Do you think it would be wise politically if Obama tried to raise taxes on upper incomes soon?

[StrongBad]

I read that he was going to put this on hold for a time being while first in office. However, assuming he rolls it out sometime during his first term, do you think it's wise to raise taxes in a dismal economy?

My thoughts are that this issue should be put on the backburner until economic data fully confirms the nation has stabalized and will soon begin to rebound.

Also, I'm interested if he truly is going through the budget "line by line" as we speak looking to eliminate programs that aren't working or aren't essential to the economy. That would increase his approval ratings even more.

[firedupdem]

1. The tax cuts for the rich will be allowed to expire. Trying to

over turn those now would be a bigger fight then the one we just had about the stimulus. Not worth it, IMO.

[StrongBad]

2. Good point. Waiting for expiration is easy.

[backscatter712]

6. Wait until the recession shows signs of letting up.

Yeah, I'd say the easiest thing to do is to just wait until the Bush tax cuts expire.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. Define "Upper Incomes".

If that is 'upper middle class', it is a bad idea. If you mean an actual wealth tax, for example an additional 10% tax on income from any source over 1,000,000, that would be a fine idea. The upper middle class is already getting socked with AMT, with income capped loss of deductions, is paying full fare for college tuitions, has just had their 401Ks turn into 200Ks, and does not deserve to get punished for the sins of Wall Street. Billionaires and million dollar executive bonus babies are the ones who should get handed the bill for the mess they've made.

[backscatter712]

7. I like the Colbert definition...

"Anyone who owns at least one vehicle with a spiral staircase."

[Laelth]

10. I hear you.

Perhaps it's not fair for the people you describe to get punished for the sins of Wall Street, but, because I suspect most of them vote for R's, I have no beef with them getting punished for enabling the looting by voting against their best interests.

It's really the poor and the lower-middle class who are assuming all this debt (and I'm talking about TARP here) without getting any of the rewards. Why should we insure Wall Street's bad investments? Why shouldn't the upper-middle class (who actually own some stocks) pay more too?

Ultimately, though, my point is that there's plenty of blame to go around, and the upper-middle class is not innocent.

dem:

-Laelth

[Warren Stupidity]

15. yeah fine except the facts don't back up your opinion.

"Barack Obama promised he would lower taxes for 95 percent of Americans and presumably raise them for the 5 percent who benefited most under President Bush’s tax policies. But, remarkably, the most affluent 5 percent supported Obama and that was perhaps the key to his victory last week.

This group — and the rise of a new elite class of voters — is at the heart of the fast-paced changes in demographics affecting the political, sociological and economic landscape of the country. While there has been some inflation over the past 12 years, the exit poll demographics show that the fastest growing group of voters in America has been those making over $100,000 a year in income. In 1996, only 9 percent of the electorate said their family income was that high. Last week it had grown to 26 percent — more than one in four voters. And those making over $75,000 are up to 15 percent from 9 percent. Put another way, more than 40 percent of those voting earned over $75,000, making this the highest-income electorate in history. "

Mark Penn on Politico http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15471.html

The data from CNN:
Vote by Income Obama McCain Other/No Answer
Under $15,000 (6%) 73% 25% 2%

$15-30,000 (12%) 60% 37% 3%

$30-50,000 (19%) 55% 43% 2%

$50-75,000 (21%) 48% 49% 3%

$75-100,000 (15%) 51% 48% 1%

$100-150,000 (14%) 48% 51% 1%

$150-200,000 (6%) 48% 50% 2%

$200,000 or More (6%) 52% 46% 2%
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1

Note that the 6% of voters making 200K or more were the third strongest income category for Obama.

Why are we punishing educated white metropolitan professionals again?

[Laelth]

16. Do those figures hold for 1996? 1998? 2000? 2002? 2004?

Cuz that's when the enabling happened. Besides which, the people you're talking about, I suppose, split about 50/50 last year. I bet they generally voted (R) when the enabling was occurring. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

The United States is a LIBERAL Country.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Warren Stupidity]

18. Yikes -

So if I give you evidence for last election - that doesn't cut it I have to now go back and get evidence for the last 20 years? How about you provide the evidence that based on their voting record, the upper middle class should be punished by taxation for the crapfest that the truly rich have foisted on us?

How about we tax the goddamn rich instead? How about them apples?

[ncteechur]

4. i'm sure he thought that by not rolling them back now, it would be easier to get a stimulus package

through. Now that he has that, he can rollback the tax cuts on the rich to pay for the rest of his health care plan. He may wait until the mid-term elections when he may get a filibuster proof senate and can get any kind of health care plan he wants and the GOP can suck ass

[Sebastian Doyle]

5. In a perfect world, everybody BUT the Ultra Rich would be in favor of the idea.

Hell, even some of the Ultra rich would, for that matter. Bill Gates & Warren Buffett, for example, both readily admit that they don't pay enough taxes.

Unfortunately, we live in corporate whore media distortion world, where some jobless freeper living in a broken down trailer in Hogs Jowl Gulch KY believes that he will somehow suffer if the CEO who fired his ass is forced to pay the taxes he's dodged for the last 28 years, because that's what FAUX Noize tells him will happen.

[Captain Hilts]

8. The over-paid members of the media NEVER forgave Bill Clinton for doing it. They tried to get even.

[Laelth]

9. Yes.

I think he should press Congress to raise taxes for the rich each and every time the Republics start crying about "fiscal responsibility." If, all of a sudden, it's fiscal responsibility they want, let's let their constituents pay for it.

:dem:

-Laelth

[TBF]

13. Exactly right. They're the ones with the money, they should be ashamed

of themselves for letting the country fall apart, and for so many people losing their jobs. He should definitely raise taxes on upper brackets while he's got the approval rating to do it.

[AtomicKitten]

11. Wait for them to expire, in the interim close the tax loopholes for the wealthy

and shut down the Cayman Island P.O. Box tax dodgers.

[paulk]

12. not wise politically

even though rescinding the Bush tax cuts would be the right thing to do.

Is it wise to raise taxes in a dismal economy? By the book, probably not, although one would be hard pressed to make the case that Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy helped the economy these last eight years.

[Still Sensible]

14. I say let them expire and use political capital for

other important initiatives.

[Hieronymus]

17. The Bush tax cuts will be allowed to expire, but I'm all for raising taxes on

those making over $200,000. a year ... and soon.