Tax Increases Eyed for High Incomes

[Purveyor]

Source: Associated Press

(04-26) 13:39 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --

House Democrats are looking to unravel many of President Bush's tax cuts for wealthy people to pay for protecting middle-class families from a hidden tax increase.

They also plan to provide modest tax relief to the working poor and married couples in legislation being fashioned by Rep. Charles Rangel, the New York Democrat who is chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.

Rangel's plan represents the Democrats' first major tax salvo since they won control of Congress and comes after years of criticizing Bush's tax cuts as giveaways to the rich. A House vote on it is possible as early as June.

The measure, still in its early phases, would protect married couples making $250,000 or less each year from paying the alternative minimum tax, or AMT.





Read more: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/04/26/national/w133934D72.DTL

[acmavm]

1. Whoa, now the dems have declared real war on the bush** admin.

[ryanmuegge]

14. I say we go back to the Eisenhower days.

91%, rich fuckers!

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

2. I'm Sure He'll Sign It....

:sarcasm:

[Roland99]

3. I knew the "liberal" media would paint ending the ill-advised tax cuts as tax increases or hikes

even though they were meant to be temporary and expire in less than 3 years anyway.

[RL3AO]

4. Let the tax cuts expire for the rich and then you wont have to deal with the crap

[partylessinOhio]

5. Yes, reverse those taxcuts and save America from bankruptcy.

If you love America, support her troops and want to leave a better environment for your children - pay your tax!

[high density]

6. Or the AP could call it a tax cut for those paying AMT and making under $250k a year

But "tax increases eyed for high incomes" is a sexier title I guess, especially since Joe Republican thinks he's a rich mofo.

[hogwyld]

7. I hope "we" are truly bold here

Hopefully, Rangel and our other (D) brethren will enact a truly progressive tax schedule to get this country solvent again.

[hack89]

9. What does a truly progressive tax schedule look like?

This is what I think one looks like but I'm not sure what the true theoretical definition is:

1. Bottom 20-40 percent pay no income tax

2. Top 10 percent of earners pay at least 50 percent of total taxes.

3. The more you own the higher percentage of your income you pay in taxes.

[Wolfetone]

10. Taxes

The top 10% already pay 52.2% of income and social security taxes according to this IRS study http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/04asastr.pdf

[ShortnFiery]

11. So what, they can afford it ... after all, they can't take it with them to the grave ...

Plus the Estate Tax is not intrusive until you have multi-millions to split up.

No problem. We don't need no more stinking Dynasties. ;)

[Thor_MN]

13. Call me back when they are paying 52% of their income in taxes.

[hack89]

16. Where does the line get drawn?

are you saying that everyone making over $250,000 pays half their income in taxes? What about those below 250K - how much should they pay?

[Wolfetone]

20. When who pays 52%

The top 10%? The top 10% includes people making $100,000 per year, do you think they should be paying 52%? At $100,000, your paying around $7,000 in FICA and Medicare, leaving you with $44,640 after paying your 52% tax rate, not including retirement deductions, health deductions, state tax deductions, unemploymnet deductions. What do you think the tax rate should be for rich people, where should it start and how much should it take?

[ShortnFiery]

12. Oh please, there are so many loopholes and deductions ...

The wealthy do NOT even come close to paying their fair share.

It's time for them to either pay MORE or find another country to call "their own." :-)

[hack89]

15. I never said it was fair ..

nor did I defend the present system. I am simply asking what a progressive tax schedule looks like. How do you turn "fair share" into law?

[rexcat]

19. It is obvious you don't know what you are talking about...

Those of us who have what would be considered higher incomes but not classified as rich actually not only pay our regular taxes but our deductions are diminished considerably because of the minimum alternative tax (AMT)causing a much higher marginal tax rate. I can say that our tax bill is considerable and has increased over the past 4 years because of the AMT.

I think there should be limits placed on not paying estate taxes. If someone dies and there is a farm involved and the surviving family wants to keep the farm going they should not have to pay estate taxes. On the other hand if they want to sell the land to a developer they should damn well pay estate taxes. There should also be limits placed on estates for exempting the estate tax. I am not sure what that number but I'm sure the Democrats can come up with a reasonable number. I think there should be limits on what corporations can deduct on pay to their top people. When someone is making 400 times what the lowest person is making in the same company there is a major problem. That person should also be taxed at a higher rate.

What I have not seen on DU is an honest debate on when, where and how taxes should be levied on the rich (whatever rich means). Someone making $20,000 per year will have a different threshold as to who should be considered rich compared to someone who is making $75,000, ad nauseum.

Getting back to my original thought on your comments considering the amount of taxes my wife and I have paid over the past four years because of the AMT I do believe my wife and I are paying more than our fair share and in the near to far term I don't think our situation is going to change much as far as what our marginal tax rate is going to be. I am sorry you don't agree with that but an invidious attitude like you have has a way of obscuring the debate when it comes to taxes.

[Igel]

21. In that case you must think we have a progressive

tax schedule.

Most households in the lower 40% of households *on average* pay no federal income taxes. It's a frequently cited figure.

The number's a bit wrong because it's an average. A fair number of households in that group pay net income tax; but that contribution is zeroed out by the net negative income tax paid by households in that group. When I was in that group I paid income tax, but then again I was a single young male, rented, and had no dependents.

But I disagree with 'the more you own' the more you pay. Perhaps "earn" is the word you were after. And it's generally true, with some notable exceptions, some real and some apparent. Most of the exceptions are due to their wealth's not being earned income, to wealth's being sheltered in some way, or by having their taxable income reduced through donations or other investments.

[Jackpine Radical]

8. Shit, just when I decided to get rich.

[Shakespeare]

17. GOOD.

About time we tried to offset some of the outrageous tax breaks they get.

[w4rma]

18. Perfect. (nt)