Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What do you think Robert Reich means by middle class?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-12-11 10:40 PM
Original message
What do you think Robert Reich means by middle class?
Reobert Reich suggested

...expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit wage subsidy right up through the middle class, and cutting income and payroll taxes for everyone earning less than $80,000 a year – making up the lost revenues by raising the ceiling on Social Security payroll taxes and hiking marginal taxes on the rich.

<...>


Here's the 2010 EITC eligibility:

    No child - less than $13,460 (if married < $18,470)

    One child - less than $35,535 (if married < $40,545)

    Two children - less than $40,363 (if married < $45,373)

    Three children - less than $43,352 (if married < $48,362)
Based on Reich's suggestion, the proposal could look something like this:

    Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit wage subsidy right up through the middle class: single with no child - less than $30,000; married with three childern - less than $88,000

    Cut income and payroll taxes for everyone earning less than $80,000 a year, making up the lost revenues by raising the ceiling on Social Security payroll taxes (to $200,000) and hiking marginal taxes on the rich.
Reich should have given some examples. What do you think he means by the "middle class"?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
pipoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-12-11 11:28 PM
Response to Original message
1. The same Robert Reich who screwed labor by locking
tongues with the thugs and pushing through NAFTA & GATT?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Citizen Worker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 04:39 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. In the last few years Reich has served up some well deserved criticism on tax policy and how the
economy is not addressing the needs of workers but he simply cannot bring himself to criticize the grossly oversold slave agreements otherwise known as "free" trade. He just can't bring himself to criticize something he so vigorously supported. He refuses to say that he made a mistake in spite of the fact there's a mountain of evidence pointing to the slave trade agreements as the linchpin in the downward spiral of the economy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 08:16 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. I couldn't agree more
and I believe Gore's overwhelming support for the agreements are why he didn't win much of the South including Tennessee. He and Clinton wouldn't admit it either. In fact, Clinton blamed the assault weapons ban for Gore's failure to carry key labor states, I believe the AWB did have an effect, but far and away it was trade agreements which lost the traditional southern, blue collar Dems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Honeycombe8 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 01:51 AM
Response to Original message
2. Cutting taxes for the non-rich and raising them on the rich? That won't get passed.
Not in this climate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OHdem10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 01:56 AM
Response to Original message
3. From about 35, K to about 70K
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
4dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 09:35 AM
Response to Original message
6. Tax capital and not wages
that would real stir the pot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 09:43 AM
Response to Original message
7. What is your problem with this> I wished they would do that, or at least propose it
Edited on Sun Feb-13-11 09:50 AM by Mass
and show the GOP hypocrisy.

I guess he puts the middle class (or at least the part that needs some help) between $ 30,000 and $ 80,000. My guess is that, even if time are harder for those between $ 100K and $200K, they have more revenue to live and dont need the help as much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. It's an good proposal.
It's likely he did mean up to $80,000.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 10:31 AM
Response to Original message
8. What do you think he means by 'married'?
Or by 'family'? Is he using the faith based Obama definitions which apply only to those approved by Warren/McClurkin Brand dogma?
Funny to me that you split hairs over 'middle class' while using all of that divisive exclusionary language without a thought. Breaks for marrieds only! And marriage for straights only! Family is only by marriage, and again, that's not for all minorities, just the ones the Traditional Church says are worthy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. He didn't mention married. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. You did, over and over again, around his proposals
So you do understand that when you use that terminology, it means that the law is basically bigoted, unfair, unjust and utterly discriminatory. Sure, that is the tax code.
Middle class for some means less than for others. We as a family are not allowed to file taxes as a family. If it were not for the bigotry in the tax code, we'd have savings and a home and such. Like our straight counterparts do. So when the majority starts whining about income levels and what's fair, I have to laugh. Fair? For some of us, fairness is out of the question. We are treated unfairly under the law.
The word married is in your OP over and over again. And it is a meaningless term of art.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. "What do you think he means by 'married'?"
He never mentioned "married." I have no idea what he thinks about marriage, which isn't the subject of the OP.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 01:19 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC