Democrats Against Tax Increases because $250,000 a year “does not make you really rich.”

[babylonsister]

Sigh.

http://washingtonindependent.com/97053/democrats-against-tax-increases

Democrats Against Tax Increases
By Annie Lowrey 9/9/10 3:51 PM


At Talking Points Memo, Brian Beutler reports that Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) is not interested in raising taxes on households making more than $250,000 a year or individuals making more than $200,000, as the White House wants. Without Nelson, the most moderate Democrat, the White House proposal becomes untenable — it will not beat a Republican filibuster in the Senate — and a two-year extension of all the tax cuts seems the likeliest path.

“I support extending all of the expiring tax cuts until Nebraska’s and the nation’s economy is in better shape, and perhaps longer, because raising taxes in a weak economy could impair recovery,” Nelson said today.

Other moderate Democrats are coming out in opposition to the tax hikes, even on the wealthiest, in the House. For instance, Rep. Jim Himes (Conn.) supports an extension because $250,000 a year “does not make you really rich.” (Maybe not in Fairfield County, which Himes represents. It is one of America’s wealthiest counties, and has the highest concentration of hedge funds outside of Manhattan. If you wanted to, you could buy a house like this.) But, only about two percent of filers make that much nationally.

If Democrats attempt to raise taxes on high-income Americans, a bill could founder in the Senate — and if Congress comes to no agreement on the tax cuts, they expire. That means income taxes revert to 2000 levels for everyone, hiking taxes even on low earners.

[w4rma]

1. Don't need to beat a filibuster on this. Nelson will just have to go on record as voting against

middle class tax cuts. The Tax Cuts were written to expire. Nelson can't stop them.

[impik]

8. You sure about the filibuster?

[madmom]

2. If $250,000 a year doesn't make you rich, what does $30,000 a year make you?

[babylonsister]

3. I hear that, and/or less. nt

[valerief]

4. Desperate. nt

[old mark]

11. Richer than me....hey, but I'm retired...nt

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

13. Downright impoverished in the areas where $250k doesn't make you rich. (nt)

[Doctor_J]

18. Insignificant

to your so-called representatives

[theothersnippywshrub]

5. This is not the hill to die on. n/t

[quiet.american]

6. I think the headline is misleading. "Democrats" should be replaced with "Blue Dogs."

And there is no surprise with the usual suspects (Ben Nelson, et al.) being quoted there.

[Mimosa]

7. Who's un-reccing this?

If I had $250,000 a year I'd consider myself very prosperous if not rich.

[denimgirly]

9. Will DU give Democrats a Pass if they Pass into Law to Extend Tax Cuts for the Wealthy?

Just curious...hopefully this disastrous idea dies and democrats dont buckle (again) and let this thing become an extension (or more appropriately put, permanent tax cut)...but if a bill does include extending these cuts and Obama signs it into law which he has clearly shown that he would not veto a bill that DID include it then will people here are DU once again give democrats and Obama a pass for once again appeasing to the right?

The impossible of letting this thing tax cut expire is looking less likely every day.

[old mark]

10. "A man who has a million dollars is almost as well off as a man who is wealthy."...

John Jacob Astor.

There are evidently people who have difficulty making ends meet on $250,000 per year...I don't know any personally, but I assume such people exist, and I don't think the harsh economic lesson they are about to feel from losing their Bush tax reduction will really hurt them - it may teach them something, but I'm not sure they are capable of learning, and they can always cut back a little-sell the other boat, etc...

mark

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

12. It depends on where you live really, which is the whole point.

For the vast majority of America - absolutely, $250k would make you rich. No question about it. In a place like Washington, DC, $250k makes you barely upper middle class because of outrageous housing costs. A small shack in a safe neighborhood will set you back at least $400,000 here, whereas the same shack in a similarly safe neighborhood elsewhere will run you around $100k after the housing bubble burst.

Don't get me wrong, however - I would love to pay taxes on $250k if I made that much, and no one should be weeping over that at all. Make no mistake - you're still living a good life. I just bristle a bit at the notion that anyone could discount the idea $250k isn't necessarily "rich". You can very much have a better quality of life making $80k in some places than you can on $250k in others.

[babylonsister]

14. I agree with you, but I bristle when I read

sentences like this from Dems. We know there are areas of CT and the country where us middle- to lower-class people couldn't dream of affording.
But we're talking of the benefits of taxing the rich, benefits that would affect the whole country. Doesn't this guy see that? Does he have no mid- to lower-income constituents? He doesn't think those more fortunate should sacrifice (and honestly, how much of a sacrifice would this really be?) for those less fortunate.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

15. I am in total agreement.

I also recognize that the people this Democrat is representing feel a bit miffed that they're being declared "rich" when they're really not. And since members of Congress should actually represent the people of their district, I've got less of a problem with this than I would if a Democrat from, say rural Arkansas, made the same argument.

What it boils down to is I think he's right that $250k doesn't automatically make you rich, and I think he's both right (from the perspective of trying to represent his constituents) and wrong (from the perspective of it's still a tidy sum of money and no one should complain about being very taxed on it) to say something about it.

That said, this would have been a great opportunity to instead recommend that there be additional income tiers to the tax code, which is something that's long overdue anyway. Someone making $250k anywhere in this country shouldn't be lumped into the same group as people making millions.

[kentuck]

16. This was the strategy behind "supply-side" economics....

Cut taxes to the bone and spend us into oblivion. Make it politically impossible for the Democrats to raise taxes or to spend on any programs that might help people. With the way many Democrats are talking about taxcuts extended for those making $250K or below, they have fallen hook, line and sinker. Those folks that make over $100K have to pay more in taxes or liberalism is dead. We cannot provide what the country needs on taxes on those above $250K only. If we don't change this, the supply siders have won.

[Doctor_J]

17. This is verbatim from Limpballs and the Repukes

really, really disgusting

[TheKentuckian]

19. If 250k isn't well off to you then I don't know how one could sleep knowing

there are folks expected to live and even pay taxes making a 1/16 and a 1/10 of what you are scraping by with right in your same town.

[flpoljunkie]

20. Way to contrast Dems with Repukes, assholes! They're even choosing to ignore the polls on this!

Shame on them! They do not deserve to call themselves Democrats!