HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Welcome to the Grand Illu...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Oct 23, 2013, 01:59 AM

Welcome to the Grand Illusion

Yes, I welcome Styx fans.

Well, it seems we sort of have another Super-Committee working to find a "grand bargain" to solve our very serious debt problem. Omigosh, did you hear? The debt limit had to be raised - again. We have to do something.

Yet, we the people are being asked to accept a "grand compromise" between Republicans and Democrats.

However, the Republican position going in to negotiations is - the Ryan budget. This budget promises to balance the budget in ten years. But they start on the revenue side with a brand new idea for Republicans - tax cuts, and in another huge break with precedence, they are tax cuts where the rich get most - if not all of the benefits.

The Ryan budget DOES call for increases in tax revenue, but they do not say how that will happen in combination with the tax rate CUTS which they do specify. They say they will close loopholes and eliminate deductions (maybe that darned standard deduction that all those working people take to avoid paying their fair share). They cannot specify the loopholes because then people would be able to do the math and show their plan simply WILL NOT WORK. It is apparently a faith-based plan requiring Jesus to return and instead of turning water into wine, he will turn tax cuts into increases in revenue. Praise the Lord.

So, we start this Grand Illusion with one side having a position based on some combination of fantasy and lies. And some parts of the media will blame Democrats who do not "compromise" with such dishonest brokers.

Are Democrats saying very much about this basic problem in this 'negotiation"?

But what about the dishonesty of the Democrats? Not to raise the spectre of a dreaded false equivalency, but Democratic Politicians do not seem very honest to me either - most of them anyway.

First of all, by acting like a "grand bargain" is even possible or would somehow be beneficial. Second, by being half-hearted about revenue increases. Obama has proposed the Buffett rule, for one, which would raise a mere $50 billion or so over the next decade.

One thing they clearly can't talk about is their own Ryan-like deception. The fact that many of them already voted in favor of almost $6 trillion in tax cuts over the next decade.

Yes, I said almost $6 trillion - a number you have probably never heard. I had been using the number $3.7 trillion http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022130101

but it turns out I was wrong, or mis-led.

See, that $3.7 trillion number does not include the AMT patch, which was also made PERMANENT as part of the ATRA-(zine) legislation which was passed with Democratic votes and signed by Obama. The cost of THAT was kept hidden because, as Congress always does it (why?) it was already included in the baseline and thus the $1.9 trillion which it will cost over the next decade was not included in the cost calculations.

Isn't it wonderful how our politicians can sweep facts right under the rug?

So the real total (until I discover even MORE tax breaks swept under the rug) is $5.6 trillion - almost $6 trillion.

Now, because I am kind of obsessive about it, let's look at how the $5.6 trillion in tax cuts which DEMOCRATS passed are distributed. I already did this for the $3.7 trillion. Who gets the $1.9 trillion from the AMT patch?

The media will tell you it is the middle class. CTJ (Citizens for Tax Justice) disputes that. http://www.ctj.org/pdf/amtpatchisnotstimulus.pdf

Because that chart is for the Senate proposal from 2009, I cannot be sure those numbers hold for the ATRA's AMT patch, but they are the only numbers I had and since the AMT patch is pretty standard, they should be close.

They show that only 2.5% of the benefits of the patch go to the top 1%. Which is pretty good. But an astounding 43% go to the top 5% and an even more astounding 92.6% of the benefits go to the richest 20%.

So the AMT patch provides tax cuts to the top 5% of $817 billion over the next decade. Combined with the $1.3 trillion in tax cuts from ATRA gives them $2.1 trillion in PERMANENT tax cuts - to the richest 5%.

Well it sure will be nice if the Buffett rule gets $.05 trillion of that back.

But that is something that Democrats are not going to talk about - those $2.1 trillion in tax cuts for the richest 5% that they just voted FOR. Nor will they mention the $4.15 trillion in tax cuts for the richest 20% that they just voted for.

That's the Democratic Party's lie. That they will not bother to mention something like "hey, if we are concerned about the debt, how about undoing the $2.1 trillion in tax cuts we just gave to the richest 5% of Americans"

Of course, if they tried to talk about it, the richest 5% would probably fire them and buy another Congressperson, and as for the media? Well, they are largely owned by the richest 5% too.

But I have this Grand Illusion that I can help to make those two numbers part of the public discussion.
$2,1 trillion in tax cuts for the richest 5%
$4.1 trillion in tax cuts for the richest 20%

Remember them, use them, email them to your Congressperson and your local newspaper. Show me a "grand bargain" that reduces the deficit by more than $4 trillion.

31 replies, 1920 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 31 replies Author Time Post
Reply Welcome to the Grand Illusion (Original post)
hfojvt Oct 2013 OP
Pretzel_Warrior Oct 2013 #1
factsarenotfair Oct 2013 #2
hfojvt Oct 2013 #4
quinnox Oct 2013 #3
hfojvt Oct 2013 #21
1000words Oct 2013 #5
Poker Bots Oct 2013 #6
gopiscrap Oct 2013 #13
Dragonfli Oct 2013 #7
JDPriestly Oct 2013 #8
Divernan Oct 2013 #9
hfojvt Oct 2013 #18
SleeplessinSoCal Oct 2013 #10
jtuck004 Oct 2013 #11
SleeplessinSoCal Oct 2013 #20
hfojvt Oct 2013 #14
SleeplessinSoCal Oct 2013 #19
Laelth Oct 2013 #12
dawg Oct 2013 #15
hfojvt Oct 2013 #16
leftstreet Oct 2013 #17
ProSense Oct 2013 #22
hfojvt Oct 2013 #23
ProSense Oct 2013 #24
hfojvt Oct 2013 #25
ProSense Oct 2013 #26
hfojvt Oct 2013 #27
ProSense Oct 2013 #28
hfojvt Oct 2013 #29
ProSense Oct 2013 #30
hfojvt Oct 2013 #31

Response to hfojvt (Original post)


Response to hfojvt (Original post)

Wed Oct 23, 2013, 02:06 AM

2. How does Patty Murray fit into this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factsarenotfair (Reply #2)

Wed Oct 23, 2013, 02:16 AM

4. When it comes to ATRA

Murray voted for it
Baldwin voted for it (as a Rep who had already been elected to the Senate)
Sanders voted for it
Ryan voted for it

Were they aware that they were voting for $2.1 trillion in permanent tax cuts for the richest 5%?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Original post)

Wed Oct 23, 2013, 02:06 AM

3. Exactly, in any coming debates, it will be all about "austerity", and how the poor folk will have

 

to knuckle down, there won't be a peep heard about these Bush tax cuts that are still killing this country, instead, it will be all about "sacrificing" for the common good, because well, apparently, the rich deserve all they get!

Also, not a peep will be mentioned about our outrageous and obscene defense budget, which could be cut in half, and then cut in half again, and the funds given to social programs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #3)

Wed Oct 23, 2013, 02:29 PM

21. well gotta have priorities

it would not be fair to ask the top 5% to sacrifice for the bottom 95% would it? Much better to ask the bottom 60% to sacrifice, considering how little money that group donates to campaigns or gets play in the media.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Original post)

Wed Oct 23, 2013, 02:49 AM

5. Good post

Rec

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Original post)

Wed Oct 23, 2013, 02:53 AM

6. Grand Illusion

interesting read.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poker Bots (Reply #6)

Wed Oct 23, 2013, 06:51 AM

13. welcome to DU

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Original post)

Wed Oct 23, 2013, 03:46 AM

7. good, thoughtful post. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Original post)

Wed Oct 23, 2013, 04:19 AM

8. K&R.

What percentile are you in?

Find out here. (2011 income chart.)

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #8)

Wed Oct 23, 2013, 04:35 AM

9. Excellent link re distribution of wealth. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #8)

Wed Oct 23, 2013, 12:47 PM

18. the wiki page needs an edit

"The New York Times has used" the quintiles to define class. It has assigned the quintiles from lowest to highest as bottom fifth, lower middle, middle, upper middle, and top fifth.
Instead of laying that on the Times, making it sound like some concoction of the Librul Media or the M$M, it should say "Some social scientists use"

The quintiles, from that, are
bottom 20% - under $20,260
2nd 20% - under $38,515
middle 20% - under $62,434

bottom 60% - under $62,434

4th 20% - under $101,577

top 20% - over $101,577

top 5% - over $186,000

Although the Times chart is kinda cool http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/national/20050515_CLASS_GRAPHIC/index_01.html

Except it makes me no longer a Eugene Debs ("if there is a lower class, I am in it")

As a janitor, I was at the 12th percentile, but as a janitorial supervisor I am 23rd percentile. Education should not be included, in my opinion. My master's degree puts me in the 97th percentile for education, but since one of the main points of education is to get a better paying job with more prestige, being 97th percentile in education is kind of a moot point if you are still 12th or 23rd percentile in occupation.

Apparently they use individual income instead of household income. My individual income puts me at 56th percentile and household income puts me at only 35th. I think household income is more relevant than individual. For wealth, they put me at 85th percentile, which is ridiculous. I had to adjust that down since I am far closer to $100,000 than I am to $500,000 and they lumped that whole group together.

Still puts me at 45th percentile, maybe because I am old. Well out of the bottom 20%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Original post)

Wed Oct 23, 2013, 04:46 AM

10. How about hammering one point over and over until it's done

Raising payroll tax cap is the best fix for Social Security

It's win/win and the tax will go only to Social Secuirty and Medicare (as they are tied together)

So any Republican who says "no new taxes", just say this pays specifically for two necessary programs at a time they are most needed. And that's because those with the money not dependent on SS also have the needed revenue that the working poor dependent on SS & Medicare don't have. Once it's paid for by raising the cap, then there's likely no need for more revenue and the "Entitlement problem" is behind us.

Found this at Daily Kos:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/12/1201361/-Raising-payroll-tax-cap-is-the-best-fix-for-Social-Security

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SleeplessinSoCal (Reply #10)

Wed Oct 23, 2013, 05:02 AM

11. That's really a good idea. And easy - Perhaps 70% of the people already pay this, why are we letting


others off the hook - IT'S NOT FAIR!

"You, and you, and you are already paying it, yet the rich guy down the street, the one making $250,000 a year is not. What makes him so special that the government needs to give him special treatment on your back? How much do you make? $7.50, $10, $17? He makes $125 an hour, probably does less work than you, and gets a free ride on your social security. Do you think that's fair? Don't you think he should pay his bills just like you do?"

We could have a field day with this.

Anyone who would rather have a conversation about cutting social security with a chained index, on the backs of the most vulnerable, should pay a price. I'd rather lose the representation than win by sacrificing the elderly and infirm for my comfort.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jtuck004 (Reply #11)

Wed Oct 23, 2013, 01:53 PM

20. The are paying actually, but only up to a limit. Raise that limit aka "the cap".

I swear it was written in because they are so cynical. They know "trickle down" is completely bogus. Disposable or money for a rainy day fund is always trickle up. So by putting a cap on contributions to Social Security, they could eventually do what so many of them want, get rid of Social Security and Medicare. And that sounds completely crazy, but this is what we deal with.

Just try listening to Charlie Rose on or near the topic of "Entitlements". He's either completely clueless, or his sponsors would kill him if he didn't contantly bring up the budget and "fixing entitlements". He got Warren Buffet on record last night to say that Social Security has to be fixed.

Well, RAISE THE CAP! And then SHUT UP Charlie!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SleeplessinSoCal (Reply #10)

Wed Oct 23, 2013, 11:34 AM

14. one trouble with that

Medicare is in more financial trouble than social security, and there ALREADY is no cap on the medicare portion of FICA taxes.

I just like to keep coming back to the $2.1 trillion.

Permanent tax cuts that already got passed for the richest 5%.

Instead of proposing something like the chained CPI http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/04/10/the-ins-and-outs-of-chained-cpi-explained/
which would reduce costs by $130 billion over the next decade, why not get rid of those tax cuts for the rich?

On the one side you have
$2.1 trillion in tax cuts for the top 5%

on the other side you have
$0.13 trillion in savings from the chained CPI

Which one of those has a bigger impact on the debt?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #14)

Wed Oct 23, 2013, 01:42 PM

19. Agreed. NO Chaine CPI!!!

Since the GOP loudly insists no revenues be on the table, we know they're playing with a horrible hand. How to get the most voters behind the Democratic demands is important, I think.

I fear that they could claim it wouldn't fix the problem because they will disperse it all over the place and still leave SS & Medicare short. Raising the cap could fix Medicare shortages if it is written correctly so it passes along funds to the Medicare program. It happens all the time. Medicare comes from Social Security. It must be possible to correct that with pen and paper.

I suspect even getting rid of the tax cuts for the top 5% would be spun with tons of ads paid for with disposable income. The Dems need just one good ad negating all of theirs by pointing in a very inexpensive way how much money they're burning on tv ads to keep from having to give up another increase. Maybe there's a way to peel off a substantial number of that 5% to support the idea with ads. That would be cool.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Original post)

Wed Oct 23, 2013, 05:50 AM

12. Useful information. k&r for exposure. n/t

-Laelth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Original post)

Wed Oct 23, 2013, 11:38 AM

15. Can I go to Paradise Theater instead?

I think I could have the best of times there, even though I might find myself with too much time on my hands. Oh well, I guess nothing ever goes as planned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dawg (Reply #15)

Wed Oct 23, 2013, 11:58 AM

16. you could

but I think Kilroy was already there.

and Grand Illusion is the place for a Blue Collar Man to pick up his Pieces of Eight and Come Sail Away

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Original post)

Wed Oct 23, 2013, 12:05 PM

17. DURec

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Original post)

Wed Oct 23, 2013, 03:08 PM

22. Still pushing this nonsense?

But that is something that Democrats are not going to talk about - those $2.1 trillion in tax cuts for the richest 5% that they just voted FOR. Nor will they mention the $4.15 trillion in tax cuts for the richest 20% that they just voted for.

That's the Democratic Party's lie. That they will not bother to mention something like "hey, if we are concerned about the debt, how about undoing the $2.1 trillion in tax cuts we just gave to the richest 5% of Americans"

I notice in a comment above you noted that Sanders voted for it.

What you've been doing is pushing a claim that ignores the current tax structure. If you cut the payroll tax or increase the payroll tax, it affects everyone in every income bracket up to the cap.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022935634#post25

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #22)

Wed Oct 23, 2013, 05:18 PM

23. well thankfully the accursed payroll tax cut was ENDED

with ATRA.

That was one thing they got right.

And the current tax structure really has nothing to do with it. You can cut taxes in a way that primarily benefits the bottom (and even Obama did that ONCE with the making work pay credit, which he then quickly abandoned) or you can cut taxes in a way that primarily benefits rich people.

Unfortunately, Democrats chose to do the latter.

And that Sanders voted FOR it, does not change the measurable facts. It is a $5.6 trillion tax cut with $2.1 trillion going to the richest 5% and $4.1 trillion going to the richest 20%.

And I still say - if you want to reduce the debt and deficit - get rid of the tax cuts for the rich.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #23)

Wed Oct 23, 2013, 06:01 PM

24. Nonsense.

"And the current tax structure really has nothing to do with it. You can cut taxes in a way that primarily benefits the bottom (and even Obama did that ONCE with the making work pay credit, which he then quickly abandoned) or you can cut taxes in a way that primarily benefits rich people. "

Your argument ignores the current tax structure. You now want to compare apples to oranges. The OP is based on the current tax structure, but your spin ignores that.

The Making Work Pay tax credit, which was part of the stimulus, has nothing to do with the OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #24)

Wed Oct 23, 2013, 07:04 PM

25. right back at you

Again, the current tax structure really has nothing to do with it.

The OP is about the measurable fact that Democrats (many of them) passed tax cuts that benefit the rich.

Your argument that there is no way to cut taxes without primarily benefitting the rich because of the structure of the tax system is just nonsense. There are more than fifty ways to cut taxes and the current tax structure does not force major benefit to the rich.

Heck the structure can even be changed if Congress passes a law.

Tax cuts for the rich are simply NOT the only alternative, much less the best one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #25)

Wed Oct 23, 2013, 07:08 PM

26. More nonsense

Again, the current tax structure really has nothing to do with it.

The OP is about the measurable fact that Democrats (many of them) passed tax cuts that benefit the rich.

The OP is about the current tac structure.

Your argument that there is no way to cut taxes without primarily benefitting the rich because of the structure of the tax system is just nonsense. There are more than fifty ways to cut taxes and the current tax structure does not force major benefit to the rich.

Bullshit. I made no such argument.

Heck the structure can even be changed if Congress passes a law.

LOL! So you're now confirming the tax structure is relevant, but it can be changed?

What the hell does that have to do with the fact that the OP is about the current tax structure?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #26)

Wed Oct 23, 2013, 08:07 PM

27. Why is it impossible to reason with you?

Where do I have to start?

Do we agree that 2+2=4?
Is the square root of 43,046,721 equal to 6561?

*Can we agree on that?

Okay, moving on

On January 1, 2013 Congress passed a disgusting bill called the American Taxpayer Relief Act (or ATRA for short) and the next day Obama signed it.

*Are we still good, except for your quibble over the word 'disgusting'?

Democrats in the House voted for this excrement by 172-16
Democrats in the Senate voted for this excrement by 50-3

*Still good? (except for the descriptor?)

Instead of passing that bill, Congress COULD have passed a bill changing the tax structure. They could (in theory) have done anything they wanted with tax rates, the tax structure, etc., etc., etc.

They did NOT have to pass the stupid bill that they passed, and Obama did NOT have to sign it. "There are always alternatives." (saith Mr. Spock)

*Do we still agree on that? That's true, right?

Now, perhaps we get to the heart of the disagreement. What was the impact of that odious piece of legislation?

Now, the Joint Committee on Taxation - not me, mind you, but the JCT says the bill ATRA will reduce revenue. It is a $3.7 trillion tax cut. But that does not include the $1.9 trillion lost due to the permanent AMT patch.

This is where Obama disagrees. Obama likes to use the Republican baseline, the Republican perspective. Perhaps because that baseline makes him look like less of a weasel.

the Whitehouse site says this:

"The relevant point of comparison isn't current law, it is “current policy” – those policies that were in place on December 31st, the day before all of these changes were scheduled to take effect. Different organizations, ranging from the Bowles-Simpson Fiscal Commission to the House Budget Committee, have considered this current policy baseline to be the appropriate reference point, since it measures changes relative to the status quo, rather than the mix of expiring provisions and policy changes that would likely never be implemented."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/01/01/american-taxpayer-relief-act-reduces-deficits-737-billion

Note well WHOSE side Obama is taking there. The side of Bowles-Simpson and the side of the Republican lead House Budget Committee.

Taking that perspective Obama and Congressional Democrats could have just kept ALL of the Bush tax cuts, except $1 and called THAT a "tax increase" instead of a massive tax cut.

And what did we used to say about the Bush tax cuts?

Was it that most of the benefits went to the rich?

Presumably we wanted to end that outrage and that is one of the reasons we voted for Obama and Democrats. It certainly was for ME.

The very people who betrayed us by NOT ending that outrage.

Instead of getting rid of most of the Bush tax cuts, they voted to make most of them permanent.

Well, according to Obama's perspective (and the Republican perspective), keeping 100% of the Bush tax cuts and making them permanent is NOT a huge tax cut.

I say that it is.

And I say the same thing about making 85% of the Bush tax cuts permanent. And I say the same thing about the permanent AMT patch.

Look at the facts and see WHO benefits from those laws.

As to what the Whitehouse wrote about "changes that would likely never be implemented"

Well, that depends, does it not, on what people fight for. We elected Obama because he promised "change you can believe in" and said "yes we can".

Instead of making those changes or even FIGHTING for those changes, Obama opted to betray us, and took Congressional Democrats (at least some of them, others of those oily slimebuckets doubtless went willingly (yes, Herb Kohl, I AM looking at you))

I am quite sure all of this verbiage will not convince you, or force you to admit the truth that you really know, and you will just respond with something like "more spin" or "more nonsense" and maybe a few thrown in just for the heck of it, and to be aggravating, or even some nonsense about how "the tax structure is progressive".

But I am always happy to kick my own thread, and there I have laid it out, in ways that hopefully even a sixth grader could understand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #27)

Wed Oct 23, 2013, 08:12 PM

28. Why are you ignoring the effect of the current tax structure?

If you change the bottom level from 15 percent to 10 percent, everyone earning taxable income benefits, even the top one percent of income earners.

Deal with that reality.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #28)

Wed Oct 23, 2013, 10:36 PM

29. maybe because that is not how the rich win

that's NOT how the top 5% get their $2.1 trillion.

Check this out http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/103

in 2001 tax rates for singles were
15% on first $27,050
27.5% up to $65,550
30.5% up to $136,750
35.5% up to $297,350
39.1% for the rest


in 2008 tax rates for singles were
10% on first $8.025
15% up to $32,550
25% up to $78,850
28% up to $164,550
33% up to $357,700
35% for the rest


Sure, in that bottom bracket almost everybody (except the poorest) gets the same $401.25 tax cut (except in 2012, the 10% rate went up to $8,350)

But if you keep the 25% rate on that 3rd bracket EVERYbody does not benefit, only those with taxable income greater than $32,550.

And the next rate cut only benefits those with taxable income over $78,850.

And the next rate cut only benefits those with taxable income over $164,550.

And then there is the favorable tax treatment of dividends. Sure enough, I did have $67.70 in dividend income last year. So I save a whole $10.16 in taxes thanks to Obama keeping the Bush tax cuts.

Somehow, though, that becomes a much bigger benefit to Mitt Romney with his $5,000,000 in dividend income and Alice Walton with her $500,000,000 in dividend income.

Then there's the estate tax cuts, which Obama dishonestly called "increases" in the estate tax. Those only benefit people with estates larger than $1,000,000.

And there's the point. Instead of the filthy turd of ATRA, Congress could have chosen and Obama could have fought for
1. no cuts to the estate tax
2. treat dividends like wage income
3. only keep the lower rates on the bottom 3 brackets.

But then, omigosh, taxes would go up for the 15% of people making from $78,000 to $200,000, and even though they would still get tax cuts on their first $78,000 of taxable income, we just cannot have those "middle class people" paying more in taxes, even though they make more money than about 75% of the rest of us.

No, they are a major donor class and so they must keep ALL of their Bush tax cuts, and if that means that even richer people get even bigger tax cuts, then so be it.

After all, what choice do voters have when even the socialist votes for the tax cuts for the rich? And the M$M, and even Krugman, will never tell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #29)

Wed Oct 23, 2013, 10:50 PM

30. The current income tax structure is across the board, and

the 2013 rates are.

10% up to $8,925
15% up to $36,250
25% up to $87,850
28% up to $183,250
33% up to $398,350
35% up to $400,000
39.6% at $400,001+

And since you're speculating and wishing, here is an actual tax increase that did hit the rich.

Net Investment Income Tax

A new Net Investment Income Tax goes into effect starting in 2013. The 3.8 percent Net Investment Income Tax applies to individuals, estates and trusts that have certain investment income above certain threshold amounts. The IRS and the Treasury Department have issued proposed regulations on the Net Investment Income Tax. Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail or hand delivered to the IRS. For additional information on the Net Investment Income Tax, see our questions and answers.

Additional Medicare Tax

A new Additional Medicare Tax goes into effect starting in 2013. The 0.9 percent Additional Medicare Tax applies to an individual’s wages, Railroad Retirement Tax Act compensation, and self-employment income that exceeds a threshold amount based on the individual’s filing status. The threshold amounts are $250,000 for married taxpayers who file jointly, $125,000 for married taxpayers who file separately, and $200,000 for all other taxpayers. An employer is responsible for withholding the Additional Medicare Tax from wages or compensation it pays to an employee in excess of $200,000 in a calendar year. The IRS and the Department of the Treasury have issued proposed regulations on the Additional Medicare Tax. Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail or hand delivered to the IRS. For additional information on the Additional Medicare Tax, see our questions and answers.

http://www.irs.gov/uac/Affordable-Care-Act-Tax-Provisions



http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023795712

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #30)

Thu Oct 24, 2013, 12:22 AM

31. so they are across the board

that does not mean that Obama could not have fought for and Congress could not have passed rates like this

10% up to $8,925
15% up to $36,250
25% up to $87,850
30.5% up to $183,250
35.5% up to $398,350
39.1% up to $400,000
39.6% at $400,001+

and also mandated that dividends be treated like ordinary income, just like they were in the good old days before Bush mucked things up.

And further, that does not mean that what Obama and Democrats eventually settled for is NOT very advantageous to the rich.

Because it is, to the tune of $2.1 trillion as the analysis of CTJ shows.

$2.1 trillion in permanent tax cuts to the top 5% that all those Democrats voted for and that Obama signed and wants to spin as some sort of 'victory'.

It's a $2.1 trillion loss.

I would even say it is a $4 trillion loss, but SOME people are bound and determined to include most of the TOP 20% as part of the "middle" class.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread