Tax-Cut Debate Turns to Millionaires

[TomCADem]

Source: NY Times

To illustrate their desire to end the tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, the Democrats have scheduled two votes on Saturday. The first is on the bill approved by the House on Thursday to extend the Bush-era tax rates only on income up to $250,000 for couples and $200,000 for individuals while allowing the lowered rates to expire on income above those amounts.

* * *
The second vote is on a proposal championed by Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York to raise the threshold at which the lowered rates expire to $1 million — essentially imposing what Democrats are calling a “millionaires’ tax” at a time when there is growing public concern about the federal budget deficit.

* * *

Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat of Missouri, said that Republican supporters in the Tea Party groups should look closely at the Republicans’ tax policies.

“If they think it’s O.K. to raise taxes for the embattled middle class because they’re going to pout if we don’t give more money to millionaires, it really is time for the people of America to take up pitchforks,” Mrs. McCaskill said. “And all those people out there in the Tea Party that are angry about the economics of Washington, they really need to look at this.”


Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/04/us/politics/04cong.html

---

The amazing thing is the degree to which the corporate media and even some liberals give Republicans a free pass. Heck, even the NY Times does not discuss the deficit in this article when it comes to discussing tax cuts to the rich. Yet, whenever unemployment is discussed, the usual Republican BS about concern for the deficit is repeated.

Here, the Democrats are actually trying to pass bills giving tax cuts to most Americans, yet the Republicans are not being called out for their opposition to such tax cuts! Yet, Republicans get to where the mantle of being in favor of tax cuts?

Likewise, President Obama and the Democrats are in favor of doing the fiscally responsible thing in opposing tax cuts to the very rich, which would increase the deficit with little benefit to the economy. Yet, Republicans are trusted with reducing the deficit???

Will we continue to buy into the media narrative and continue to give Republicans a free pass and blame Democrats for the grid lock and the growth in the deficit?

[TwilightGardener]

1. It's clear that no matter what the WH did or said, a middle-class only tax cut

would not have stood a chance--too many Democrats apparently wanted all cuts extended across the board. I'm guessing the WH knew this for a while, and decided not to press it only to be embarrassed by a loss. BUT, maybe it was politically more important to fight a doomed battle than to give away the store before the action even heated up. However, the notion that Republicans can be shamed into doing anything helpful seems quaint now--so is the notion that they will get beaten up by the media for taking hostages and slitting their throats (which they will gladly do, without fear of consequence).

[TomCADem]

28. Interesting How Your Post Only Focuses On Democrats While Giving Republicans ...

...who favor a permanent extension a free pass. "many Democrats apparently wanted all cuts extended across the board" If you are suggesting that most Democrats wanted to extend all cuts, that would be wrong. However, all you need is about 10 Democrats to join with Republicans, which is not "many," but a few. Plus, I would not call Lieberman a Democrat.

[alp227]

2. the article quotes mcCaskill criticizing Tea Party

and in the end Orrin Hatch says that Republicans want tax cuts for EVERYONE, they don't want to raise taxes on the middle class. And the article does discuss the deficit alongside the summary of Schumer's proposition. Your analysis of the "so called liberal media" is a bit way off the hook right there.

[TomCADem]

26. Wait, You Are Actually Defending Republicans Holding The Middle Class Hostage?

You say the Republicans don't want to raise taxes on the middle class, yet they are willing to let their tax cuts expire in order force an extension for those making over $250,000. How do you defend that?

[alp227]

29. No, I read the article, and it quotes legislators on all sides

rather than show a bias defending the Republicans. I don't think that what you excerpted proved your case.

[TomCADem]

30. Here Is Roll Call, Which Shows The Bias - Most Democrats Oppose Extending Cuts To Rich

You say many Democrats? I count only four. Also, you say that there is no bias, because the article quotes both Democrats and Republicans supporting an extension of all cuts? Yet, only four Democrats voted against allowing cuts to expire for those making over $250,000.

Over $250,000 expiration:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00258

$1 million expiration:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00259

[alp227]

31. The article does lead off saying "Senate Democrats condemned Republicans"

and later to descibe the 4 Dems who sided with "tax cuts for everyone"..."and even some Democrats have said they favor extending the rates at all income levels, at least temporarily — meaning the bill has no chance of winning the 60 votes needed to advance." Read it: "some" not many.

[laconicsax]

3. I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but could someone explain to me...

Why does someone making over $16,000 a month need a tax cut? That's more per month than someone making Federal minimum wage makes in a year. What do they really need that money for that they can't go without?

[DesertFlower]

4. that would be almost $200.000 a year.

what amount would make you happy?

[laconicsax]

7. That doesn't answer my question.

$200,000 for an individual is a damn lot of money. It strikes me as inappropriate that people making this much are considered as needing a tax cut when we have people living in the streets.

An individual making $200,000 per year makes more than the bottom 30% does in a year and 10 times as much as the bottom 40%. Do they really need a tax cut?

[DesertFlower]

8. it's a good income, but it does not

make you rich. anyone who's making that is probably older and has worked many years to get to that income, or it could be a young lawyer or doctor -- then of course they've got huge student loans to pay off.

it seems to me that you have a problem with someone who's successful and think they should be punished.

i just read that rush limbaugh pays almost 2.5 million less in taxes with these tax cuts. that's the problem -- not the people who have worked hard and earn a decent living.

[laconicsax]

9. My problem is with the notion that an individual in the top 5% needs a tax cut.

$200,000 is beyond a decent living. I know people who make that much and they certainly aren't hurting, nor do they need tax relief.

This has nothing about "punishing" people who are successful. It's about 'successful' people paying their fair share in taxes.

[DesertFlower]

10. you obviously have no idea how

much a person making $200,000 pays in taxes. it's a lot.

when we lived in new york over 20 years ago, we made $100,000 between the 2 of us. we didn't own a home. we paid $48,000 in taxes which included federal, state, city and FICA. i don't think it was fair for 2 hard working people to pay almost half of what we made in taxes.

the more you make -- the more you pay unless you're very rich and have loopholes. remember when warren buffet said that his secretary paid more in taxes than he did.

i wonder how much you make and what you're potential is.

on edit: we don't make $200,000, but whenever our income has gone up so have our charitable contributions.

[laconicsax]

13. After Federal income tax and FICA, an individual making $200,000 would be left with about $140,000

Lament how much you had to pay all you want. After federal taxes, an individual making $200,000 would be left with more money than you made in a year. :nopity:
($200,000-$51,117(Federal)-$9,522(FICA)=$139,361 after tax income.)

This is for an individual. The funny thing is that 5 minutes with Google and a calculator could have told you this.

[DesertFlower]

19. self delete.

[DesertFlower]

20. i hate to disappoint you, but s/he will not pay that much.

he will most likely contribute to a 401k which is not taxable. the max is $16,500, but if you're over 50 you can put $21,500 in. then there's a medical savings plan. you can put up to $5100 which is not taxed. there's the mortgage deduction, charitable contributions, state taxes paid, and a personal exemption. you're taxed on your adjusted income not the gross.

so now you can stay up on a saturday night and play with your figures and eat your guts out because this person is getting a tax break.

i'm more concerned with the really rich people getting their breaks. if you make $1.4 million you'll pay about $83,000 less in tax. people like rush limbaugh get a break of almost $2.5 million.

instead of fighting with a fellow dem why don't you go to conservative underground and vent your frustrations there.


on edit: we make more than $140,000 a year. we pay our fair share of taxes. if the tax cuts expire, we'll pay a little more. actually i didn't notice much of a difference when these tax cuts went into effect. i remember getting a check for $600 back in '02. obama gave us a cut in '09. hubby got $72 more a month in his paycheck. not much, but it comes out to over $800 a year -- pays for our homeowner's insurance.

[laconicsax]

21. Do you realize that you're making my point for me?

Someone making $200,000 per year will have a damn lot of money left over after taxes--they're in the top 5% of earners.

It's absolutely inappropriate that someone making this amount of money should be getting a tax cut while there are hundreds of thousands of people living on the streets?

[DesertFlower]

23. what do you want me to do? i didn't give

the tax cuts. bush did. obama wants to keep them for up to $250,000. i don't have a problem with that. hopefully those people are giving a lot to charity and spending to stimulate the economy.

people should not be living on the street, but i don't think these tax cuts have anything to do with it. this country is f----- up. the CEO of united health care makes 22 million a year. WTF do you do with that kind of money? how many houses can you buy? how many cars can you drive? how many yachts can you own?

the war in afghanistan is costing 8 billion a month. it's paid for with money borrowed from china.

the country is going downhill fast. IMO we no longer live in a democracy. we live in a country that is run by multi millionaires and greedy corporations.

i'm 69. hubby is 63. he's been with the same international company for 41 years. he sees first hand how the good paying IT jobs are going to india, china, brazil. the corporations bring people from india on H1B visas and pay them 1/2 of what they pay the american workers. they keep them for a year or so. they train them and send them back to india and bring another bunch over. we can't get mad at them. they're highly educated and hard working. why aren't we taking away the tax advantages to these companies and fining them and i mean really fining them.

i'm totally disgusted with the whole damn country. i'm really tired and i'm going to bed.

[kiranon]

32. NY, NJ , CA + others have high state income, property and sales taxes.

Some cities have city income taxes. Deductions drop out for those over a certain amount so after about $100-125,000 there are few deductions. Don't think the middle class should fight other middle class people. The issue is so many over $1 million pay no taxes or very little as with Warren Buffett citing his own example.

[laconicsax]

34. You can play the hypothetical expenses and regional tax game until the cows come home.

This is a discussion of federal income tax, so only federal taxes are relevant.

An individual making $200,000 should not be included under the umbrella of "middle class tax cuts."

[Chan790]

38. $200K for an individual is explicitly NOT middle-class.

Not anywhere from ME to AZ and not even in NYC. $200K/year means you're rich, bar none.

I think the wealthy should pay more in taxes, a lot more in taxes, than they do now. Whine all you'd like, cry me a river. I am committed to pushing my elected officials to bleed the rich to finance this nation and pay our debts and maintain our quality of life.

[boppers]

15. You're asking about the wrong number.

It's not the dollar amount that was initially targeted, it's this number: 95%. That's the percentage of Americans (or was it taxpayers?) that were pledged a cut. Thus, it's not only a cut for those who really need it, it's also a cut for those who really don't.

[laconicsax]

22. That's part of it. n/t

[Creative]

25. I don't think anyone is talking about tax cuts. Rather, the question on the table

is whose taxes are going to be raised.

[laconicsax]

35. You're right.

It's my fault for accepting the bogus terminology being used.

[Sherman A1]

5. Let them all expire.

Return to the Clinton Era taxes and perhaps we can return to the Clinton Era's prosperity???????

At least the deficit will pay off in 2014 or so.....

[closeupready]

11. +1000

n/t

[Iowa]

6. This is bullshit. A millionaire isn't someone who makes a million per year...

A millionaire is someone who has a million dollars in ASSETS. There's a BIG difference.

Someone who actually has an INCOME of a million dollars a year is probably a multi-multi-multi-millionaire. So this moving of the goal-posts is utter bullshit, and a way to extend tax cuts to the mega-wealthy without making it seem that way.

We can always count on the NY Times to peddle right-wing propaganda.

[TomCADem]

27. The Limit Is Tied To Income. Those Making Over $250K or $1 Million

Which is why Republican obstructionism is even worse.

[Iowa]

37. The limit is tied to income, but the Times is referring to assets by using the term "millionaire"...

The Republicans are actually protecting multi-millionaires, not the small operators who scrape and save and manage to accumulate a million in assets by the time they retire.

[Skink]

12. My salary combined over the last 10 year is almost 200,000.

So I would say if you make that much in one year you are rich.

[laconicsax]

14. But don't you know? $16,000/month is hard to live on.

:sarcasm:

[defendandprotect]

16. And -- evidently we'd have to borrow more $ from China to cover those tax cuts for rich ....

And, thanks, Schumer -- another sell out!!

[defendandprotect]

17. We should be talking about FREEZING Congress' salaries and benefits ...!!!

A much better place to start than with Federal employees -- especially in

that they are constantly under attack as UNION members!!

[kiranon]

33. And have them purchase their own health insurance and no health insurance

benefits continuing after they are out of office. Only if they experience how expensive health insurance is will they appreciate Obama's efforts to change the current state of financing health care for individuals/families.

[defendandprotect]

39. Exactly ... and if we had a free press they might be making those suggestions!!

:evilgrin:

[hollowdweller]

18. Bitch about teachers, freeze federal workers pay

that's all great but talk about making the rich pay their fair share and both parties get their panties in a wad.

Strange world we live in. Neither party wants to actually walk the walk.

[StarsInHerHair]

24. I'm gonna repeat it "Pass the Wealth" $1 million for each American

a low-cost solution to SOME of our economic problems. I say low-cost because it isn't in the billions.

[laconicsax]

36. You're right, it isn't in the billions--it's in the trillions. That isn't low-cost.

You're making a $300 trillion proposal.