General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe 39% tax limit has de-nutted the Democratic Party.
It has assured our nation of decline. It has guaranteed a transfer of wealth to the top and away from the middle.
For me, it is depressing to hear a Democratic President say that "we are only asking the wealthy to pay just a little more to take care of our deficit because we cannot cut our way out of this..."
Please, pretty please?
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)kentuck
(111,052 posts)By saying 39% is the absolute limit, if we are nice to them.
MrYikes
(720 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Baby steps that can be taken relatively easily, without burn too much political capital, will get us where we are headed a lot quicker than demanding a great step that does not occur.
This is a long, studied game; not the last quarter.
kentuck
(111,052 posts)When he cut taxes from 70% to 28% ?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)incrementally.
It's always easier to CUT taxes drastically, than raise them at all.
kentuck
(111,052 posts)not enough.
He tripled the national debt. I would agree that it is easier to cut taxes than raise them.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)that incremental raises, that are doable without expending too much political capital, are better than going for all the raises at tremendous cost, if at all?
kentuck
(111,052 posts)The Republicans are as much against $1 dollar of tax increases as they are of $1 million dollar increases.
So, if that is the case....?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)but such an approach in this political environment is untenable for the gop, if they reatin any political ambition.
gravity
(4,157 posts)and prevent Congressional Democrats from being voted out in 2014.
You can vote for higher rates in the future when the Democrats control the house and the public is more accepting the idea of tax increases. For now, you have to take what you can get.
kentuck
(111,052 posts)That should be what we are focused on. We are not going to get anything with these guys in charge. They do not want a compromise. Once we realize that, we can begin to strategize on how to get rid of them in the next election.
I really dislike these elaborate clarifications from the WH spokesman.
gravity
(4,157 posts)then you watch the party have a civil war over it.
The fiscal cliff is set up to hurt Republicans far worst than Democrats. Obama just has to say he will sign middle class tax cuts and accuse the Republicans for holding the country hostage over tax cuts for the rich.
kentuck
(111,052 posts)But will that happen?
LiberalFighter
(50,782 posts)Why not have it as (suggested) follows:
$250k - $500k ---- 35%
$500k - $1m --- 40%
$1m - $5m --- 45%
over $5 million --- 50%
Just a reminder the tax rates do not apply to all of the taxable amount. Only to the amount that falls inside the bracket.
There needs to be more than one tax rate for capital gains and dividends too.
dawg
(10,621 posts)We can do lots to raise revenue from the upper class and still maintain a maximum tax rate of 39%.
kentuck
(111,052 posts)we should not carve that number into stone.
yellowcanine
(35,693 posts)You could trigger panic attacks amongst the less secure males in the forum.
kentuck
(111,052 posts)Didn't the President just win a hard-fought victory?
quaker bill
(8,224 posts)Obama will never run again, it is not a game of chicken for him. He has the last job of his life for the next 4 years. All the house members run again in two.
Filibuster Harry
(666 posts)here is a part of president obama's plan as I understand it:
1) tax rates: currently have 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33%, and 35%
President wants the following: 10%, 15%, 25%, 28 or 33%, 36% and 39.5%
If nothing happens then rates go to 15%, 28%, 31%, 36%, and 39.5%
2) Capital Gains: Currently those in 10 - 15% bracket the tax is 0%
President wants those in 10-28% bracket to have cg tax 0 and 15% whereas those in the 36 and 39.5% bracket cg tax would be at 20%
If nothing happens: capital gains tax goes to 10% and max of 20%
3) dividends: the biggie
Currently: tax brackets 10 - 15% pay 0%; others pay 15%
President wants those in 10-28% bracket to pay 0 or 15% but wants those in the 36 or 39.6% to pay 20%
If nothing happens then dividends go to ordinary rates (big increase on the wealthy)
Problem with the capital gains and dividends tax rate is regardless of your income your first ($ 34,500 if single or $ 69,000 if married filing joint of cg or dividends ) is taxed at 0%. So like Governor Romney's first $69,000 of dividends/cg wasn't taxed. How fair is that?
Much much to talk about on this subject. The only thing concerning me if nothing happens is the amount of credits that expire that will hit the middle class. But I think the rich will be pissed if their rates go to 39.5% from 35% AND the dividends are taxed at regular rates. Now if that happens they will sell their stocks in order to pay a max of 20%, but it could get very interesting.
Personally, I think the president should go for a slight increase like 28 to 30%, 33 to 35%, 35 to 37%.
What's your opinion?
hack89
(39,171 posts)Yes - tax rates need to be much higher on the rich to deal with the debt. But the government is still getting a shit ton of tax revenue. Paying for constant wars and endless subsidies to business and agriculture show that cutting is just as important.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)^snip^
Obama Presided Over a Tax Revenue Drought, Not a Spending Binge
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)There you liberals go with those things again ... What do you call them, again? Oh yeah ... FACTS.
MineralMan
(146,254 posts)I'm afraid your emasculation metaphor is misplaced. Perhaps you could substitute "spines" for testicles. It would be more apt, given the makeup of the party, don't you think?
I'm just saying...
kentuck
(111,052 posts)don't they?
MineralMan
(146,254 posts)It's just an inept one that doesn't reflect the makeup of the Democratic Party. We all know you weren't literally referring to castration. So, no, nobody's taking it literally at all.
kentuck
(111,052 posts)Huh?
Yes, we cannot "de-nut" the Democratic Party because it is bi-sexual?
MineralMan
(146,254 posts)It only applies to half of the Democratic party, so it's poorly-selected. I don't care if you use it, though. It's just that there are better choices you could have made. If you minimize the importance of women to the Democratic Party, you make a serious mistake. Not a "bad" metaphor. Just a poor one.
kentuck
(111,052 posts)If we are to assume that half the Democratic Party has balls. I think that would be debatable also? But if we must apply a definite sex to the Party, I suppose you have a point?