HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Pelosi: No Deal Without R...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 11:35 AM

Pelosi: No Deal Without Raising Tax Rates On High Incomes

Source: TPM



SAHIL KAPUR 10:58 AM EST, SUNDAY NOVEMBER 18, 2012

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) categorically rejected a fiscal deal that does not raise tax rates on upper incomes, arguing that "just to close loopholes is far too little money."

Asked Sunday on ABC's "This Week" if she'd accept a deal that would hold tax rates constant but cap deductions for high earners, she said, "No."

"The president made it very clear that there are not enough of the sort," she said, calling that approach "a blueprint for hampering our future" because it would require deeper cuts in investments.

On potential reforms to safety net programs like Medicare and Social Security, something Republicans are calling for, she said, "If that means harming beneficiaries, I don't think that's such a good idea."

-30-

Read more: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/pelosi-no-deal-without-raising-tax-rates-on

22 replies, 3733 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 22 replies Author Time Post
Reply Pelosi: No Deal Without Raising Tax Rates On High Incomes (Original post)
DonViejo Nov 2012 OP
bread_and_roses Nov 2012 #1
WorseBeforeBetter Nov 2012 #8
Dubster Nov 2012 #2
wtmusic Nov 2012 #5
AllyCat Nov 2012 #3
wtmusic Nov 2012 #4
Bibliovore Nov 2012 #20
Downwinder Nov 2012 #6
Overseas Nov 2012 #13
Downwinder Nov 2012 #15
Overseas Nov 2012 #16
Downwinder Nov 2012 #17
closeupready Nov 2012 #7
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #18
harun Nov 2012 #21
sofa king Nov 2012 #9
rock Nov 2012 #10
sofa king Nov 2012 #14
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #19
msongs Nov 2012 #11
freshwest Nov 2012 #12
Liberalynn Nov 2012 #22

Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 11:46 AM

1. Well, the spin on "reforms" to SS/MA/MC will be ...

... that they "protect" the programs for beneficiaries"

So I'm sorry, I find this a bit less than reassuring. I want to hear "NO CUTS." And that means no raising the age of eligibility, either, for future beneficiaries. Raising the age IS a cut.

And to any who defend raising the retirement or MA age - which are already TOO HIGH - I want to see them breaking pavement on a road crew all day, or standing behind a cash register for eight hours. At even age fifty-five, forget at sixty-seven.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bread_and_roses (Reply #1)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 12:44 PM

8. Full retirement already is 67 for those born 1960 and after...

isn't 69 the magic number that's now being floated around? UFB.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 11:47 AM

2. Spam deleted by gkhouston (MIR Team)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dubster (Reply #2)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 12:01 PM

5. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 11:50 AM

3. "Closing loopholes" is code for closing middle class loopholes

like mortgage interest deduction, EIC, child tax credit, student loan interest deduction. That's what the Republicans want to close. Not loopholes for the rich. I don't mind paying higher tax if the rich actually have to pay their share.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AllyCat (Reply #3)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 12:00 PM

4. Why do Republicans support "closing loopholes"?

Because it's a crock.

For every loophole that's closed, another opens.

Raising rates is not impossible, but pretty damn hard to sneak around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AllyCat (Reply #3)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 02:04 PM

20. Further...

...wanna bet tax accountants are busily looking for additional loopholes to take advantage of that wouldn't be closed under such a deal, or already know of many that don't see much use because they aren't quite as effective as possible closure targets?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 12:26 PM

6. Is there a graphic which shows the shift of the Total Tax burden since 1960?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Downwinder (Reply #6)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 01:29 PM

13. Yes

In this article, "How The Rich Soaked The Rest of Us"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/mar/01/us-taxation-public-finance

Over the last half-century, the richest Americans have shifted the burden of the federal individual income tax off themselves and onto everybody else. The three convenient and accurate Wikipedia graphs below show the details. The first graph compares the official tax rates paid by the top and bottom income earners. Note especially that from the end of the Second World War into the early 1960s, the highest income earners paid a tax rate over 90 percent for many years. Today, the top earners pay a rate of only 35 percent. Note, also, how the gap between the rates paid by the richest and the poorest has narrowed. If we take into account the many loopholes the rich can and do use far more than the poor, the gap narrows even more.

One conclusion is clear and obvious: the richest Americans have dramatically lowered their income tax burden since 1945, both absolutely and relative to the tax burdens of the middle income groups and the poor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Overseas (Reply #13)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 02:30 PM

15. Thanks.

Was hoping for one which included property and sales taxes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Downwinder (Reply #15)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 03:48 PM

16. I found this one, you can find that one and post it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Overseas (Reply #16)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 04:55 PM

17. You did well.

In addition to Income tax reductions, in 1960 there was a transaction tax. Excise taxes have changed.. Sales tax has gone from 0% to approx. 8%. I was interested in seeing how these changes have shifted the burden.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 12:39 PM

7. Great, Nancy, but you caved on health care reform,

when you stated in a press conference, "I am for the strongest possible public option." I'm not sure that you won't cave yet again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #7)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 12:49 PM

18. And what did she say after the Democratic victory in 2006: "Impeachment is off the table."

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #7)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 03:25 PM

21. She wasn't our enemy in HCR. She and the Congressional Progressive Caucus

were our only ally.

Direct your caving accusations where they belong.

It's the Progressives in the House against everyone else. Boeher, Obama and the Senate would cut taxes, Medicare and Social Security if it weren't for the Progressives in the House that would stop them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 12:51 PM

9. Why would we give back a done deal?

This is worth remembering, if you haven't read me saying it a thousand times already:

The expiration of tax cuts for the wealthy is a done deal. They are going to expire in January, the President has promised to veto any extension for the wealthy (he has also asked for a further extension for the middle class, but guess who already shot that hostage?), and Congress cannot override the veto.

In football terms, we outscored the GOP 25-8 in the fourth quarter, the two-minute warning has blown, they're out of time-outs, and President Obama remembers Joe Pisarcik as well as any Giants fan does.

We're going to take a knee, run out the clock, and trot off the field, and there is nothing Republicans can do about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sofa king (Reply #9)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 01:01 PM

10. Well put

Keep posting it so we don't forget. It is a done deal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rock (Reply #10)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 02:16 PM

14. Oh, I will!

It will be part of my ongoing "I told you so series," which has been entirely ignored by everyone, everywhere.

But this is still going to happen.

If you don't trust Congress, I don't blame you, and neither would the President. That's why he structured the last tax cut compromise in such a way that President Obama would have the final say on its expiration, no matter what else happened. Unless you think he's going to change his own mind, it's already over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sofa king (Reply #9)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 12:51 PM

19. "We're going to take a knee, run out the clock, and .." Maybe you and I would.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 01:06 PM

11. house dems have no effective say in the matter, being in the minority nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 01:14 PM

12. More verification. Thanks DonViejo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 03:45 PM

22. Reforms that would hurt beneficiaries "not a very good idea?"

How about A HORRIBLE, ASSINE, STINKY, AWFUL, CRAPPY NON STARTER OF AN IDEA, Nancy.

How about saying we will never agree to that, so its absolutely NON NEGOTIABLE.

If they want to be reassuing us that they have our backs on this their language has to be less wishy washy and more forceful. JMHO

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread