Now It's Their Turn: Tax on Affluent Will Fund Health Care Reform
By Susie Madrak Thursday Feb 26, 2009 1:00pmI had the strangest feeling when I read this - I felt sorry for the people who would be paying this tax increase.
And then I said to myself, "You know, I'll bet these people weren't exactly worried about the tax increases in my bracket for the past thirty years or so!" Hey, I felt a lot better!
WASHINGTON — President Obama will propose further tax increases on the affluent to help pay for his promise to make health care more accessible and affordable, calling for stricter limits on the benefits of itemized deductions taken by the wealthiest households, administration officials said Wednesday.
The tax proposal, coming after recent years in which wealth has become more concentrated at the top of the income scale, introduces a politically volatile edge to the Congressional debate over Mr. Obama’s domestic priorities.
The president will also propose, in the 10-year budget he is to release Thursday, to use revenues from the centerpiece of his environmental policy — a plan under which companies must buy permits to exceed pollution emission caps — to pay for an extension of a two-year tax credit that benefits low-wage and middle-income people.
The combined effect of the two revenue-raising proposals, on top of Mr. Obama’s existing plan to roll back the Bush-era income tax reductions on households with income exceeding $250,000 a year, would be a pronounced move to redistribute wealth by reimposing a larger share of the tax burden on corporations and the most affluent taxpayers.
Administration officials said Mr. Obama would propose to reduce the value of itemized tax deductions for everyone in the top income tax bracket, 35 percent, and many of those in the 33 percent bracket — roughly speaking, starting at $250,000 in annual income for a married couple.
Under existing law, the tax benefit of itemizing deductions rises with a taxpayer’s marginal tax bracket (the bracket that applies to the last dollar of income). For example, $10,000 in itemized deductions reduces tax liability by $3,500 for someone in the 35 percent bracket.
Mr. Obama would allow a saving of only $2,800 — as if the person were in the 28 percent bracket.
The White House says it is unfair for high-income people to get a bigger tax break than middle-income people for claiming the same deductions or making the same charitable contributions.
The officials said the resulting increase in revenues, estimated at $318 billion over 10 years, would account for about half of a $634 billion “reserve fund” that Mr. Obama will set aside in his budget to address changes in the health care system. The other half would come from proposed cost savings in Medicare, Medicaid and other health programs.
Another piece in the funding formula is a small cut in the mortgage interest deduction for those in the top bracket.
Login or Register to post comments.
..repug framing. How did "paying your share" become "redistribution of wealth"?
Anyhoo...I bet this really chaps their butts too!
HA!
And I was unhappy to see Obama buy into that phrase when talking to Joe the Plumber.
The purpose of taxation is to "fund the commons" - roads, bridges, fire dept, police, health care, education, etc.
Everything necessary to guarantee Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness for every citizen of the US.
Call me a Socialist, or call me an American who believes my nation's commitment to those unalienable rights with which our Creator (DNA maybe?) endowed us.
Roads are funded by gasoline taxes.
Bridges are funded by local and state bonds (used to be anyway).
Fire and police are funded locally (used to be anyway).
Health care is funded privately (used to be anyway).
Education is funded locally (used to be anyway).
Now, where does the Federal Income Tax come into any of that?
is the single biggest health care payor . . funded privately?
I said (used to be anyway).
READ.
and besides medicare is part of FICA, not the income tax.
and there didn't USED TO BE the USA. So what?
So what are you saying? That we should leave everything up to the federal government? Let's just abolish the states, pay taxes to the federal government, and they will run education, health care, and the rest of our lives?
There are somethings that city councils can take care of, there are other things local state government should be in charge, and there large programmes involving multiple states which should be taken care by the Federal government.
Logical distribution of responsibilities and tasks. Really not a hard concept to get, is it?
What was exactly your point?
So why have school boards? We have the Dept. of Education to take care of things.
Why have local government at all?
You are proposing that the Feds take over all sorts of things. Why stop?
I can see that the educational system failed you.
Do you posses such poor reading and comprehension skills. Or are you unable of making any point unless you have to use canards and strawmen arguments.
The concept of hierarchical division of tasks based on resource requirements, scope and complexity... should not be such a hard thing to grasp for anyone with more than a 10th grade education (heck even most junior high students should have no difficulty grasping the concept, really).
Talk about strawmen arguments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEOQqnHMSMc
are you that guy from San Francisco that was on Wife Swap?
We're discussing the elimination of tax loopholes and deductions that disproportionately favor the wealthy in order to fund improvements in health care. I'm for it, largely because we need to make progress towards a balanced budget and the private sector has proven itself to be completely inadequate at solving our health care problems.
This shouldn't be that hard for you to understand.
There is no "solving our health care problems."
You can't cover everyone all the time for every ailment.
It is totally undoable and will break the bank. Fuck the bank is already broken, so fuck it just go the whole way.
USSR here we come.
they want their Reaganesque talking points back....
You are absolutely correct. We cannot cover everyone all the time for every ailment.
This is the best argument that I have ever heard for nationalizing our healthcare system.
Since, we cannot cover everything; healthcare needs to be controlled and rationed by the state.
I get the distinct impression that that wasn't even remotely the jist of Wheyghey's argument :-)
Although, I usually get a kick when seeing the side of the prolifer's turn into angels of death when it comes to that precious "life" affecting their wallets, eh?
Inside of every my money is mine... mine... all mine... greedy person is a socialist just screaming to be set free and given a group hug.
misses the fact that other first world nations with national health care pay less per capital than the US does for health care costs (measured as a percentage of GDP).
Relieving businesses of the expense of employer provided health insurance would put US companies at a competitive advantage, while also providing tens of millions of Americans with the opportunity to get affordable health care.
Sigh...these points are nothing new.
Funny, every other industrialized nation can do it. Maybe the USA is just incompetent???
PS We have it in Korea, which has 1/500th the revenue you do.
Thu, 02/26/2009 - 14:29 — wheyghey
USSR here we come.
_______________________________________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LT6OpTRo__Y
Not every idea the Soviets had was a bad one, despite what the half-century of propaganda has brainwashed you into believing.
And besides, there are much better examples of nationalised healthcare. I happen to live in one, in Australia.
Not to mention New Zealand, France, Germany, Canada, Great Britain, Japan, Sweden, Norway, pretty much every other major country in the world.
You can cover all of the people some of the time.
You can cover some of the people all of the time.
But you can't cover everyone all of the time.
Obama should use this.
All these things you are mentioning are funded through multple sources. There are county roads. There are state roads. There are Federal Interstates. Fire and police get state and federal grants to help fund them. Many bridges are funded through the Department of Defense or through the Department of Transportation. The state sometimes funds them too. Education is funded through Federal Title I grants and state grants then you got the local funding usually through property taxes. Healthcare is funded through Federal, state, and local money as well. A large chunk of it is dropped off on the working class. If anything, dropping that part of it off on the rich will motivate the rich to want to regulate prices down. Everybody wants healthcare costs to be regulated down, except for the rich who are making lots of money off of it. You turn it into a burden for them and they will want the costs to go down. They have way more influence than the people do. All we can do is vote. They have the cash to bribe our politicians. They own our politicians. You turn healthcare into a burden for them; and, they will want there not my lawmakers to regulate down the prices. It seems like a great plan to me.
Jonathan Kozol's work in the 80s - books like "Savage Inequalities"? If education is funded by the local tax base, then poor areas of the country get poorer educations (schools are overcrowded, with poorer equipment, etc).
Lower quality education reduces employment options reducing the locat tax base further reducing the quality of the schools - vicious circle.
So you've just proved, they could abolish income tax. It must be used only for the military, no-bid contracts, and Sentor perks?
Wheyghey -
Federal roads, incl. bridges, etc., are funded federally.
Roads are most certainly NOT funded by gas taxes, gas taxes are only a tiny part of the cost of building and maintaining roads.
Fire & police & schools are funded locally, now think about all the communities with high foreclosures - their tax base to pay for their police and firefighters and schools has disappeared quicker than a bank exec can move his "bonus" offshore.
Healthcare is funded privately?? Was that supposed to be a sneaking way of saying it's for-profit? Whatever, it totally ignores the massive cost to us all when all the Americans without health insurance have to resort to Emergency Rooms for medical care. That's nothing more than Republican sleight of hand, just like budgets that made no provisions for ongoing wars, or disaster prevention.
And really, if you can't wrap your brain around all the other expenses needed to run this country that Fed income tax would pay for, I can only say I'm really glad you're not in charge of it.
Bottom line, every time this country thrives and excels, it is because a common infrastructure is put in place and maintained that allows for the people to turn their focus away from basic survival to progress, innovation and societal leaps that move not just an entreprenuer here and there but entire communities.
Now we are seeing the combined results of not reinvesting in maintaining our infrastructure while concurrently redistributing wealth to the top 2% who also do NOT reinvest in America. Where's the money going to come for what needs to be done now if we don't re-redistribute the wealth?
I'm so tired of the GOP nonsense that small business owners are the be-all and end-all of America and therefore should be coddled and given tax breaks and federal welfare but not anyone else. No business owner can make it without clients who can pay, employees who can do the needed jobs, and a functioning infrastructure. Instead of all of us eternally kissing the asses of entreprenuers, how bout we start acknowledging this reality: we really do need to function together, we need each other, we even need to support each other occasionally. It really is United we stand, divided we fall.
And, thank God we finally have a president again who gets it.
.
That's how I feel. This is Canadian-style thinking. Why don't you move up here? I'll help you.
the poor don't pay income taxes; when it is taken away from the rich, it is called redistribution.
Which is called "stealing" everywhere else in the industrialized world.
But they do pay FICA, MediCare, sales taxes and property taxes.
When income taxes are paid by the rich, it's called paying for the system that has allowed you to accumulate your wealth. When you're rich and pay a smaller percentage of total taxes than someone who is poor or middle class, it's call free-loading.
Why in God's name are we buying into the myth that just because grandpa did great and made a bundle, that the grandkids should live off his money tax free? They use the infrastructure that we pay for, why shouldn't they contribute? at least as much as a minimum wage worker?
as a minimum wage worked, sure they should pay the same tax rate.
But since they don't these spoiled bastards have to pay their fair share.
I mean, they don't even have to work for that f*cking money for crying out loud. If you live in this country, and enjoy what it has to offer, and you have money (whether earned or inherited) you have to pay.
If you don't feel like paying, just like the conservatives main approach when dealing with dissenting opinions: YOU ARE FREE TO LEAVE THE COUNTRY. Provided that you pay the fair amount you owe to this country for allowing you to make that money to begin with. Once your debts with society are paid for, by all means... feel free to go somewhere you don't have to pay jack squat. I am sure it will be some paradisiacal 3rd world dictatorship. Chances are you will still have to pay to protect your sorry ass, so that the poor peasants don't kidnap and steal from you.
In fact, you may end up paying more money in protection... than what you used to pay back in the States in taxes to begin with. LOL
LOL
If that really is your name.
First off, the poor do pay taxes, for example, sales tax.
Secondly, the rich currently avoid paying their fair share of taxes, with tax breaks and loopholes.
Thirdly, poor workers, at Walmart and such, are being exploited to make the super-wealthy even more wealthy. If they were paid a fair rate, they wouldn't need government help.
Fourthly, taxes go toward MANY things that ALL of us use, rich, poor and otherwise, it's not taking from the rich and giving to the poor.
that are embedded in the tax code, passed by Congress. Of course they avoid paying taxes: I avoid paying taxes I'm not required to pay by law. One would be stupid to pay more, wouldn't they?
Walmart workers' wages, unfortunately, are the wave of the future for the rebound of this county's economic viability. to stay alive rates need to be in line with the low wage rates of the rest of the developing countries. I hadn't heard that Walmart needed or received any govt support.
5% of the people pay 60% of the taxes
1% of the people pay 40% of the taxes
Are they paying their fair share or what?
And, I certainly would never question your name, why would you question mine?
They may be paying that percentage of INCOME taxes, but they aren't even close to paying that much in total taxes. Income + FICA + MediCare + Sales + Property (among others).
lifting or eliminating the limits on FICA taxes, also means test MediCare. No problem. I don't think you could do that with the sales tax. Rich people buy more stuff and pay more sales tax anyway.
is that the top 5% make a shitload of money, but it doesn't tell you they're being taxed unfairly.
So Warren Buffet made $46 million and was taxed at 17.7%, so he paid $8 million in taxes (which is by anybody's measure, a lot of money). BUT by his own admittance, his own employees still paid way more in taxes: an average 32.9% tax rate (his receptionist's tax rate was 30%).
A better question is, why is a quarter of the country living in poverty? Why is the minimum wage $7, when it's $14 in Australia?
I'd be willing to bet, if pay were more equitable, more people would be doing well and buying more and paying more taxes, and we wouldn't be having a conversation about raising anybody's taxes.
You mean those hard-working schmucks that used to live on $____ an hour, before the Dems raised the minimum wage? Yes, they ought to go without.
A nation is only as healthy as its citizens.
Imagine living in the richest country in the world and dying from an abscessed tooth. Great. So civilized. Nice human rights record you've got there.
Why do you think they believe they should have to pay any share? They're just entitled to whatever they want.
We're supposed to thank them for ripping us off so they can live high off the hog, didn't you know that?
If you are paying taxes, then you are paying your share (or, more than likely, not paying your share until your taxes are raised).
If I am paying taxes, then my wealth is being unfairly distributed, which is just a nice way of saying stolen.
winning 92% grin.
http://www.globalgallery.com/prod_images/6101...
... along with ACCUMULATION OF WEALTH again, I'm going to scream.
Many people are trying to ACCUMULATE PENNIES in order to put food on the table.
I fixed that to be more in line with the Bushite talking points...
"Many people are trying to ACCUMULATE PENNIES in order to put
food on
the tabletheir families."I can see all those millionaires trying to get by on a couple of million dollars a month. The injustice!
Out of curiosity, do some of the obvious conservative trolls get a commission per post, or do they do this whole thing on a pro bono basis?
I had posted this on my twitter page before crooks and liars come check it out and discuss politics on twitter.
{ Deleted, Blogwhoring. SiteMonitor}
Technically speaking, I guess this isn't blog whoring.
We'll see what the site monitors say if it keeps popping up on each thread.
just in the past few minutes.
your stalker. Cuss the durn thing out quick and maybe it will go away.
But it sure is twitterwhoring. I can't imagine the Sitemon will be pleased. It's been on every thread, multiple times.
Yes it IS twitterwhoring innit?
Twitter Spittle?
.
I hear the site monitors coming down the hall right now and they are carrying their big delete button with them.
befo
Damn - how big is that button?!?
The big one, I think they need a handtruck for.
It's big and fast and can be ugly if it needs to be. I wouldn't mess with anyone carrying it. ;)
This is the last message i'll post on here about it, so no more spamming by yours truly. Please join in on the discussion on my twitter page, I will update frequently and well just try it out. I would like replies and the such because I dont want it to be a me ranting page but a discussion page. Join at { Deleted, Blogwhoring. SiteMonitor}
.
No fucking ranting????? No fucking way!!!!
Really, best of luck on your endeavor, but the consensus on the whole Twitter thing seemed to be pretty much thumbs down in a thread a few days back.
And as soon as the sitemonitors here are finished talking to their lawyers, I suspect you'll be nixed.
Again, best of luck.
They aren't complex enough. I guess you'd just take some percentage of your deductions from your tax owing instead of taxable income. I guess that wouldn't be so bad.
it's taken this long to correct. constant tax reductions was shameful period. you can still hear the crying, and false blame being spread around. stran'gely it's coming from the victims, if not more than from the legal tax skirters.
The way things are going right now I imagine there will be far fewer families making a quarter million dollars a year in the future. Probably just entertainment people, pro athletes, politicians and crooked bankers will be in that catagory..
Sean Hannity is not going to like this. Not one little bit. I may have watch about 5 minutes tonight. Hehehehe
Oh noz he's not. I bet BillO will be a little pissy too. Then there's Glenn Beck, he won't even understand it, but by god he'll raise hell about it.
SOCIALISM!
I really think I prefer Socialism to neo-con FASCISM!
Pop up some corn and watch the heads explode!
It's not quite so messy.
that most of our new jobs and investment, etc...comes from the wealthiest then, isn't it possible that when (if) we have a national health plan they may see their burden lightened since "everyone" knows that its the richest....who, of course, are taking the hit already when they provide health care to their employees in all of the jobs they are creating with all of their wealth. So I'm guessin' it will be a wash.
They're rich and they're rich "because" of this country, not "in spite" of this country. Where's all the rich man taxes they evaded? What about the "upstanding citizens" who hid money in the Swiss accounts"? They didn't earn their money, they stold it. Upstanding drug dealers, upstanding bank-owner money launders(sp), upstanding American rich that ripped people off, they're not paying taxes because they're theives.
After enjoying 8 years of vulgar tax breaks which could have helped our economy, it's about damn time that these fatcats pony up!
Once Big Pharma is taxed properly along with the 19,000 tax evaders with swiss bank accounts, health care should be well on it's way to coming to fruition.
It's about time I'd say.
we could probably just take up a collection among the members of Congress and fund health care for the many!!!
to the Fair Tax where each taxpayer would pay 10% off the top to the Govt. Seems like it was a good idea about a year ago, but died during the campaigns.
and the Televangelist got run over by the old guy with the bus.
You mean flat tax as in unfair tax.
a tax increase on the poor.
Yeah, the Fair Tax is where there is a federal sales tax and they give you a card so they can track everything you buy. Sounds pretty fair.
It's called a V.A.T., and most wealthy nations have one. It's very hard to hide money with a V.A.T.
Americans don't pay that much tax in comparison with other rich countries.
how is it a good idea that someone who uses exponentially more of our resources and assets could pay the same percentage of that wealth?
no, flat tax is out of the question if you wanted fair taxation
someone who uses ^ more resources and assets should pay more:
10% x 1M = $100K in taxes
10% x 40K = $4K in taxes.
unless I'm missing something.
Plus I think everyone should pay income taxes, yes, even the poor, even if it's a dollar. When you pay taxes, you think more about who you should vote for.
the issue is how much money you are left after taxes.
A flat tax would make sense, if everything else follows the same scale... namely purchasing power and inflation.
Meaning, that if you are making $100K a year, a piece of gum should cost you $10. Whereas if you were making $10K a year... the same piece should cost you $1.
Since that is not the case. A flat tax has a disproportionate effect on the purchasing power of the people at the bottom vs. the purchasing power of the people at the top.
Besides, it is hypocritical for people who don't want equality on everything else... to claim they want "equality" when it comes to pay taxes. Very selective concept of "equality" you guys got there...
Republican bake sales for doing exactly as you proposed!
You're mixing apples and barracudas and you know it.
baking goods with weed and consuming copious amounts of it.
Why not save time and grind their bones to make your bread?
too low.
to rely on false marketing to sell your ideas, that those ideas may not be that good to begin with?
I know I am asking for too much.
But little common sense dictates that there is nothing fair about taking 10% out of a $1000 monthly paycheck, vs. 10% out of a $10,000 monthly check.
Living with $900 vs $9000 a month are 2 very different ballparks.
Besides, there is already a flat tax: it is called sales tax. Deal with it...
the sales tax every day. It's a fair tax - 8.5% in my area. Everyone pays the same.
Maybe sales tax should be graduated as well.
Go after the Swiss accounts, now that would be interesting.
flew over your head at supersonic speeds.
Having a flat tax rate on income would be unfair because it would affect more, quantitatively speaking, the purchasing power of poor people than rich people... in a disproportional matter.
I tried using simple math, I take that may even bee too complex for you?
that rich people purchase more than poor people.
If, theoretically, a decent standard of living could be maintained after taxation, then it's only fair that all citizens contribute quantitatively.
BTW, what's a bee too complex? is that like a bee too bomber?
"Indeed Mr. Durden, your point did fly over my head at close the speed of light."
Steve Forbes is on Bloomberg complaining.
Those poor Fat Cats. I feel s-o-o-o-o sorry for them.
Just think of the person who will only have 98 million instead of 100 million.
Oh woe is they.
does anyone else wonder why with our wonderful health care system and all his accumulated capital Steve never got a chin implant?
A tin man doesn't need a chin or a heart.
He has tin ears.
.
It is either the thunder or the lightening.
... just to keep his head above water.
But I don't think he has a problem with waterboarding, so he probably doesn't even care.
surfaces so he gets a little air.
They will never ever ever ever go after the tax shelters overseas.
If they did, that would be more than $100 billion in annual revenue.
and I say it's about time. I have had my taxes cut every year for eight years. I'm done paying social security before June 1, but my secretary pays every day of the year. The system is so rigged in my favor. Even with this tax increase, do you realize that they eliminated the alternative minimum tax now? That's another $3000.00 a year for me. A tax increase for me is long, long overdue. I am glad to pay.
I bow to you
You are someone who has done very well, I can respect. My nephews won't think it's fair.
..I suspect you're not a republican, no?
Some of us are in the top bracket, and are quite liberal!
People who actually had to work for their money, usually understand the concept that "everybody does better, when everybody does better."
I would not mind paying higher tax rates if that meant: better healthcare for everybody so my poor wife does not have to work in a hellish environment (she is a surgeon), not having to see another veteran begging for money on the streets, not having to drive around roads worthy of a 3rd world country, a clean environment for my children, good education... so I can hire brilliant individuals and make more money (what a concept, eh?).
That being said, I can understand that if you inherited your money, or are making money from moving money around... then sure, you want to keep as much as you can so you don't have to move one of those precious little fingers unless you really necessarily have to...
I don't mind paying taxes. I just want my taxes to be used on things that are useful. I don't mind paying for universities, healthcare, daycare, or any other thing that will help a family or a community.
What pisses me off is when a bunch of rich people bribe my lawmakers to steal my tax dollars.
cig prices (and taxes), not to mention some of the crappiest social services in the country. I've got no problem paying a little more for worthwhile projects additional tax dollars from tobacco could generate. Just quit doing it in $1/pack increments.
but with public institutions, at least citizens should posses direct accountability.
It is up to the citizens to make sure their tax dollars are spent correctly. Democracy is a contact export, not an expectator's one.
I understand that the practice diverges significantly from theory. But there should be pressure from citizen groups to enable complete oversight of public funds and projects.
That being said, sometimes there is also the need of avoid the tyranny of the majority from disenfranchising certain minority aspects (I am not talking about racial issues, but for example projects that are necessary but that only benefit a few, with a relatively large tax expenditure, i.e. remote roads, or small town projects, etc).
It is not an easy feat. But we, literally, own the state... thus we need to make it work for us.
Such level of oversight is not found in the private sector. That is why I believe certain services and projects should only be handled by the state, and not the private sector. That being said, there are many things that the private sector at, and which make no sense to waste tax dollars on.
And what about people who aren't glad to pay? It's ok to lock them up if they say no? Is it ok to raid their homes with SWAT teams for simply saying "no thanks" ?
whether you owe a little or a lot.
so long as they return the public money that was invested and which helped them live in a society where they could make all that money.
If you finance your own roads, own water infrastructure, own security forces, your own educational system, and your own health care system. For sure, you should be able to keep your money... since you clearly don't need any of our public infrastructure.
I am not gonna hold my breath that you can claim any of that....
Also, what happens if you have a product which I need... but which I don't like to pay for? Should I just take it, and then when you come asking for the money I owe you... should I just say "no, thanks... I just don't feel like paying you."
Honestly, the maturity of some of the hardcore libertarian posters must be stuck in the 3rd or 4th grade tops.
This has nothing to do with tax enforcement and everything to do with the amount of guns in society.
That said, is your position that you only have to comply with the laws you like and not the one's you don't?
You mean the rich?? Sure, send in the SWAT teams. I'll get the addresses.
Bill Clinton said he got an $87.000 tax rebate (bush plan), but he doesn't need it. I have to say, I agree with him. When you make $100 million in ten years...
Laddies!
it's time that obama's security be increased.
the wealthy wingnuttia, corporations and wall st.
elite will use any means now to get obama out of
office. my opinion, kennedy was eliminated for
less at attempting to equalize the wealth in
America. you don't think the
corruptrich and powerwill allow obama to get any of their criminal wealth,
do you?
Don't threaten them just say . "Sorry time to grow up boys and stop leaching off the people who made you what you are"
Shouldn't that be leech?
Otherwise we're talking about
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQiXPHhZ4Go
to help landfill workers survive in the hot sun?
Modern equivalent of SS?
The SS were primarily a military organization (by at least 1938). Most of the people you're criticizing have no intention of joining a military unit and risking their lives.
raised taxes and we had the biggest economic boom in U.S. History.
The Fed also flooded the market with cheap money and credit to create that bubble and now we have one of the biggest busts in US history.
If you think raising taxes made people rich...brand new bridge, hardly used...
I don't know what the next novelty upswing is going to be.
Are you saying that did this during the Clinton years, and after 8 years it's now busting? Why didn't booshco do something before then if they had 8 years?
Additionally the Federal Reserve doesn't issue money or credit, but the Discount Rate, the Federal Funds Rate, and sets required reserves for banks.
Now if you're talking about the Federal Government in general you need to be more specific.
raising taxes causes more middle class wealth, this is a fact
it's becuase rather then pay that tax the smart business man invests back into our country and therefore the economy
it's because when the weakest link is strong the strongest are stronger yet
it's because most commons are far less costly when provided by the government then when provided privately and you can have more commons with higher revenue
I wish taxes were referred to useage fees and that useage was deliberately accounted for with specific tax, the deficit and surplus, where the surplus goes and where the deficit comes from
that would make it a no brainer
... which is like holy water for some of our vampire posters.
Who benefited from the bubble? The poor? Or is that printed, cheap, money now in the Caymans, in tax free accounts?
"we will pay for health care by raising taxes on the wealthy” is neither accurate nor productive.
I believe a far more effective approach would be something closer to;
“we intend on eliminating the tax gifts that were given to the wealthy at the expense of our nations economic security”
Of course re-worded to work with Mr. Obama’s pattern but that’s the general idea.
or;
“lowering taxes for the wealthy has not improved our economy, it has not improved manufacturing and it has not created quality jobs, the practice has eliminated jobs.
what we were left with amounted to giving middle class assets to the wealthy.
we intend on reclaiming those assets and giving them back to our infrastructure and our economic security”.
we have 20, 245,000 worker in the workforce of 153,716,000 workers. The rest? Services, farmers, and government.
20,245,000 people who actually make things and the whole country is fed by the 19,135,000 people who are in farming & farm-related employment. That adds up to 39,380,000 people left who actually make things.
Stop buying into Republican talking points. "Redistribution of wealth" is right up there with "death tax". It is a negative spin catch phrase intended to undermine true meaning and intent. Republicans (formerly knows as - LOL - fiscal conservatives) want people to believe that taxing the rich is akin to rape.
True redistribution of wealth would be the seizure and confiscation of property. Obama's taxes on the rich are not redistribution, as the programs funded will benefit all citizens. In any humane society wealth entails responsibility; the greater the wealth, the greater the responsibility.
Boy, I have had CNN turned 'on'...and you should hear this Republican Strategist on there bellowing...yeah,
I said "bellowing"....mostly about the debt ceiling, not paying attention to what is called to account in the bill..like military spending in Iraq/Afghanistan...
didn't hear any 'bellowing' when the filthy rich were awarded all those tax cuts, though. The one thing that really disappointed me about former President Clinton was when those tax cuts were put through, and he gave a speech mentioning, "I don't need a tax cut"...but he accepted it anyway. I would have admired him a whole lot more had he not only said, "I don't need this tax cut, and I'm sending it back.."
(perhaps he was concerned it would 'offend' his 'buddy' Bush....)
Imagine that!
I've been eating Smuckers Peanut Butter for the past two days and haven't ended up on life support. Good job Smuckers.
To go along with Jif jelly?
So far the policies and proposals of the Administration for the most part make sense. However, none of this will come to fruition until the voters demand that Congress be the people's lobby. Right now the lobbiests hold all the card, direct the Bills and push through thier aggenda. We have to hold Congresses feet to the fire. They are supposed to OUR LOOBIESTS.
... Rush Limbaugh will be paying more in taxes so as to afford some poor person better medical coverage.
probably terminally ill from listening to his crap anyway he may as well pay for it.
warm his cockles, too.
Do they broadcasts rash's radio show in the Dominican Republic Elementary Schools?
for substance abuse.
rushbo will be paying more in taxes because he uses exponentially more assets
simple stuff here
The Rush Limbaugh Oxycontin Pain Relief Foundation
with all that hot air Rush spews. We could literally pay the whole national debt a few times over before the summer hits.
We could also solve some of our energy problems if we were to harness the hot air spilled by the contingent of conservative radio hosts and politicians.
1) We need to start with a premise that IT'S OKAY FOR PEOPLE WHO MAKE MORE MONEY TO PAY MORE TAXES.
There's nothing wrong with that idea. 45% of my salary isn't as much as 25% of someone making $60,000 a year. And by the time we're done with tax breaks, I might be down to 25% anyway (as it stands, I've never paid more than 17%).
A higher rate is a FAIR PRICE to pay for A BETTER QUALITY OF LIFE. If the people who fall through the cracks have no safety net, we've all got to worry about desperate people who will commit crimes, stepping over people living on the streets, more unstable homes, drug use and the many other problems poverty causes.
2) Everybody knows that (despite the "tax brackets") the more money you make, the lower the rate you pay in taxes BECAUSE the more breaks you get.
So to imply that somehow it's redistributing money from wealthy to poor is, on its face, a lie.
Login or Register to post comments.