Schumer nails it on Face the Nation. Every Democrat should be saying what he's saying right now.

[laughingliberal]

He said he'd rather see a compromise on the taxes that let the tax cut for people with over $1,000,000 in income expire than pass a temporary extension for everyone over $250,000

He made the case every Democrat should be making right now-that the millionaires and billionaires have seen substantial increases in income over the past decade while the middle class incomes went down and the Republicans should not hold tax relief for the middle class hostage over tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. He also said they don't need the money and they won't spend it and this tax cut for the wealthy won't provide any bump for the economy.

He was noncommittal on the CFC, overall, but said he won't support a plan if it seeks to put the bulk of the burden on the middle class.

[SidDithers]

1. K&R...nt

Sid

[tilsammans]

2. K&R

I've been skipping FTN lately because of its steady stream of Repuke guests. I'm glad Schumer had the opportunity to have his say. :applause:

[Oceansaway]

3. K&R...n/t

[sasha031]

4. glad to hear

Mike Papantonio asked Shumer what he thought of the last election. He replied that Rubert Murdoch was the most important person in the country, not the President.

I really believe that is the underlying dilemma we are facing. The question is what can we do about it.

[WinkyDink]

5. "the bulk" = weasel words.

[emulatorloo]

21. ?

[bjobotts]

50. Justification for extending tax cuts for the wealthy...so middle class gets tax cuts too

[gateley]

6. Somebody posted a poll on DU asking if you would be willing

to let your tax break expire if it meant the rich guys' would expire, too. Most of us said yes.

Heard a replay of Stephanie Miller last night and the guest said that IMMEDIATELY after the tax break went into effect, jobs started heading overseas.

[Enthusiast]

58. Jobs left the U.S. wholesale

after the big Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. That is the facts, Jack! Say it again!

[alberg]

75. The single most important thing that the Democrats can do

is to let ALL the Bush Tax Cuts expire.

Let’s call their bluff.

They’ve been telling us for the past year that the most critical issue we face is the large Federal Deficit – OK – letting the tax cuts expire will cut the deficit IN HALF ! There is no other action that either party could take that has as powerful an effect on one of the core issues driving our politics.

As a patriotic American I’m happy to give my $300.00 a year tax break back to our government to balance the budget and make our country stronger. I’m sure all the Billionaires out there are willing to do the same.

We control the Senate so all that is needed to make this happen is to DO NOTHING! The tax cuts expire on December 31.

Most economists agree that the tax cuts were a Republican shame that damaged the economy and the letting them expire will, if coupled with an aggressive jobs creation program, be a big step towards getting us out of this mess.

So, what do you say – are you with me?

Call your Senators and the White House and tell them: Let all the Bush Tax Cuts expire!

[senseandsensibility]

7. k and r

Hope he means it. What kind of comments was he making during the healthcare debate? Specifically about the public option?

[laughingliberal]

17. I don't recall off hand. I do remember when he was asked if the President could get it he said...

the President would be able to get anything he wants...with the emphasis on 'wants.'

He also publicly lost patience with Kent Conrad's incessant whining about ND. He said, with Conrad, everything's about ND with no regard for the good of the rest of the country.

[senseandsensibility]

Well those are good comments.

Although I hope this effort doesn't end as the heathcare one did.

[senseandsensibility]

25. dupe

eom

[pnwmom]

54. Alas, he's elected only by the voters of ND who apparently

only care about ND.

[laughingliberal]

57. Here's the deal, though. Conrad's whole objection to the PO was about the inadequate...

reimbursement rates for hospitals in ND. His claim was that their hospitals would not survive with a PO tied to Medicare rates. So, he got a deal from Reid to adjust the reimbursement rates Medicare was paying in their region. He still refused to support a PO. I don't care for him.

[OHdem10]

8. No matter what you think of Schumer, this is why he would be

a good leader in Senate. He can articulate a position
clearly and CONFIDENTLY on TV.

[mzmolly]

11. I'd love to see Schumer lead the Senate. I think it's costing Reid

too much in Nevada as well.

[laughingliberal]

18. Definitely a mixed bag. As leader Harry has gotten a little help here we likely would not have...

seen. Our state is too small for most to see helping us as being of much value. OTOH, it did make him a huge target for the RW and here, in this purple state, almost cost him the election and put another bat shit in the Senate.

[mzmolly]

23. Yes, I'd hate to see an Angle

run again and win. ACK!

:hi:

[digidigido]

39. Schumer is another centrist dem like Feinstein, terrible senator

He refused to filibuster Alito, he's as useless as any of them

[karynnj]

45. Not to mention earlier this year, when it had become abundantly clear just how bad Alito was,

he spoke of "not LEADING a filibuster" as one regret. The fact is, Kerry and Kennedy led a filibuster with more passion, eloquence and real statesmanship than he ever could have pulled together - and they had him and the rest of the leadership nipping at their ankles as they did so. He not only did not "lead" a filibuster, he supported those thinking it a bad idea. What he missed - as did Clinton - was that the issue was not a Woman's right to choose. ANY Bush nominee was going to be prolife. The issue was that Alito was so far out of the mainstream on issues like the balance of powers. (Here is Kerry's powerful Senate speech calling for people to filibuster him - http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/clip.php?appid=595764666 )

[mzmolly]

53. "useless as any of them?" Anyone will disappoint to an extent given enough time in office.

Also, those who didn't vote for Gore in 00, helped send Alito to the SCOTUS, as far as I'm concerned.

[blondeatlast]

72. I was about to post the same. Unlike the opposition, we just love watching the baby

fly out with the bathwater.

[mzmolly]

81. What's additionally frustrating is that those who don't vote for Democrats (purity voters)

often complain when Democrats don't do XYZ, because there aren't enough of them in office. :crazy:

[ooglymoogly]

80. Schumer; providing us with another Lucy and the football moment.

Schumer caves to the DLC when push comes to shove; sometimes doing the shoving himself, and we all know where the corporate DLC stands...with the pugs while they kabuki dance around wearing a democrat mask.

[Little Star]

12. He is not my favorite but put him up against Harry

and he wins hands down in my book.

[butterfly77]

30. +1

[Chulanowa]

43. Even if that position is "It makes sense to strangle the Gazans"

Fuck Chuck. I'm glad that we caught him at a point where his stopped clock matched the ones that work, but he's a fucking prick and I wouldn't piss on him to put out a fire.

[karynnj]

44. On some issues yes, others no

His comment that the people of Gaza deserve the deprivation caused by the Israeli blockade of many item desperately needed was heartless. (Yes I know he is Jewish - so am I)

He also had almost no commitment to doing anything on global warming - acting to push it lower on the agenda and trying to stop the money allocated in the stimulus for wind energy because a percent of the turbines were purchased from foreign countries - because the US did not have adequate product!

He also is extremely close to Wall Street.

The fact is that Durbin is every bit as articulate, far better on the issues and likable!

[rocktivity]

9. Can we afford it? How much would we lose raising the cap from .25M to 1M?

and did anyone ask if any of the panelists are millionaires?

:headbang:
rocktivity

[laughingliberal]

36. It was just Schumer one on one with Scheiffer. No panel for that part. nt

[DWilliamsamh]

79. The reality is we can't afford any of the Bush cuts - they aren't paid for.

But of course in our nation where the majority is immature and thinks unicorn's piss liquid gold that can be used to pay down the national debt, the debate has become who should benefit from tax cuts that do nothing but add trillions of dollars to the national debt. In that retarded debate, I would rather see the middle class keep the tax cut, and not the millionaires who saw real double digit increases in income over the last 30 years while the rest of us have been treading water or losing ground.

[jemsan]

10. Check this out if you think taxes are too high......

TruthandPolitics.org

White Papers

The Federal Budget
Federal Taxation
The US Congress
Article Summaries

List article summaries by author, subject, title, most recently posted, or most recently revised.



Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003

Introduction

This is a table of the top marginal tax rate faced by married couples for most of the last century in the US.

Note that these are top marginal rates only, not average effective rates. That is,

the rate is not an average rate (total tax paid divided by total income), but a marginal rate (the rate paid on dollars of income over the "top bracket," listed below as "Taxable income over--");
the rate does not take into account all possible exemptions and deductions, so taxes actually paid may have been lower than these nominal rates indicate.
The table is limited to married couples merely to make the presentation simpler.

Historical rates (married couples, filing jointly)

Table

Tax year Top marginal
tax rate (%) Top marginal
tax rate (%) on
earned income,
if different<1> Taxable
income over--
1913 7 500,000
1914 7 500,000
1915 7 500,000
1916 15 2,000,000
1917 67 2,000,000
1918 77 1,000,000
1919 73 1,000,000
1920 73 1,000,000
1921 73 1,000,000
1922 58 200,000
1923 43.5 200,000
1924 46 500,000
1925 25 100,000
1926 25 100,000
1927 25 100,000
1928 25 100,000
1929 24 100,000
1930 25 100,000
1931 25 100,000
1932 63 1,000,000
1933 63 1,000,000
1934 63 1,000,000
1935 63 1,000,000
1936 79 5,000,000
1937 79 5,000,000
1938 79 5,000,000
1939 79 5,000,000
1940 81.1 5,000,000
1941 81 5,000,000
1942 88 200,000
1943 88 200,000
1944 94 <2> 200,000
1945 94 <2> 200,000
1946 86.45 <3> 200,000
1947 86.45 <3> 200,000
1948 82.13 <4> 400,000
1949 82.13 <4> 400,000
1950 84.36 400,000
1951 91 <5> 400,000
1952 92 <6> 400,000
1953 92 <6> 400,000
1954 91 <7> 400,000
1955 91 <7> 400,000
1956 91 <7> 400,000
1957 91 <7> 400,000
1958 91 <7> 400,000
1959 91 <7> 400,000
1960 91 <7> 400,000
1961 91 <7> 400,000
1962 91 <7> 400,000
1963 91 <7> 400,000
1964 77 400,000
1965 70 200,000
1966 70 200,000
1967 70 200,000
1968 75.25 200,000
1969 77 200,000
1970 71.75 200,000
1971 70 60 200,000
1972 70 50 200,000
1973 70 50 200,000
1974 70 50 200,000
1975 70 50 200,000
1976 70 50 200,000
1977 70 50 203,200
1978 70 50 203,200
1979 70 50 215,400
1980 70 50 215,400
1981 69.125 50 215,400
1982 50 85,600
1983 50 109,400
1984 50 162,400
1985 50 169,020
1986 50 175,250
1987 38.5 90,000
1988 28 <8> 29,750 <8>
1989 28 <8> 30,950 <8>
1990 28 <8> 32,450 <8>
1991 31 82,150
1992 31 86,500
1993 39.6 89,150
1994 39.6 250,000
1995 39.6 256,500
1996 39.6 263,750
1997 39.6 271,050
1998 39.6 278,450
1999 39.6 283,150
2000 39.6 288,350
2001 39.1 297,350
2002 38.6 307,050
2003 35 311,950
Graph

This graph is a plot of year (first column in the table) against the corresponding top marginal rate (second column in the table) (in blue). Where the top marginal rate on earned income differs (1971--1981), it is also plotted (in red).




Comments

For a more detailed discussion, see the references below. Note that

the table does not address the tax treatment of capital gains;
the table does not take into account the alternative minimum tax or its predecessor, the minimum tax; and,
care should be taken in comparing the income levels at which the top rate applies, not only because of the effects of inflation, but because the definition of the income base has varied over time.
Data source

Most of the data were taken from reference <3>. Some of the footnote text was drawn and modified from reference <2>.

Footnotes

<1> This figure is cited when the top marginal rate for earned income differs from that for unearned income.
<2> For 1944-1945, the highest tax rate was subject to a maximum effective rate limitation equal to 90% of statutory "net income."
<3> For 1946-1947, the highest rate was subject to a maximum effective rate limitation equal to 85.5% of statutory "net income."
<4> For 1948-1949, the highest tax rate was subject to a maximum effective rate limitation equal to 77% of statutory "net income."
<5> For 1951, the highest tax rate was subject to a maximum effective rate limitation equal to 87.2% of statutory "net income."
<6> For 1952-1953, the highest tax rate was subject to a maximum effective rate limitation equal to 88% of statutory "net income."
<7> For 1954-1963, the highest tax rate was subject to a maximum effective rate limitation equal to 87% of statutory "taxable income."
<8> For 1988-1990, some taxpayers faced a 33% marginal tax rate in an income bracket above the one cited for the 28% rate. However, the marginal rate returned to 28% above this 33% bracket. That is, for all sufficiently high incomes, 28% was the marginal rate.
References

<1> "2003 tax rate schedules," in Internal Revenue Service, 2003 Tax Table
<2> Robert A. Wilson and David E. Jordan, "Personal exemptions and individual income tax rates, 1913-2002" (Rev. 6-02), in Internal Revenue Service, Statistics of Income Bulletin (Publication 1136), Spring 2002, pp. 216-225
<3> "Table A.--U.S. individual income tax: personal exemptions and lowest and highest bracket tax rates, and tax base for regular tax, tax years 1913-2003" (Rev. 4-2003), in Internal Revenue Service, Statistics of Income Bulletin (Publication 1136), Winter 2002-2003
<4> "Tax brackets by year," under "Tax Facts," Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center

[BrklynLiberal]

29. Facts that the tbaggers and repukes just do not want to know....

and the MSM has been totally complicit in keeping the public unaware of these facts.

[Enthusiast]

59. It's the 'no-facts' M$M.

It serves a vital purpose for TPTB. Closer to 1984 every stinkin' day.

[DLnyc]

31. Very nice post, thanks. Here is a link, I think

(Seems to be to the same info):

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

[Mimosa]

48. Jemsan, the great chart makes the point!!!

The rich did well in the 1950s , the middle class grew and there were jobs. Not to mention the infrastructure investments of all types from highways to public hospitals.

[ProSense]

13. Robert Reich made a similar proposal a couple of weeks ago.

Extend the Bush Tax Cut to the Bottom 99 Percent, But Not The Top 1 Percent

[laughingliberal]

35. Robert Reich is my hero. nt

[spooky3]

38. I would like to see the Dems coalesce behind Reich's proposal and force the Repubs. to vote.

[The Wizard]

40. As long as they have the filibuster

Repubes don't even have to debate an issue and put their bad ideas out in public and on the record.
Cowards all.

[harun]

46. We have the filibuster too. If they won't play ball and let us vote then ALL the taxes

will go back to their previous rates.

[Enthusiast]

60. We also (presumably) have

the veto. Maybe, I think.

[laughingliberal]

47. I'd be willing to bet if the Republicans filibustered a bill to extend middle class tax cuts...

we'd be able to hang that on them. How about this: "We have a bill in the Senate to extend to prevent a middle class tax increase and our Republican colleagues have decided it doesn't deserve a vote."

Do you really think they'd follow through on their filibuster?

[blondeatlast]

73. That's their game; let's see how they like it when we do it. nt

[old mark]

14. K&R....

[TwilightGardener]

15. If that's the compromise, I could get behind it. Make it happen during lame duck.

[Selatius]

16. The problem is we have right wing Democrats in our caucus who would say differently.

This is why people perceive the Democratic Party as inept or weak. Its own members in Congress cannot even agree on a course forward because it contains both left wing and right wing people. The best they could do, for instance, was pass a health care bill that was similar to past Republican proposals on health care from Richard Nixon to Bob Dole to Mitt Romney.

[laughingliberal]

22. Then let them say it and take their chances with middle class voters. Party discipline should...

just be for the left.

[JerseygirlCT]

65. Which makes perfect sense

except that we've seen over and over again that people don't make smart decisions and often vote against their best interests.

Or else we would have very few Republicans in office.

Totally agree with your sentiments. It just doesn't work that way.

[veganlush]

19. if the last two years taught us anything,

they taught us that the senate can hold up anything, even just one senator. Can we find ONE senator that will stop tax cuts for the rich?

[laughingliberal]

24. We could if we called them out with messaging like Schumer's. Party discipline can be a good thing.

[Enrique]

20. no way

we can't afford it. 1,000,000 is way too high. I think 250,000 is way too high. Poor people are desperate out there. Unemployment is an emergency. We can't afford these luxuries.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

26. I wish he were the Majority Leader...

*sigh*

[BlancheSplanchnik]

27. Schumer is an excellent representative.

glad to have him in NY.

[BrklynLiberal]

28. Schumer makes up for what he lacks in substance by talking VERY LOUD!

I would never vote for him..since he helped to fuck up the Supreme Court.
I would not trust him as far as I could throw him...

[Enthusiast]

61. I agree. I do not trust him. nt

[BREMPRO]

32. Schumer is always on point, an articulate, politically wise and sensible voice.

This is a winning strategy. How can the Repukes defend it? Take away the supposed "small business" tax increase (a lie in itself) by raising the cap to a million and you get deficit reduction with no injury to the economy and only a small increase to clinton era tax rates for billionaires who are the only ones who have done well in the past decade and CAN afford it. A no brainer, except for the brainless, soulless, bought and paid for corporate Repukians. Shumer should be running the show in the Senate.

[garthranzz]

33. STOP CALLING IT A "TAX CUT"!

It's "WELFARE FOR THE WEALTHY"! Labels matter. When middle class people hear "tax cut" they think, that means me, it's good. They have to do a double-think to realize what it means. But "welfare for the wealthy" carries all the negative connotations we want.

[grahamhgreen]

42. And it's not a 'tax cut', it's tax deferral or increase - you'll have to pay it back later with

interest!

[liberation]

56. Indeed, plus there is no such thing as a "tax cut" when a government operates under a deficit...

... For such a materialistic and money-centered society, Americans sure don't know much about how basic finances work.

Not paying one's fair share can be, indeed, framed as a form of welfare.

[BzaDem]

34. K & R. n/t

[craigmatic]

37. Obama's already cut taxes once he doesn't need to do it again.

[L0oniX]

41. MUHAHAHAHAH ...the rich corporatists control it all ...suckers! Resistance is futile.

:sarcasm:

[defendandprotect]

49. After a liberal start, didn't Schumer turn into one the frequent compromisers ... ???

[Hannah Bell]

51. K&R. That should be the democratic position. Let the cuts expire then introduce

new targeted cuts for the middle -- & dare the pubs not to support them.

CITE THE NUMBERS.

THEY NEVER CITE THE NUMBERS.

IF MORE PEOPLE KNEW THAT 2% OF THE POPULATION GOT MORE THAN HALF OF BUSH'S TAX CUTS, & THAT THEIR EXPIRATION BRINGS IN ENOUGH NEW REVENUE TO PAY OFF THE ENTIRE SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND, THEY WOULD SUPPORT RESCINDING THEM WHOLE-HEARTEDLY.

WHY DON'T WE HEAR PEOPLE CITING THE NUMBERS IN THE MEDIA? WHY AREN'T THE DEMS CITING THE NUMBERS?

[laughingliberal]

55. Even without citing the numbers, most people favor letting the cuts for the top expire.

Yet, we see the Democrats scared to speak up. It's nuts.

[Enthusiast]

62. We don't need no stinkin' NUMBERS

in the media. The media must remain useful to TPTB.

[blondeatlast]

74. How do we fit that on a bumper sticker or full-page ads in major newspapers?

The ReBPublicans invented the "call your Senators" thing (well, they made it popular, anyaway). time for the Dems to make use of it. Get 'em scared for re-election--the tactic works very well.

[AllyCat]

52. Damn straight. They have done nothing with the money they have from cuts now

Why would they suddenly "bolster" the economy with new or extended cuts?

[Enthusiast]

63. That's another sensible thing

that is never repeated in the media. I wonder why.....:eyes:

[liberal N proud]

64. If the republicans can't come to that proposal they will be showing their true colors

The reaction of the right would prove once and for all the true intentions of the republicans. If they can't meet Schumer's proposal head on with enthusiasm, they are proving they are only protecting the super-wealthy.

[h9socialist]

66. I hate to pour cold water on anyone's parade . . .

. . . but people making a half-million dollars a year don't need a tax cut! This is bullshit! I'm one who'd like to go back to the 1944 tax law where the top rate was 94% on incomes over $500,000 a year. We have billionaires paying lower tax rates than their employees. Tax the living-bejezuzz out of the rich class!

[niceypoo]

67. Those making 40k get like $9 a year from Bush tax cut

The Bush tax cuts do nothing but drain the treasury, end em all.

[Better Believe It]

68. Why should someone under Schumer's plan making 10 grand a week or more get a tax cut?

Nailed it?

Nailed what?

[Octafish]

69. Schumer and the Democrats should have been making this case before the elections.

There'd be a hell of a lot more of us in the next Congress.

[AldebTX]

70. K&R

My repug co workers call it class warfare. I call it fair taxation.

[blondeatlast]

71. Enthusiastic k/r for Chuck Schumer. Dems--there's your mandate. nt

[vssmith]

76. I would llike to see Schumer quit supporting 15% taxes for Hedge fund managers

[Overseas]

77. K&R! Glad he's calling BS-- those tax cuts didn't create jobs !

I agree. All Dems should be telling that truth-- those tax cuts for the mega-rich did not create jobs!

[sulphurdunn]

78. The cuts were passed in 2000 with the stipulation

that they would expire in 2010. That was the selling point. They were supposed to create lots and lots of jobs. They did: in China. Of course, anyone with two brain cells knew the expiration in 2010 caveat was laughable bullshit. However, if they were to actually expire, the last laugh would be on the oinkers at Goldman Sachs.