McClatchy: Handful of Dems fighting to extend Bush tax cuts for wealthy

[Joanne98]

Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 11:16:03 AM PDT
Just when you thought you've finally found an issue to rally the party around, along come a handful of Democrats trying to screw it up:

WASHINGTON — Democrats in Congress are poised to play a leading role this month in thwarting their party's effort to raise income tax rates on the wealthy.

Tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 expire at the end of this year. President Barack Obama and Democratic congressional leaders have been eager to extend the breaks for individuals who earn less than $200,000 annually and joint filers who make less than $250,000. Those who earn more would pay higher, pre-2001 rates starting next year.

However, a small but growing number of moderate Democrats are balking at boosting taxes on the rich.

McClatchy's David Lightman names three Senators (Evan Bayh, Ben Nelson, and Kent Conrad) as well as three Senate candidates (Jack Conway, Robin Carnahan, and Brad Ellsworth) who support extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. But as he also points out, Majority Leader Reid and President Obama have both come out strongly for allowing tax rates on the wealthy to return to 1990 levels. That's the position Obama campaigned on and won on in 2008 and it remains popular: last week, a CBS poll showed the public wants Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy to expire by a 56%-36% margin.

Although it can be frustrating when President Obama takes a hands-off attitude towards Congress, stories like this underscore the extent to which problems really do start with conservative and weenie Dems in Congress. But it is also represents what may be Obama's best opportunity to beat those Dems -- along with the Republicans they are enabling -- at their own game. The reason is simple: this time, Obama doesn't just have politics and policy on his side, he also has procedure. Advocates for Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy have virtually no leverage -- unless they want to kill tax cuts for everybody else. If that's a fight they want to have, it's a fight the administration should welcome, starting by demanding Congress extend tax cuts for regular Americans and pledging to veto any permanent extension of Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/9/2/898424/-McClatchy:-Handful-of-Dems-fighting-to-extend-Bush-tax-cuts-for-wealthy

[Donnachaidh]

1. Conway too?

Jaysus H. christ on a cracker. :puke:

[BlueIdaho]

2. With democrats like these

Who needs republicans?

[BrklynLiberal]

3. In the 1950s, "A lot of people got rich — and they had to pay a top tax rate of 90 percent."

We can thank Raygun and his Wall St minions for 99.44% of the problems we have today...


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/oct/02/michael-moore/michael-moores-film-capitalism-claims-richest-paid/

<snip>
Considering that the top marginal tax rate for the wealthiest Americans today is 35 percent, that figure seems astounding. But it's true that in the 1950s, the top marginal tax rates were over 90 percent.

So does that mean that someone in 1955 making a half million dollars had to fork over $450,000 of it to Uncle Sam? No.

We are talking here about "marginal" tax rates. Moore doesn't go out of his way to explain this, so we will. The marginal tax rate is the top rate of income tax charged to individuals on their last dollar of earnings. So in 1955, for example, when the top marginal tax rate was 91 percent, that was the tax rate owed on a person's income over $300,000. That person would, however, pay 20 percent on the first $2,000 of income; 21 percent on the next $2,000 in income; 24 percent on the next $2,000 and graduated on up to the highest rate. On average, a person making, say, $500,000 would pay substantially less than 90 percent of their income in federal taxes.

The top marginal tax rates peaked in 1952 and 1953 at 92 percent for income over $300,000.

Bob Williams of the Tax Policy Center did some math for us to give this some perspective.

In 1952 and 1953, Williams said, when the top income tax rate was 92 percent for income over $300,000, a person would have to make waaaay more than $300,000 to actually end up paying an average of 90 percent of their income. According to Williams, someone would have to make $2,328,400, and therefore pay $2,095,560, to get to that 90 percent threshold.

But people with income of less than $2.3 million — remember we're talking about 1952 and 1953 — would have paid, on average, something less than 90 percent, and perhaps much less.

<snip>

Today, these pigs at the trough don't want to pay ANY taxes.....and don't want the government to use the tax money they do not pay...to help anyone who is not as rich as they are.