Here's the history of it

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/cbb.html

You see the cap was increasing even before Reagan, although it was flat from 1937-1950.

The real value of the cap in 2013 dollars increased from $73,165 in 1980 to $88,544 in 1988, but it was also growing before Reagan, being just $62,324 in 1974.

The real thing Reagan did was increase the payroll tax, it was 6.13% in 1980 and 7.65% by 1990 (although some of those increases may have come from laws passed before Reagan was President) and the tax increase on the self-employed was huge. Those job creators saw their tax rate go from 8.1% in 1980 to 15.3% by 1990, almost a 90% increase, and on top of the increases in the cap. http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/taxRates.html

Is he serious? A MERE $400,000 a year? MERE?

A MERE $280,000 a year? MERE? 50% of taxpayers make less than $35,000 a year. So $200,000 is not "mere".

Those are the people who SHOULD be paying higher taxes - because they have most of the money.

In 2008, the top 0.1% had 10% of all AGI, the top 1% had 20% of it, and the top 10% had 46%. The bottom 50% had only 13%.

So, it looks like this
top 0.1% - 10%
top 0.9% - 10%
top 9% - 26%
next 40% - 41%
bottom 50% - 13%

Collectively, the top 9% has more money that the top 1%

I am NOT saying that the top tax rate shouldn't be much higher, or that the top 1% shouldn't pay more in taxes.

But you cannot give $666 billion in tax cuts to the top 1% (like Obama just did when he made most of the Bush tax cuts permanent) and also give $1.7 trillion to the top 19% and then say "the problem is ALL with the 1%" like that fucking $1.7 trillion is just chump change.

Again, here is a clue for the top 20% - quit looking up at the top 0.1% and feeling poor. Look down at the bottom 80% and realize YOU are rich. That maybe YOU can pay another $1,800 a year in taxes and that money could be used to fund food stamps or unemployment benefits for people much less fortunate than you.

In fact, the top 20% is a very, very big part of the problem. They favored the Reagan tax cuts - because they themselves got decent money from it. THEY also (most of them) favored the Bush tax cuts, AND favored keeping most of them permanent. They wanted to keep getting their slice of the $1.7 trillion. In fact, I am quite sure that most of them would rather impose the chained CPI on the rest of us before they would give up their share of the $1.7 trillion.

Things are more stacked against the bottom 70% than they are against the bottom 99%. Remember the $1.7 trillion.

I was just being sarcastic, because that is always the excuse conservadems use when one of their sell-outs betrays the working class and gives big bonuses to the rich, then they say "but, but, but, he/she needs to be re-elected."

Here's CTJ's analysis of it. A tax hike for the bottom 20% and 46.4% of the benefits going to the richest 5% and 77.9% (!!!) going to the richest 20% http://ctj.org/html/desc97.htm

here are the colas http://www.ssa.gov/cola/automatic-cola.htm

2001 - 3.5%
2002 - 2.6
2003 - 1.4
2004 - 2.1
2005 - 2.7
2006 - 4.1
2007 - 3.3
2008 - 2.3
2009 - 5.8
2010 - 0
2011 - 0
2012 - 3.6

so $1.000 a month has grown to $1,361.14 a month by 2012.

Now some might think that is a huge growth, and think that if it was reduced to $1,300 that that would not really be a "cut". Because, after all $1,300 is still more than $1,000.

But that is not what really happens. Consider, for example, the price of gas. In 2000, gas was selling for, let's say $1.25 a gallon. (I think it was less, but it was increasing from the low of 89.9 in late 1999 and I remember it increased just in time to hurt Gore in the election even though it was probably higher than $1.25 when Clinton was elected in 1996. I remember that too, because it was right when I bought my 2nd car in 1996 and gas was about $1.30.

Anyway, that $1,000 in 2000 would buy you 800 gallons of gasoline. By 2012, $1,000 would only buy about 300 gallons of gasoline.

The same is true, although I cannot remember prices, of things like bread and milk and any number of other items. Some items held steady. For example, I remember buying a Trek bicycle in 1990 for about $300 and then a new one in 2002 for $300 and then another one in 2004 for $275 (because they had a sales tax holiday)

So $1,300 in 2012 would only be equivalent, in general, to $975.03 in 2000. http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=1300&year1=2012&year2=2000 If the COLA does not keep up with inflation, then you are going backwards even as the nominal value of the check goes up, the real (non inflation) value is going down.

However, it does appear that past COLAs for Social security have been beating the rate of inflation. At least for the period from 2000-2012. The $1,000 growing to $1,361.40 beats the inflation rate of $1,333.3. Or, put another way, the real value of $1,361.40 in 2000 dollars is $1,021.11.

But the COLA has probably not been keeping up with the increasing costs of food, gasoline and medicine.

including twice during the primaries.

Obama "I've been very clear on this"

There is no "a place".

"I would ever feel welcomed in a place that considers me a pedophilia enabler,"

the "place" does not consider anything or believe anything. There are 47 star members who have me on ignore and 49 blocking PMs from me, and yet "the place" does not have me on ignore - only many of the members do. Some members say some things and they may even get dozens of recs for saying it, but that is not a statement from "the place". Just an opinion of some of the people who post here.

The place does not agree 100% on anything.

Except maybe that the Jets still suck. There IS widespread, nearly unanimous agreement on that.

tell me again how Republicans lost?

First of all, don't shoot the messenger.

I am just relaying the results of two reports from Citizens For Tax Justice

The first one shows that the betrayal (err, the "deal") was NOT a tax increase, it was a tax CUT

http://ctj.org/pdf/fiscalcliffdealrevenueimpacts.pdf

If all of the Bush tax cuts got extended that would have been a tax cut of $3.9 trillion.

Since only 85% of the Bush tax cuts were extended it means a tax cut of $3.3 trillion. Add to that the $369 billion in estate tax cuts which the White House is calling an increase in the estate tax. The total is $3.7 trillion in tax cuts.

We are supposed to cheer because the top 1% is gonna pay another $600 billion in taxes.

Okay, fine, but how is the $3.7 trillion in tax CUTS divided up.

That is in the next report http://ctj.org/pdf/bidenmcconnelldistribution.pdf Read it and weep.

The bottom 60% gets just 19% of the tax cut.
The same amount as the richest 1% gets.
The top 20% gets 65% of the tax cut - $2.4 trillion over ten years.

Say hello to more income inequality. $2.4 trillion in tax cuts for the top 20%. $700 billion in tax cuts for the bottom 60%. Plus $124 billion in recovery act credit provisions. Is still only $800 billion for the bottom 60%

Oh well, maybe those tax cuts to the top 20% will trickle down to the rest of us.

And we in the bottom 60% are supposed to believe that Obama is on OUR side? That the Democratic Party is on OUR side?

They will claim to be, but $2.4 trillion vesus $800 billion shows that claim is a lie.

Was it the best they could do? They did not even OFFER anything better to the American people. Our false choice was - keep 78% of the Bush tax cuts or keep 100% of them. No elected offical - not Tammy Baldwin, not Elizabeth Warren, not Dennis Kucinich, not Alan Grayson, not Sherrod Brown, not Sheldon Whitehouse, not Bernie Sanders, not Al Franken. None of them ever used their position to demand - let's keep ZERO percent of them and aim tax cuts at the bottom 60%.

All of those supposed progressives are apparently owned by the richest 20%.

"Rubin and his allies control the Democratic Party with their money at the moment. Their financial power will not be easily overcome. However, it is important that people understand that the Rubin-Clinton team is every bit as much about redistributing money from the rest of us to the very rich as the Republicans."

From Dean Baker http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/12/26-0

"Their financial power will not be easily overcome."

There seem to be those here who suggest that those of us from the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" are not loyal Democrats because we would attack the perfidity of the Rubin wing of the Democratic Party.

Let me once again link to, listen to and quote Ted Kennedy

"I am asking you to renew the commitment of the Democratic Party to economic justice"

"The serious issue before us tonight, is the cause for which the Democratic Party has stood in its finest hours ... our cause has been, since the days of Thomas Jefferson, the cause of the common man, and the common woman. Our cimmitment has been, since the days of Andrew Jackson, to all those he called "the humble members of society" - the farmers, mechanics and laborers. On this foundation we have defined our values, refined our policies and refreshed our faith."



A deal that heavily favors the top 20% over the bottom 40% is NOT a deal worthy of that heritage.

The Rubin wing is happy to accept and fight for such a deal, but I am not. Nor am I willing to just roll over and accept their domination of the Democratic Party. No, I will stand with the bottom 75%, the common man and the commom woman and hope that they will join together to take our party back.

from Citizens for Tax Justice

http://www.ctj.org/taxjusticedigest/archive/2012/11/despite_what_youve_heard_the_a.php

"If Congress departs from its annual tradition of steeply reducing the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), 57 percent of the tax will be paid by the richest five percent of Americans and 91 percent of the tax will be paid by the richest fifth of Americans. If Congress does reduce the AMT as usual, almost all of the tax will be paid by the richest five percent of Americans.

The AMT is one of the factors contributing to the hysteria in Washington about the so-called “fiscal cliff,” the point at which several tax cuts expire and several spending cuts go into effect at the end of this year. Lawmakers and observers often mistakenly portray the AMT as a tax that will affect middle-income Americans if it is not controlled."

From 2009, the top 20% got a whopping 92.6% of the benefits from the AMT patch. The top 5% got 43% of the benefits.

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/amtpatchisnotstimulus.pdf

Yet the M$M spreads the message that "we need to patch the AMT to help the MIDDLE CLASS"

I don't think the top 20% is part of the "middle" and the top 5% certainly is not.

First, a caveat, I cannot be sure that the proposals of today are the same as the proposals of 2010. They have many layers, these proposals do.

But, inevitably, keeping the Bush tax cuts for the first $250,000 in income means that those with more than $250,000 in income will still get tax cuts on that first portion of money, and under that plan somebody with $2 million in income gets bigger tax cuts than somebody with just $70,000 in income, especially if dividends are STILL given favorable treatment.

According to Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ), that meant that the top 1% got $40 billion worth of tax cuts per year. The top 4% got another $40 billion and the rest of the top 20% got another $80 billion. The top 20% gets $160 billion and the bottom 40% gets only $42 billion in Obama's original plan. The 2010 plan.

I still think that plan is awful, to favor the top 20% so much over the bottom 40%.

This proposal may have changed from 2010, I don't have that information. But it appears to not have changed, according to CTJ. They show Obama's current proposal bringing in $104 billion in revenue per year, which is about what they showed for the 2010 proposal.

So I still think the $250,000 threshhold favors the rich too much and would like to see ALL the Bush tax cuts expire and have Democrats propose tax cuts that would not favor the rich.

Obama has now proposed, according to many news sources, a $400,000 threshhold. Which means another $16 billion in tax cuts per year - the whole $16 billion going to people with incomes over $250,000. The total over ten years is $222 billion in EXTRA tax cuts going to those with incomes over $250,000. The bottom 20% only get $14 billion, but what the heck, let's offer the top 2% another $16 billion on top of the $40 billion plus they would get from the original deal.

Boehner's counter-offer, which is very likely to pass the House, gives another $33 billion a year in tax cuts - all of it going to those with income over $400,000 - the Republican base, the haves and the have-mores. Yep, Republicans are proposing another $454 billion in tax cuts on top of the $3.2 trillion that Obama is proposing, because they are very worried about the deficit. And they insist that $3.7 trillion in tax cuts (with about a trillion of that going to the richest 1%) have nothing to do with the debt.

It's important though, if you have a Democratic Senator, that they hear from you to vote AGAINST Boehner's deal.

links

for the original deal http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxcompromise2010.pdf

for the new proposals http://www.ctj.org/pdf/latestfiscalcliff.pdf