HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Ed Schultz: Democrats Sho...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:48 PM

Ed Schultz: Democrats Should Make The Rich Pay Higher Than Clinton Tax Rates

Gotta admit I don't get this. The Bush tax cuts are already expiring...so why not ask for something else, like higher taxes on millionaires and billionaires?

Ed Schultz: Democrats Should Make The Rich Pay Higher Than Clinton Tax Rates

In a radio interview with MSNBC’s Ed Schultz, Progressive Change Campaign Committee co-founder Adam Green argued that Democrats should go on offense and use smart leverage in fiscal talks. Schultz agreed, and then proposed that Democrats ask for higher than Clinton tax rates on the rich.

Read more: http://boldprogressives.org/ed-schultz-democrats-should-make-the-rich-pay-higher-than-clinton-tax-rates/

17 replies, 1214 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 17 replies Author Time Post
Reply Ed Schultz: Democrats Should Make The Rich Pay Higher Than Clinton Tax Rates (Original post)
Report1212 Dec 2012 OP
aandegoons Dec 2012 #1
kooljerk666 Dec 2012 #2
Angry Dragon Dec 2012 #3
thelordofhell Dec 2012 #4
GermanSmoker Dec 2012 #5
aandegoons Dec 2012 #7
unblock Dec 2012 #8
uponit7771 Dec 2012 #9
bowens43 Dec 2012 #6
RoccoR5955 Dec 2012 #10
ErikJ Dec 2012 #11
TahitiNut Dec 2012 #17
Brazen67 Dec 2012 #12
hrmjustin Dec 2012 #14
bvar22 Dec 2012 #13
Blanks Dec 2012 #15
bvar22 Dec 2012 #16

Response to Report1212 (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:51 PM

1. Ed for president.

What the heck are the Democrats doing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Report1212 (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:51 PM

2. agree much higher.............

 

..............and more on stocks & dividends crap & tax on all wall street trades for 10 zillion stock per second trades.

Much higher estate tax too!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Report1212 (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:51 PM

3. 70% should be the top rate

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Report1212 (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:56 PM

4. And if the rich have any problems with it......there's always Belize

I heard they're looking for more rich people

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Report1212 (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:56 PM

5. No

Returning to the Clinton Era tax rates is good enough. Reintroducing Glass-Steagall would also help. Banning of all derivatives would do wonders to the economy. All this insane speculation that has nothing to do with the real economy is the main reason for the instability of our financial system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GermanSmoker (Reply #5)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:00 PM

7. What he said was.

That instead of offering more pain on the 98% for less tax cuts to the repukes. The Democrats should tell them to sign the senate bill now or face an even higher tax offer after the first of the year.

Basically deal from a position of power not one of weakness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GermanSmoker (Reply #5)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:15 PM

8. no, not at all.

clinton era tax rates might be good enough to bring the deficit under control, but wouldn't be good enough to even start reversing the upward concentration of wealth. it would merely slow it down a bit.

glass-steagall is hopelessly outdated, and the big problems and systemic risks didn't and aren't coming from now-legal violations of the old glass-steagall rules. dodd-frank actually does quite a bit better at regulating the financial industry in this regard. we could and should do more, but glass-steagall is something that the financial community found ways around long ago.

derivatives have a terrible reputation, but the vast majority of derivative positions are incredibly useful and safe and appropriate. they allow all manner of legitimate risks to be hedged and transferred to entities that are in a better position to manage them. in fact, to a large extent, many derivatives actually offset and cancel out. the net risk is far, far lower than one might guess when looking at the "total" of all derivatives out there. the problem is not derivatives themselves, but the ability of big financial institutions to take outsized exposures and put the entire economy at risk. regulations should either limit the size of the risks or limit the systemic effects of a financial institution's failure.

"all this insane speculation" is mostly not speculation at all. it's providing a financial services to those who have legitimate business risk. if i run a business that requires oil, my business might get killed if oil prices surge. so it's wise for me to buy oil futures (or some such derivative) so that if that price surge happens, my futures position offsets the loss to my business. my business continues to run and jobs are saved. this is not a bad thing, even if on the other side of the trade it looks like some bank or hedge fund is just making a wild bet the oil prices will go down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #8)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:18 PM

9. Take deritive trading back to pre 90s laws then, the whole world wide food issue is disgusting

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Report1212 (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:59 PM

6. Absolutely. Much higher would be appropriate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Report1212 (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:37 PM

10. They should be paying the same rates as they did when EISENHOWER

was president. That would be a top tax bracket of 91%. What the heck, make it 99.9%. They don't need any more money over, say, two million a year, now do they?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Report1212 (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:45 PM

11. The problem is 90% of Americans dont know what MARGINAL TAX RATE means.

They hear 70% tax rate and they think the WHOLE amount is taxed at that rate. It means just the portion over a set amount usually any amount over 2 or 3 million. This helps them think twice about paying their CEO's 400 times more than the average worker! It keeps money in the company for growth and sharing wages/salaries equitably.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ErikJ (Reply #11)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 06:25 AM

17. Even worse, most don't understand that reducing taxes on $250k and below ...

.... ALSO benefits the wealthy with incomes far higher. EVERYONE with income benefits when the tax rates on the LOWER income brackets are reduced!

The reprehensible DEMAND by the GOP that the wealthy get a tax cut that ONLY THE WEALTHY get is incomprehensible ... ethical bankruptcy!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Report1212 (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:47 PM

12. Give It To Them Straight Big Ed

 

Progressives Must Save This Country From The Greedy!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brazen67 (Reply #12)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:44 PM

14. Welcome to DU and I hope you enjoy the site.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Report1212 (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:32 PM

13. Thank You, Big Eddie!

I've been saying THAT for years,
but I wouldn't stop at 42% on the Top Bracket.

I would go all the way back to the early 60s.
Eisenhower set the rate of the Top at 92%,
and claimed that the RICH had a Patriotic Duty to help pay down the War Debt,
and they DID!

JFK later lowered the rate to 72% AFTER the National Debt was paid down....
AND America PROSPERED,
and built the largest, wealthiest, and most Upwardly Mobile Working Class the World had ever seen,
AND....some people STILL got RICH!


Face It!
The Democratic Party Leadership is fighting FOR Historically LOW Taxes on the RICH,
and will claim THAT as a HUGE Victory!

39.5% will NOT make a difference to the RICH, the Poor, OR the Deficit.
72%.... or 90%...
Now THAT is worthy of a Democratic Party fight,
and is also HOW this debate should be framed.
The Republicans would come slithering on their bellies
BEGGING for 42%!

Oh Well.
Everything is rainbows in Centrist New Democrat Heaven.



"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone


photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #13)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 07:32 PM

15. The simplest motto is this:

Lets return to the policies of the times of the greatest economic expansion. Since that means a time when the top marginal tax rate of 91%; let's return to that. Let those that don't believe that was part of the solution prove their case.

We've had a decade of ridiculously low tax rates to the wealthy and the results were not as promised. Let's try something that has a track record of success.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blanks (Reply #15)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 07:51 PM

16. You mean a "You want your America Back?" campaign?

I'm ALL for it!

I want THAT America back too!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread