HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » The 39% tax limit has de-...

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:06 PM

The 39% tax limit has de-nutted the Democratic Party.

It has assured our nation of decline. It has guaranteed a transfer of wealth to the top and away from the middle.

For me, it is depressing to hear a Democratic President say that "we are only asking the wealthy to pay just a little more to take care of our deficit because we cannot cut our way out of this..."

Please, pretty please?

30 replies, 1997 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 30 replies Author Time Post
Reply The 39% tax limit has de-nutted the Democratic Party. (Original post)
kentuck Nov 2012 OP
Angry Dragon Nov 2012 #1
kentuck Nov 2012 #2
MrYikes Nov 2012 #3
1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #5
kentuck Nov 2012 #9
1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #15
kentuck Nov 2012 #16
1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #20
kentuck Nov 2012 #22
1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #29
gravity Nov 2012 #4
kentuck Nov 2012 #6
gravity Nov 2012 #8
kentuck Nov 2012 #10
LiberalFighter Nov 2012 #7
dawg Nov 2012 #11
kentuck Nov 2012 #12
yellowcanine Nov 2012 #13
kentuck Nov 2012 #14
quaker bill Nov 2012 #17
Filibuster Harry Nov 2012 #18
hack89 Nov 2012 #19
Motown_Johnny Nov 2012 #24
1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #30
MineralMan Nov 2012 #21
kentuck Nov 2012 #23
MineralMan Nov 2012 #25
kentuck Nov 2012 #26
MineralMan Nov 2012 #27
kentuck Nov 2012 #28

Response to kentuck (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:12 PM

1. back up to 70% and that is below the all time high

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #1)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:14 PM

2. We should never take that option off the table...

By saying 39% is the absolute limit, if we are nice to them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #1)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:14 PM

3. I don't have any problems with your number, but 65% sounds better to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #1)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:23 PM

5. Baby steps ...

Baby steps that can be taken relatively easily, without burn too much political capital, will get us where we are headed a lot quicker than demanding a great step that does not occur.

This is a long, studied game; not the last quarter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #5)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:32 PM

9. Like Reagan did...

When he cut taxes from 70% to 28% ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #9)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:47 PM

15. and then ... he re-raised them ...

incrementally.

It's always easier to CUT taxes drastically, than raise them at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #15)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:48 PM

16. He did but...

not enough.

He tripled the national debt. I would agree that it is easier to cut taxes than raise them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #16)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:22 PM

20. Do you also agree ...

that incremental raises, that are doable without expending too much political capital, are better than going for all the raises at tremendous cost, if at all?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #20)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:30 PM

22. I'm not sure about that.

The Republicans are as much against $1 dollar of tax increases as they are of $1 million dollar increases.

So, if that is the case....?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #22)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 05:03 PM

29. Philosophically, maybe ...

but such an approach in this political environment is untenable for the gop, if they reatin any political ambition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:23 PM

4. What is your plan to get House Republicans to vote for a higher rate?

and prevent Congressional Democrats from being voted out in 2014.

You can vote for higher rates in the future when the Democrats control the house and the public is more accepting the idea of tax increases. For now, you have to take what you can get.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gravity (Reply #4)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:26 PM

6. Yes, the Repubs in the House have to be defeated.

That should be what we are focused on. We are not going to get anything with these guys in charge. They do not want a compromise. Once we realize that, we can begin to strategize on how to get rid of them in the next election.

I really dislike these elaborate clarifications from the WH spokesman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #6)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:31 PM

8. You force the Repubicans to accept 39%

then you watch the party have a civil war over it.

The fiscal cliff is set up to hurt Republicans far worst than Democrats. Obama just has to say he will sign middle class tax cuts and accuse the Republicans for holding the country hostage over tax cuts for the rich.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gravity (Reply #8)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:33 PM

10. Sounds simple, doesn't it?

But will that happen?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:28 PM

7. Push this on the social network that rich should be taxed more (Twitter)

Why not have it as (suggested) follows:

$250k - $500k ---- 35%
$500k - $1m --- 40%
$1m - $5m --- 45%
over $5 million --- 50%

Just a reminder the tax rates do not apply to all of the taxable amount. Only to the amount that falls inside the bracket.

There needs to be more than one tax rate for capital gains and dividends too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:37 PM

11. Don't forget that Mittens was only paying 14% at the most.

We can do lots to raise revenue from the upper class and still maintain a maximum tax rate of 39%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dawg (Reply #11)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:39 PM

12. I would agree but..

we should not carve that number into stone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:40 PM

13. I really wish you would not throw around the graphic emasculation synonyms so lightly.

You could trigger panic attacks amongst the less secure males in the forum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yellowcanine (Reply #13)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:42 PM

14. Sorry about that.

Didn't the President just win a hard-fought victory?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:48 PM

17. 39.6% will be back Jan 1.

Obama will never run again, it is not a game of chicken for him. He has the last job of his life for the next 4 years. All the house members run again in two.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:49 PM

18. Part of Obama's plan

here is a part of president obama's plan as I understand it:

1) tax rates: currently have 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33%, and 35%
President wants the following: 10%, 15%, 25%, 28 or 33%, 36% and 39.5%
If nothing happens then rates go to 15%, 28%, 31%, 36%, and 39.5%

2) Capital Gains: Currently those in 10 - 15% bracket the tax is 0%
President wants those in 10-28% bracket to have cg tax 0 and 15% whereas those in the 36 and 39.5% bracket cg tax would be at 20%
If nothing happens: capital gains tax goes to 10% and max of 20%

3) dividends: the biggie
Currently: tax brackets 10 - 15% pay 0%; others pay 15%
President wants those in 10-28% bracket to pay 0 or 15% but wants those in the 36 or 39.6% to pay 20%
If nothing happens then dividends go to ordinary rates (big increase on the wealthy)

Problem with the capital gains and dividends tax rate is regardless of your income your first ($ 34,500 if single or $ 69,000 if married filing joint of cg or dividends ) is taxed at 0%. So like Governor Romney's first $69,000 of dividends/cg wasn't taxed. How fair is that?

Much much to talk about on this subject. The only thing concerning me if nothing happens is the amount of credits that expire that will hit the middle class. But I think the rich will be pissed if their rates go to 39.5% from 35% AND the dividends are taxed at regular rates. Now if that happens they will sell their stocks in order to pay a max of 20%, but it could get very interesting.
Personally, I think the president should go for a slight increase like 28 to 30%, 33 to 35%, 35 to 37%.

What's your opinion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:57 PM

19. Tax revenue as a percentage of GDP has never been higher.

Yes - tax rates need to be much higher on the rich to deal with the debt. But the government is still getting a shit ton of tax revenue. Paying for constant wars and endless subsidies to business and agriculture show that cutting is just as important.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #19)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:31 PM

24. Got a link to back that up?

http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/obama-tax-revenue-drought-not-spending-binge


^snip^

Obama Presided Over a Tax Revenue Drought, Not a Spending Binge





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #24)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 05:06 PM

30. Oops ...

There you liberals go with those things again ... What do you call them, again? Oh yeah ... FACTS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:25 PM

21. Since at least half of the Democratic party is made up of women,

I'm afraid your emasculation metaphor is misplaced. Perhaps you could substitute "spines" for testicles. It would be more apt, given the makeup of the party, don't you think?

I'm just saying...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #21)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:31 PM

23. Everybody takes everything so literally...

don't they?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #23)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:33 PM

25. No, not really. It's a metaphor, not a literal statement.

It's just an inept one that doesn't reflect the makeup of the Democratic Party. We all know you weren't literally referring to castration. So, no, nobody's taking it literally at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #25)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:39 PM

26. So it's a bad metaphor?

Huh?

Yes, we cannot "de-nut" the Democratic Party because it is bi-sexual?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #26)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:42 PM

27. Not a "bad" metaphor. Just a poorly-chosen one.

It only applies to half of the Democratic party, so it's poorly-selected. I don't care if you use it, though. It's just that there are better choices you could have made. If you minimize the importance of women to the Democratic Party, you make a serious mistake. Not a "bad" metaphor. Just a poor one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #27)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:47 PM

28. Yes, we may both be wrong.

If we are to assume that half the Democratic Party has balls. I think that would be debatable also? But if we must apply a definite sex to the Party, I suppose you have a point?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread