Had they behaved responsibly they could have passed some of it down and kept some of it for themselves. It never happened and we find ourselves in the fix we're in today.

So I say screw 'em all, had they done the right thing with the bounty they found laid in their laps they would still be plenty rich and there wouldn't be as much need to tax them to help out their fellow countrymen who are suffering the results of their greed and excesses.

[Ruby the Liberal]

40. "life insurance products". Not so sure on this one.

Lots of middle class people have life insurance - especially those with mortgages not paid off and kids under the age of 20.

These policies are purchased with after-tax dollars and not taxable on collection now.

Not so sure I am on board with this -- unless it is a high income and/or high policy ($500,000+) attempt. The latter I could deal with. $50k to a 35 year old widow shouldn't be subject to tax, IMO.

[valerief]

41. Good but the Reagan tax cuts need to be eliminated if we want

business to invest in our country again.

[Beartracks]

42. Ready to hear how the rich are the ones that create jobs...

... <rolleyes>

Give the middle class the tax breaks so they can catch up on their other expenses and have more disposable income to throw into the consumer-oriented system -- that's where the economic engine gets its gas.

[valerief]

44. Some dumb broad said that to me in the office. I couldn't believe it.

"Wealthy people give us jobs." When I told her the working class give the wealthy their wealth and deserve a piece of the action, I got a long deer-in-the-headlights look. I guess Fox News doesn't talk about that.

[HughBeaumont]

63. Show her . . .

. . uh . . .this . . .

and, uh, this . . .

. . oh yeah, and this . . .

Yeah. Tell her Professor Plum called, said to "Get a Clue."

Oh, and tell her to lock her guns up in a safe . . . you know, so other people's feet won't get shot at.

[valerief]

67. Thanks. If I tell her Dan Brown wrote these, she might read them. nt

[HughBeaumont]

69. Wouldn't I have to toss in stuff about bloodlines and invisible ink messages?

:rofl:

[SharonAnn]

77. Their wealth comes from our labor. Only labor creates wealth. Think about it.

Until somebody does some work, no wealth is created.

Think about it.

You can own a gold mine but no wealth is created until someone mines the gold.

You can own a farm but no wealth is created until someone grows something and sells it.

You can own a factory but no wealth is created until someone works to build something for sale.

(Rinse, repeat.)

[rayofreason]

109. Nope. Let's say I write a book,,,

...and post it on the internet with a paypal link.

I've done the labor, but there is no wealth. Not unless people want to read it. And if is really good, a lot of wealth will be created. But, realistically, if I wrote it, not so much wealth will be created, if any. Same for someone who writes an iPhone app. Wealth is entirely conditional. Look at the web. HTML was invented to share particle physics data. Someone else found a use for it that created vast wealth. Whether someone else did something or not with HTML, Tim Berners-Lee had nothing to do with that. But it impacted the "value" of his labor in a big way. Consider even gold. What if someone mines the gold, and in that society no one gives a rat's ass about gold so that it holds no value? Then no wealth has been created. Again, wealth is conditional and socially mediated by the desires for and the relative scarcity of items.

The labor theory of value is 19th century pseudoscience, right up there with phrenology, animal magnetism, and homeopathy, created in an age when material goods were the main thing, long before the information age could even be conceived. And even then it was not right. It wasn't even wrong.

[valerief]

155. All labor doesn't yield wealth but all wealth comes from labor, nearly always someone else's labor.

[lib_wit_it]

116. I would agree with you, but then how would we explain Wall Street?

[valerief]

153. Software development labor. Software and hardware maintenance. Data entry. nt

[liberalmike27]

179. I love that

When they've not heard something easily repeatable, they've got nothing to say.

Our MSM, tremendously at least economically conservative, pushes hard at the idea that we are worthless cogs, doing something anyone else could do, and that our work is worthless. Keeping folks feeling worthless is all part of the game.

The flip side is the way history is taught, to only value the rich, the inventors, the heroes, and not value the movements in history, labor, or unions.

There is nothing the MSM/rich want more than to make people feel like they've got no value, are worthless, and teach them to worship the rich, and put that idiot idea about how giving them more money is going to create jobs, and if you tax them and create a job it isn't "really" a job, which is patently absurd.

I think in a very real way, since they clearly control everything of importance, our education, wars, the media, they have failed us, and though I do hate the way they use the word punished as a substitute for taxes, if it is punishment, the rich deserve quite the spanking for what they've wrought, for how they've destroyed our working class, with forethought and knowledge.

[martymar64]

51. the answer to give them

When somebody spews that horseshit about the rich creating jobs, ask them where all these supposed jobs are now that they have had a historic low tax rate for a decade. I sure don't see any, except in places like China and India. Let them show where all these jobs they created are.

I'm not letting them off the hook for this and neither should Obama.

[No Elephants]

97. Well, those who invested well may have hired an extra maid or butler.

:sarcasm:

[begin_within]

65. The rich only create jobs so they can skim profits off of them.

Yeah, sometimes the rich do create jobs, but they are often temporary and you can bet they are going to take more than their share from whatever profits result. And you can bet as soon as the money stops flowing, they will lay off those workers they created jobs for. The real creators of jobs are consumers and governments, by demanding products and/or services and paying for them. The rich are there just as enablers who then take too big of a bite out of the money that is made. As soon as the pile of money is gone, so are the rich and the jobs they "created" (actually only set up for the purpose of extracting money). There's no social contract any more, so the rich cannot lay any claim to being the creators of jobs. It's baloney. And the whole thing about trickle-down economics is baloney. It's baloney that reducing taxes on the rich creates more investment and thus increases more tax revenue. I even read on one right-wing site a comment that reducing income tax rates creates more taxpayers. Huh?

[SharonAnn]

81. Right. I've never had a "rich" person "give" me a good job. Only low wages and no future.

They're not about to pay someone a good wage for meaningful work. They're going to try to pay as little as possible, preferable in an arrangement (like temporary or contract work) where they get the benefit of your work but have no obligations to you.

On the other hand, people who are not yet rich but want to build their business have given me good jobs with a future. My work benefited both of us.

[No Elephants]

96. Please see Reply ##s 26 and 88.

[Overseas]

46. K&R . Yes please !! //nt

[ooglymoogly]

47. Recnarecnarenarecenarec...Now that's what I'm talkin bout

I just hope it is not just more blather.

[OutNow]

52. A step in the right direction

Now if we'd get single payer passed and signed and the EFCA implemented, we'll be at the same point most European countries were about ...... oh 40 or 50 years ago.

When I talk to people about high speed rail they think I'm discussing some science fiction novel. Nope, they've had bullet trains in Japan and European countries for decades. Of course these countries don't spend trillons of dollars on needless wars and military occupations, so they have a little more left to spend on things that make life better for citizens.

We have so much work to do, but this budget proposal is a step in the right direction.

[Goldstein1984]

54. Obama is beginning to look like the man I voted for in 2008

I still have major concerns about foreign policy, militarism, and civil liberties; I've just begun a 21-day hunger strike over those issues; but, if this is signaling a shift in the Left direction, then I'm very pleased.

I'm sending my feedback to my elected officials, and my adopted elected officials, right now.

[Divine Discontent]

110. thank you.

[Goldstein1984]

115. No problem

I've been extremely critical of the President for the reasons I mentioned in my post. It was interpreted by many on DU as "hate," but I felt I owed the President my loyal dissent. And yes, I frequently used the tools of irony and sarcasm to make my points. I wrote nothing on DU that I did not also write in numerous--almost daily--letters to the White House.

Likewise, now that I believe he may be back on the right track, which is the Left track, I own him the same level of feedback.

I was never an Obama hater. I just thought he could do better. Maybe now he is.

[grahamhgreen]

55. We need a return to 94% top tax rate. nt

[Juche]

56. Wonderful

More of this.

[yurbud]

58. reduce taxes on manufacturers, but jack them up on large retailers--sellers can't move offshore

[bread_and_roses]

59. A step in the right direction. More of this. (n/t)

[defendandprotect]

60. A blessed thought, indeed . . . !!! HOLD that thought . .. !!!

[JNelson6563]

62. No different than Bush!

Fucking corporate sell-out!

Oh wait, "tax rise" you say?? Nevermind.

Julie

[benld74]

64. TAlkin heads will expode

[begin_within]

66. I think there should be an Alternative Minimum Tax on corporations.

I hate the idea that corporations in the U.S. can get away with paying no income tax, through loopholes and other tricks, even while they are rolling in huge profits and paying huge bonuses to top executives. They are essentially pirates. The Alternative Minimum Tax is there to prevent rich individuals from getting away with paying zero, so there should be an equivalent for corporations.

[pleah]

68. K&R

[daleo]

71. It's a start

Everyone has to pitch in and pay their fair share. No society can last otherwise.

[hay rick]

72. Populist high five.

Higher (and much higher) top marginal income tax rates are the best response to Wall Street bonuses and the rest of the executive suite looting that is endemic to our economy.

[pattmarty]

73. Hey folks, 75% of people working in the US make UNDER 50K........

........So yeah, tax the fucking shit out of the top 10% and when your done tax 'em some more.

[harun]

74. Tell the rich if they don't like it then we can always cut the military budget 90%.

They'll take the tax increase.

[onehandle]

76. Great, but start the taxes right now and make it ten months instead of ten years.

Get that $1.9 trillion in the treasury before the Fall elections.

[Vidar]

78. It's a move in the right direction

[earcandle]

79. Go Obama! Thanks for the courage to raise taxes! We sure need the money.

[alp227]

80. WOOO!!!!! GREAT start to the week

:wow:

Best news since the week of Scott Brown and the Supreme Courtporation. It's about time that we start recovering the money hidden deep in the overly spoiled wealthy trust-funded brats' Swiss bank accounts to hole up our deficit.

:bounce: :kick: :applause:

[No Elephants]

100. Week? Scott Brown? Would that be the Aztec calendar?

[laylah]

82. Just DO it! nt

[abelenkpe]

85. love it.

Long overdue in my opinion.

[donheld]

86. Whoooohooo

[Blackhatjack]

87. When A Taxpayer Earns $1 Million A Year, That Equals $480.77/per hr ....

40 hr work week X 52 weeks a year = 2080 hrs/yr
$1 Million divided by 2080 hrs = $480.77/hr Gross (before exemptions/deductions/credits)

And the 39.6% rate doesn't kick in until the taxpayer exceeds $200K (or $250k for a married filing jointly).

Do you think that in such extraordinary circumstances as we find ourselves today that our $1 Million earning taxpayer will be unfairly exploited by changing the tax rates for them back to the level that existed under President Bill Clinton? (Especially after enjoying the Bush tax cuts for the last 8 yrs.)

[readmoreoften]

93. Good job! Glad he's starting to push back!

We need it.

[Reterr]

98. Gobama!

:bounce:
Thats my president!

[WillyT]

99. Good... K & R !!!

:kick:

[No Elephants]

101. They're counting letting Bush tax cuts expire as a tax increase? LOL

Enact "temporary" tax cuts while you spend like a drunk in heat, then yell about Democrats "raising" taxes when they have no choice but to let the tax cuts expire.

Rove wins again.

[fasttense]

141. Exactly, It's NOT a tax rise, it's simply a return to pre-bush tax rates.

Now, let's return to pre-Reagan tax rates on the uber rich.

[Shanti Mama]

102. Remember--paying taxes is an honorable, patriotic act

unless you're in an unrepresented colony.

People are praise military service in defense of our country should be all over tax increases as their opportunity to 'serve.'

[Ganja Ninja]

158. Exactly. So many of the war mongers never have served the country in any way.

Now's the time for them to step up and do their duty. Freedom ain't free as they like to say.

[FarLeftFist]

104. I was wondering when the f**k we were going to start taxing the rich.....

Finally, back to a good ole' proven successful Democrat agenda. Apparently the republican economic policy wasn't working too well. Now that we have experimented with that option to no success, it's time to never go that route again.

[Divine Discontent]

111. a VAST majority of Americans (you know, the non-right wing extremists) want higher taxes on the rich

[mwrguy]

107. This makes me happy

Maybe we'll get some egalitarianism after all

[onestepforward]

108. I've been waiting for this. It's about time. n/t

[bamacrat]

117. Makes sense, and is the right thing to do. Or is the left thing to do, whatever I like it.

Plus the Bush tax cuts were supposed to stimulate job growth and economic expansion. It did expand the economy, the top of it. All those rich people invested in derivatives and other non-physical accounts instead of starting companies and driving innovation like they were supposed to. A middle class person is more likely to create a business or invest in something real than a rich person because they want to be rich. Once you are rich who cares about helping others to help yourself, help yourself. Which is why this country is where it is. Ask not what you can do for yourself, ask what can I do for others. That should be the new motto. Because if you help others you will ultimately be rewarded. And I'm not talking about an after death reward, but you will either be able to decrease the taxes you pay through charitable donations or become successful by starting a business giving others a job and helping the country we all love. So that was a little sappy but it's time we change.

[winyanstaz]

121. Well good...let the government rob the rich for a change....

Thats at least a turn for the better then whats been going on.

[happygoluckytoyou]

123. THERE ARE LIMITED OPTIONS AND HERE ARE MOST OF THEM------------------>

YOU CAN MAKE MORE
YOU CAN SPEND LESS

IN THE LONG RUN... YOU CAN ONLY THEN DISTRIBUTE (OR RE-DISTRIBUTE) THE WEALTH

.... THE POOR HAVE NOTHING LEFT TO GIVE
.... THE MIDDLE CLASS HAS SHRUNK BOTH IN SIZE AND "DEFINTION"
.... THE WEALTHY HAVE IT ALL


SO YOU CAN TAX THE WEALTHY THROUGH TAXES... OR MASSIVE INFLATION WHICH DEVALUES THEIR WEALTH BUT ALSO HITS FIXED INCOMES
... OR THROUGH MARKET CRASHES

----EVENTUALLY WE WILL OWN THE GOODS AND OIL OF THE OTHER COUNTRIES.... THEN WE WILL RUN MASSIVE INFLATION SO THE DOLLARS THEY HOLD ARE WORTHLESS

[Frank Booth]

131. Wow, this is great.

I'm hoping that somehow congress won't find a way to fuck this up.

[Shining Jack]

137. I hope that there will be more action and less maybe.

"The Obama administration wants" "The budget released today would" "The administration proposes"
"In all,Obama proposed". Please do it ! :putting on flameproof suit: :hide:

[rox63]

140. Now this is what I'm talkin' 'bout!

I hope he can get this through Congress.

[NecklyTyler]

142. It is time for an additional tax on the rich to recoup the losses from the Bush tax cuts

The country lost while the rich gained under Bush. It is time to even things out

[activa8tr]

151. I have ALWAYS thought that any tax increases should be labeled with the name

George W Bush payback-tax. Applied ONLY to the rich, at 50% of everything over half a million.

[NecklyTyler]

192. Welcome to DU

:hi:

[NecklyTyler]

143. K&R

[Deep13]

152. Suddenly, POTUS is awesome again!

:woohoo:

[Odin2005]

154. SOAK THE RICH!

[DireStrike]

159. It's about time!

THAT is some change I can believe in.

(Had to be said to counter the sarcastic overuse of that comment, though it has been legitimate.)

[Javaman]

161. And yet, corporations don't support a public option, which would save them money.

go figure.

[lonestarnot]

162. WOOHOODIE! WOODAMNWHOOOOOO!

Get it!

[butterfly77]

163. Kick &Recommended!

[Babel_17]

164. K&R

I approve of this and will support it.

[KansDem]

165. It's about time the wealthy pull their own weight...

:woohoo:

[Political Heretic]

191. It's about time the be expected to invest in sustainable society

It's not about pulling their own weight or what not. It's about this is the only way it can work.

To have a sustainable society you have to have those who have benefited the most from society be required to heavily reinvest back into society to keep it running strong.

They most invest back into social infrastructure, social welfare, services, education and the like because its what keeps them able to continue making money without collapsing the system.

In most cases, its in the best interest of the rich to pay the level of taxes required to sustain a robust society with strong infrastructure, great education and a vibrant middle class.

But not in ALL cases - there is an entire multi-billion dollar industry of predatory lending, debt "reduction" schemes and other scams that actively prey on poor people and exploit their poverty for profit. Payday Loans, the Bank overdraft and service charge industry, No-Credit/Bad-Credit Loanmakers and Mortgage firms, many debt reduction services, and so on are about the business of exploiting poverty to make a buck.

That entire domain of corrupt exploitation pretty much needs to be destroyed like a cancer. With services for people in poverty rebuild under strict regulatory oversight.

[Imagevision]

166. I really thought that Obama also forgot about this campaign promise....

[Hugin]

168. We ride!

Needs to happen.

[LatteLibertine]

169. Of course I support this

It is a move in the right direction.

They need to look at real financial sector reform too otherwise we will be looking at another financial market "crisis". The overwhelming majority of CEO pay and compensation should be tied directly to the real profits and growth of their corporation/business. Time to shut down the shell games and the tricks. Time to at least bring back the Glass-Steagall Act. In addition, we need to look at how large corporations often avoid competition by controlling our government through bribery.

In closing, thank you President Obama and I'll continue to do my best to help you promote economic and social justice.

[vaberella]

170. And yet there are some people on DU who are already not supporting his budget. ~sigh~

Just like the party of, NO.

[Haole Girl]

173. War is expensive. We will ALL be paying, a very long time. (nt)

[and-justice-for-all]

174. " $1.9 Trillion Tax Rise on Rich", About fucking time!!!

[krabigirl]

175. Good. If people complain, they should press to end the war$.

[W T F]

180. The Republicans are actually the ones who are raising taxes on the rich

The Bush Tax cuts expire and go back up to 2001 levels, The Republicans voted for this let's pin it on them!
Obama had nothing to do with this.

[David Zephyr]

182. Yes!

This is correct and good and needed and overdue.

Good for the President.

[Edweird]

183. That's good to hear. K&R

[Political Heretic]

188. Sounds good. I'm still studying the budget, conference call on thurs.

But there seems, at first glance, to be a lot to like.

[Xenotime]

206. It's about time we started to tax the rich. They have gotten away with it for too long.