McCaskill (D, MO) supports raising tax-cut limit to $1 million.

[Clio the Leo]

Just an indication of what the President has to work with....

Also on Fox, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) said she would support raising the upper-income level limit to a million dollars. “I think we should draw the line in the sand for millionaires,” she said, decrying that “the middle class could be held hostage” by the extended tax debate.

http://senatus.wordpress.com/2010/11/28/graham-mccaskill-talk-lame-duck-issues/

As a Senator from Missouri, Claire may only be hearing from the right and therefore adjusting her stance accordingly. Any Missourians might want to call her and let her know how you feel.

[Hippo_Tron]

1. I'd be okay with this if the rate would be higher for millionaires

But also remember that millionaires often make much of their money through capital gains and not through income. The capital gains rate is far too low and that allows millionaires and billionaires to pay lower tax rates than their secretaries.

[Skink]

6. Right, but it is really just Capitol gains that should be adjusted upward.

and then why not add a transaction tax just because.

[Honeycombe8]

9. What IS the rate for those with gross incomes of $1M or more? nt

[LiberalFighter]

41. Right now the top bracket is 35% on anything $373,651 or more.

It is scheduled to change in 2011 to 39.6% on $375,701 or over.

[vi5]

2. I agree....

And I hope when she's up for re-election that we'll have the President's enthusiastic support for a more progressive primary opponent for her so he won't have to work with such horrible Senators impeding his preferred agenda any more.

Do you think I can pencil him in?

[joeybee12]

4. She was one of Obama's biggest supporters in 2008...he'll be seen

with her every chance he gets...remember, he likes people like Claire, they cover his butt so he can screw over the middle class once more and say, "Gee, this is the best we could get."

[polichick]

26. I'm afraid this is pretty much the truth - sad as it is. nt

[avaistheone1]

68. Precisely.

Claire makes me :puke:

[TheWraith]

12. If you think Missouri will elect somebody left of McCaskill, you're nuts.

Frankly we're lucky to have her. Only within the bubble of the internet could anyone think that Missouri is going to elect some Kucinich wannabe.

[Clio the Leo]

16. It's important to remember that MO is only slightly north of Arkansas....

... and it's a bellwether state, not a blue state. I'd be happier if she was able to vote more progressively, but Dems in the state are lucky to have her.

[vi5]

27. Understood. Then she's not an obstacle, is she?

If she is in fact "what Obama has to work with" then our choices are to either work to change that and get a better Senator in there, or pretty much accept that it is what it is, that's the best we'll get in that area, we don't have any choice and then if that's the case then why bother?

The fact is her advocating policies for the rich is not something she's doing to benefit the people of Missouri. Unless I'm missing something does that state have an abundance of people making between $250,000 and a million dollars? If the issue in question were abortion, or gun rights, or social issues that were important to her state and constituencies then I'd say fine. You're right that's not anything that anyone is going to change and she has to represent that.

But the fact is that advocating policies that favor the rich in a state like that is looking out for one's wealthy donors rather than the people of her state. In which case why should anyone (Obama, us, etc.) just shrug their shoulders and go "Oh well. Best we'll get". You can get and work for and fight for someone with an economically populist and economically liberal agenda who maybe goes against the party line on some of those other issues.

But that's not what people seem to want to do (our party leaders especially). Instead they want to work an incumbent protection racket. Which is their prerogative and their right. But then don't expect me to get off my ass and work to help maintain the status quo. If it is what it is and that's all we can do, then fine. I'll leave it at that and spend my time doing more productive things.

[Clio the Leo]

35. "an incumbent protection racket"

"an incumbent protection racket" is exactly what it is ... but if you can get someone more progressive than Claire elected in MO, then you need to get off of DU and go to work (literally) for the party.

Robin Carnahan would probably agree.

[vi5]

39. I do that. And I agree. But my point is this....

"the party" enables and encourages that racket. So if I donate time and money to a more progressive candidate and then donate time and money to the party itself then I end up working against my own goals.

My point of contention isn't whether or not I need to work for and donate to more progressive candidates. I can and I do and I will.

My original point (veiled in my sarcasm) was that I took issue with the idea as it seemed to say in your OP that "this is what Obama has to work with" as though it really is a struggle for him and he really feels bad about it but goshdarnit it's because of folks like Claire that he just can't get anything done.


If Obama and the major Dem players and Democratic leadership stayed out of primaries and let the voters and candidates handle it then I'd buy that. But they don't. They actively engage in and knowingly assist in keeping incumbent, bad dems in power. And then they shrug their shoulders and use that as an excuse as to why they can't get things that they supposedly want done, done. I'm not even saying they should support the more progressive primary opponnent. I understand why they can't or wouldn't do that either. But don't work to entrench someone in power who is going to stymie a particular agenda, and then expect me to feel bad or not be angry when you can't get things done and expect me to take a shoulder shrug as the only excuse.

[sweetapogee]

44. up for re-election in 2012

from wiki:
First-term Senator Claire McCaskill was elected with 49.6% of the vote in 2006, narrowly defeating then-incumbent Jim Talent. ..... McCaskill will seek re-election.<4> Talent is considering a rematch. Other potential Republican candidates include Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder, former State Treasurer Sarah Steelman, and Tom Schweich.<4>

McCaskill has never had particularly high approval ratings. In March 2009, her net approval was +5.

[high density]

3. Erm, there are plenty of people who do not earn $1 million a year that are "millionaires"

$250k/yr is far beyond middle class in most of the country. If the Republicans want to block all tax cuts on the middle class to protect the elite then I say let them do it loudly.

[Honeycombe8]

11. Wouldn't $250K for a couple be upper middle class in a lot of areas?

Certainly for the northeast and northwest and California. Here in Dallas, I think that's true, as well (a young lawyer gross income of $150,000, with student loans of $200,000, including his year end bonus if he worked a lot of weekends, and a wife with income of $100,000) - I think that would be upper middle class here. They would probably spend any tax break they got...appliances, furniture, whatever, rather than invest it, like a truly wealthy person would.

[boppers]

23. No, it's filthy, disgusting, selfish, rich. Arrogantly "let them eat cake" rich.

I'm always gob-smacked at folks who make more than 30-40K a year and want to think they are "middle class".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States

$250K for a couple places them in the class who thinks that their money will "trickle down".

[polichick]

25. LOL - that's absurd. $250,000 a year will hardly get you a condo in some areas. nt

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

38. It's in the top 5% of earnings.

LOL

[polichick]

45. So what? It's not much in NYC, San Francisco, etc. nt

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

51. Bullshit.

$250K gets you by just fine in those cities.

It's in the top 10% of the most expensive cities in the country.

Peddle that crap elsewhere.

[polichick]

52. Apparently you've never lived in those cities...

I'm not saying taxes shouldn't go up - but $250,000 is certainly not "trickle down" territory in many parts of the country.

So you peddle your crap somewhere else.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

53. Bullshit #2.

It's in the top 10th percentile.

Try and peddle your crap to the 90% of the other people living in those cities.

[polichick]

54. Try yanking your head out of your bum. nt

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

66. See #65

$250K is more than double the mean household income in Manhattan. Quadruple the median household income.

That disparity gets larger and larger as you move down the list of cities.

Facts trump bullshit.

[stevenleser]

72. Very difficult to believe. That does not work with the mean and median rent/mortgage

Something is wrong with the data you are using.

[stevenleser]

73. Here is what I mean:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=ar.PvWSlHeyE

It's hard to see that the median household income is $67K or so when the median rent is $2950. If you take taxes and payment for benefits such as healthcare out of the $67K, you now can only pay your rent. No food, no clothes, no transportation money, etc.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

71. Cul-de-sac?

[Honeycombe8]

62. Being in the top 10th % nationwide means nothing when you're talking about reality.

The reality is...the same income means different things in different cities.

You should read up on this. When you retire, you'll want to pick a state and city that has a LOWER cost of living than where you earned your money, so it'll stretch farther. You certainly won't want to move to an area that has a HIGHER cost of living than where you're moving from...your money won't last as long.

That's a common thing that everyone knows. Everyone knows it, because everyone knows that different areas have different costs of living (and different levels of income accordingly). The higher the COL, the higher the incomes in an area, or people wouldn't stay there to work.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

65. Here's your reality check:

The median household income in Manhattan in 2009 was $64K. The mean household income was $121K.

I know the difference in CoL disparities. My original point stands.

[Honeycombe8]

61. You don't know what you're talking about.

Apparently, you haven't been many places, or read much about the economies there, either.

San Francisco...I read up on it once. Thought I might move there. Salaries are VERY high there. YOU would think those folks are rolling in money. Salaries there are easily double what they are here in Dallas, TX. But then I read about the cost of living. It's astronomical. Even with the double salaries, it's not enough to buy a house or live the quality of life a person could live in a lot of other places.

Northeast....very expensive there, too. NYC...very expensive. I've been there on business trips. Everything costs money....lots of it.

Google cost of living, and you'll find comparisons on the Internet of different states and cities. There is a WIDE difference of cost of living in different areas of the country...and different incomes to match.

[KittyWampus]

75. Actually, your approach is divisive and totally counter-productive. The problem is the wealthiest

Those who are indeed living in a Gilded Age.

Yet you and those like you snipe at the smallest of game.

[DebJ]

33. Ouch! The male and female differences are painful.

[Honeycombe8]

60. I feel sorry for you. If you hate those who have more than you, you will always be hating.

Because no matter how much you have, there will always be someone who has more. Ironically, there is somewhere in the world someone who hates YOU for having what YOU have.

But seriously....$250,000 is upper middle class here in Dallas. It's not wealthy.

There is a lower middle class, a middle middle class, and an upper middle class.

$250K - you can't buy a million dollar home here with that income. A million dollar home here is fairly common, so you clearly aren't wealthy if you can't afford to pay $1M on a house.

Hey...if you want to earn $100K a year, go do it. I'll give you a roadmap. No, I didn't reach that amount in earnings, but I earn a good living, coming from super poor. So I can tell you how. And it ain't fun, and it ain't pretty. But it can be done...if you're willing to pay the price. (Let's just say...I have never in my adult life gone on a vacation somewhere, just to have a vacation. Never. I don't own a laptop...or a smart phone. My car is over 13 years old. For over 2 years, I worked at least 6 days a week, and many weeks of the 2nd year, I worked all 7 days with no break. Until recently, I bought most of my work clothes at Target. So don't be angry at those who have more than you. Maybe we were just more willing to pay the heavy price for it.)

[boppers]

64. I *know* I'm relatively rich. I don't pretend to be middle class.

If you're comparing McMansions and homes, your numbers are going to be skewed.

http://dallas.housealmanac.com/

You're off on average home prices by a factor of 10.

[harun]

67. I bring that up every time the tax discussion comes up and

people just don't get it.

If I have 10 million dollars in cash sitting in my bedroom for 1 year, how much tax do I pay on it?

Nothing.

It's the lower and middle class who the income tax nails.

We need to move away from income tax models and move towards wealth tax models.

[bluestateguy]

5. I don't support that, but I'll tell you one thing

If that's the only alternative to the do nothing Doomsday Scenario where all taxes (including mine) go up, then we have to do what we have to do.

If Congress does nothing and all taxes go up, it's going to be like a ten alarm fire and Obama and the Democrats will be blamed (fairly or not).

[TheKentuckian]

15. The tax cuts should all expire and the money reinvested in our crumbling nation

instead of dispersing Starbucks money that few would notice if the anti-tax zealots weren't screaming about it from the mountain tops, much like Obama's waste of a tax cut.

The only one that should be seriously considered is the bottom bracket which is set to go up by 50% after a brutal decade.

[bluestateguy]

18. Then you can tell people that, from the sidelines, out of power and in the minority party

because that is where that argument will lead you.

And for a good many people, this is not "Starbucks money". This is money that they need to keep the electricity bills paid, or pay for the phone bill each month.

[TheKentuckian]

19. Yeah, that's how the bills got paid ten years ago.

Everyone had much more trouble paying bills then.

In any event, saying you don't want to hear something doesn't mean it isn't true.

You know this is the poorest use of these resources that is possible, including simply doing nothing with them at all (aka not borrowing the funds) in light of the state of the infrastructure, the foreclosure crisis, dwindling oil, millions and millions with no means at all (certainly not paying taxes and fueling the economy), and even the debt.

If you look at this picture and try to tell me that for people outside of the bottom bracket getting 1-3% tax relief is the best use of the resources.

You really believe that we are best served as a nation to. Borrow trillions of dollars so that somebody has an extra twenty a paycheck (if that)???

Now, if you're talking the bottom bracket then I can understand. You're talking people with nothing and the hardest hit of the last decade or three. Those that do pay can't really afford a 50% increase so to keep it neutral the top half percent or so should pick it up (probably small potatoes, anyway) but the rest of us should take our tax cut and invest it into our country so that we have some chance at broad prosperity.

You really need your 2% more than for the sewage not to seep into the fresh water?

You'd rather die in a bridge collapse than give up $12 or some such a week?

There is no profit in a majority that won't make sensible decisions and level with the people.

Seriously, what is the gain of this kind of hand to mouth thinking? What kind of country will we leave behind continuing as we have.

[Clio the Leo]

17. exactly

.... wish things were better but I think a compromise of $1 million dollars may be the best we can get. As the President said Friday night, no one will get everything they want ... and this would be my second choice.

[RichGirl]

24. I agree with you.

Although 250K is a huge income to me, someone who makes that much most likely works really hard for it and then has to pay a huge chunk in taxes.* They just aren't in the same catagory of those who make millions, huge bonuses, all trips and dinners tax write-offs, own many homes, private jets, outsource, use every foreign loop hole to benefit them financially, etc.

But mainly, when someone defends the tax cuts they always talk about about the 250K people, who usually own small businesses, have worked hard all their lives, employ local people, don't outsource or use foreign banks, help their communities. etc. I'd like to see them defend it if you take those people out of the picture.

*I'm not implying that low-income people don't work hard...they are the hardest workers of all. I'm saying that the 250K person works harder than the corporate fat cats.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

7. She's up for reelection and therefore has to pander to the idiot wingnuts and

so-called "Independents" in her state!

[Radical Activist]

22. The Blanche Lincoln strategy.

Blue Dogs didn't do so well this year. I'm not convinced it works.

[Honeycombe8]

8. It's her vote that counts. She has to say what she has to say...her constituents are ...

her constituents are moderate or conservative. So those politicians will say what they have to say. And she may truly believe that. But what ultimately counts is her vote on whatever is proposed by the Democrats.

[butterfly77]

10. As soon as Obama took office..

she began acting like Evan Bayh..

[craigmatic]

13. Sounds like somebody is worried about 2012.

[Xenotime]

69. Exactly. This is bullshit

[ProSense]

14. Talent interested in his old seat?

Talent, Steelman consider challenging McCaskill in 2012

<...>

Talent, who served four years in the Senate, is among the most well-known Republicans pondering a 2012 Senate campaign. So is former state Treasurer Sarah Steelman. Talent hopes to make a decision about the Senate race by early 2011.

“I am seriously considering it,” Talent said in an interview with The Associated Press. “I do feel like this is a time where everybody has to think about what they can do to help the country. This is an obvious possibility for me. I have done it before, and I think I could put on a strong race.”

<...>

[cornermouse]

20. My memory is that Talent

got into office pretty much because Mrs. Carnahan wouldn't vote against anything Bush proposed. Mrs. MacCaskill has voted pretty much the democratic party line. Unfortunately, the democratic party has been pushing policies that don't pass the smell test recently.

[Radical Activist]

21. But we all know that it's only Obama's fault when things don't pass the Senate.

He's supposed to use the bully pulpit and MAKE them do it!

[KansasVoter]

28. Another idiot democrat who is losing her base, i donated to her in 2008. Disappointed!

[JoePhilly]

29. If you look into the math on rasing the cap to 1 million, its not a big deal.

I'm sure I'll get screamed at for pointing this out, but, in terms of the 700 Billion cost of the tax cuts ABOVE $250,000, the amount that exists BETWEEN $250,000 and 1 Million pretty trivial. In fact, its so small that when discussing the potential to raise the cap to 1 million, they still describe the new taxes as being 700 billion.

The really big money doesn't start to kick in until you get above around 3 million. From there, the curve starts to climb fast.

Here are a few examples ...

http://www.bobcesca.com/blog-archives/2010/07/circulate_this_1.html
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/08/the_bush_tax_plan_vs_the_obama.html

My guess is that McCaskill and others floating the 1 million figure see that amount as (a) easier to defend in red states, and (2) not of much impact overall.

The reason this may be easier to defend is that "1 million" is a bright line, its a number that sets a very clear boundary, Millionaires versus everyone else. It also makes it easier to claim that the tax increase won't hit small businesses. And last, it allows you to frame the debate as "Millionaires made a lot of money in the recession, and they need to give some back".

The larger issue for Obama is that if he lets the cuts expire, the media will say he broke his promise to not raise taxes on those under 250,000.

[flpoljunkie]

31. The fiscal impact of extending threshold to $1 million for ten years is an unpaid for $400 billion.

OK, so what would the fiscal impact of this switch be?

When this idea first surfaced a few weeks ago, I put that question to researchers at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Using very rough, preliminary numbers, they concluded that the ten-year cost of extending tax cuts for incomes below $250,000 was $3.2 trillion and that the cost of extending cuts for incomes less than $1 million was $3.6 trillion. In other words, the higher threshold would cost an additional $400 billion over ten years.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/79409/extending-bush-tax-cut-million-fiscal-impact

[JoePhilly]

34. Your link makes that claim, but provides no actual evidence ...

Instead, it refers generically to the "researchers at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities" ... but provides no evidence or link to actual research to back up the claim.

So ... I went to the web site for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities ... and I spent about 15 minutes looking for a report that would describe how they reached those numbers, but did not find anything.

I did find a link BACK to the New Republic article that you reference.

Do you have a link to an actual report? Something one could compare with other sources?

[flpoljunkie]

49. No. The figure is a rough estimate by the researchers at CBPP.

[JoePhilly]

56. Then it adds nothing to the discussion.

If we can not compare the numbers and approaches used by various sources, what are we left with?

If the CBPP wants to issue a full report, and defend that claim, I am all ears.

I approach all of these things with a desire to see the numbers and how they are reached.

[MadHound]

37. Geez, another Democrat ready to compromise away our future economic well being

:banghead:

[JoePhilly]

46. Where in my post did I say I AGREE with the tactic?

I simply point out how the tactic is positioned politically.

Personally, I'd rather they just renew the tax cuts for the middle class. But the votes don't appear to exist to do that. I'd also be fine if they all expire.

So let's assume that they all just expire.

The media will spin allowing ALL of the tax cuts to expire as Obama breaking a key election promise ... no tax increases for those UNDER 250k. It will be positioned as his "read my lips" moment. And that framing will be repeated endlessly. Count on it.

And ... since around 95% of Americans make less than 250k, he will have "clearly" broken his promise, again, a promise that he made to 95% of all Americans. The right will scream (which they always do), and the middle will scream, and many on the left will also scream, and they will all blame Obama.

If you look at the polling on these taxes, while most Americans would "prefer" that only the tax cuts for the middle class remain, they also don't want to give up their current tax middle class tax break to "ensure" that the rich don't get theirs extended. That tension is what will drive any potential compromise.

I should mention that only a small part of the left is willing to give up their tax break to ensure that the rich don't also get one. DU is probably the only place where you will find a majority willing to allow their own breaks to expire.

While a 100,000 tax break doesn't mean much to some one making over 3 million, a $700 tax increase will hurt many in the middle class. And they will blame Obama.

Just reality.

[MadHound]

30. McCaskill is more than willing to throw her constituents under the bus

She also wants to end earmarks as a sop to the 'Pugs, among other such "bipartisan" measures.

I will welcome her primary challengers, and will think long and hard about whether or not I will support her if she does win the primary. Her only redeeming characteristic is that she's not Jim Talent, but even that is starting to fade.

[flpoljunkie]

32. McCaskill is the best we could hope for from Missouri. She's practical and tough as nails.

[MadHound]

36. You don't know Missouri very well then

McCaskill is the product of a state Democratic machine that has effectively kept liberals and progressives out of statewide office. Instead, it promotes people like McCaskill, a conservative Dem, Jay Nixon, whose conservative leanings and ineffectiveness are currently on display for all, and Chris Koster, our Republican turned Dem AG.

The conventional wisdom is to write Missouri off as a conservative state, yet if you look at things like ballot initiatives, local races, and various city statutes around the state, you'll find that there is a large liberal vote that could be tapped to put a liberal into statewide office. But such a candidate faces not only the usual 'Pug opposition, but a Democratic party establishment that is dead set on keeping liberals from having any sort of voice.

And if you think that she is "practical and tough as nails", you don't know McCaskill very well either. She is more than willing to compromise away and sort of left leaning progress. Is she better than the 'Pug alternative, marginally, yes. But that does not make her worthy of putting into office again.

[flpoljunkie]

48. I understand your pain, but good luck finding someone to primary her.

We have Bill Nelson and Marco Rubio here in Florida. Bill Nelson will get Republican opposition, but he's far better than another Republican representing our state.

[Telly Savalas]

63. Name a superior alternative who can make a reasonable showing

in a statewide race.

Both chambers of the legislature are dominated by Republicans. This is a state that picked Matt Blunt to be it's governor and went for McCain despite Bush's eight year long lesson of what the country is like with a Republican in the White House.

These facts don't point to the existence of an untapped liberal vote. How is it that we're able to elect such solid liberal candidates in Kansas City when a supposed conservative Democratic establishment is so effective at suppressing liberals elsewhere in the state. Isn't the simplest explanation that KC is a rather liberal area in contrast to the more conservative suburbs, exurbs, and rural areas that are happy to provide the state with Blunts, Kit Bond, and GOP legislatures?

[BeyondGeography]

40. If that's where we end up it's a win

For a wide variety of reasons, none of which would be accepted by lots of folks here.

[Stinky The Clown]

42. I dislike this woman more each day

Claire .... drawing the line between millionaires and not was already done when we capped it at $250K. You can't be so stupid as to conflate net worth (millionaire) with income. Anyone :earning" a million a year in income is a millionaire MANY times over.

So shut the fuck up.

[LiberalFighter]

43. The message needs to be clearer about how income is taxed.

First, that if someone has income of $250k or higher it will not all be taxed at 39.6%. Only the portion that exceeds $250k.

Second, those with income ABOVE $250k will have the income $250k and BELOW taxed at the same rates as those that don't earn more than $250k.

Third, on average those with $200k or more of income will have about $65k of exemptions and deductions that reduce their tax liability. That means a person would have to collect income at least above $315k before they hit the adjusted gross income of $250k.

[last_texas_dem]

47. No doubt McCaskill is already getting nervous

about reelection in '12 in her red-leaning state.

Funny, though... you'd think she might be safe not making all of these qualifications regarding ending the tax cuts for the rich. After all, the right is uber-concerned about deficit spending, right? And not extending tax cuts for the rich would be a simple way to cut down on this, right?

What, you mean the wingers have been full of shit regarding their "concerns" about deficits all along? Color me surprised.

[PBS Poll-435]

50. When a Carnahan loses so badly in MO, McCaskill has got to be concerned. nt

[CreekDog]

55. I think the savings to a person earning 1 million/year is about 30k/year

Keeping tax cuts for someone making 75k per year will cost about 2-3k/year.

Sounds fair. :eyes:

[JoePhilly]

57. If you do the math for your numbers ... I think you get this ...

2500 tax break (middle of your 2-3k number) against 75,000 comes out, on percentage, at %.03333

30k tax break against 1 million, comes out, on percentage, at .03%

So its about equal in that regard.

[CreekDog]

58. not really

because the one might be the difference between the 75k family paying a one semester of their kid's tuition at a State University.

and the other, though larger, is not going to be the crucial difference.

and that being the case, there's no way to say that such things are *equal*.

[JoePhilly]

59. I agree with you ... and the GOP hopes we use that model.

And that is how they are holding the middle class hostage.

On a percentage basis, the tax rate is about the same. But as you correctly note, the pain associated with these numbers is felt more on the lower end.

And that is how the GOP will maintain the cuts for the top end. The folks under 75K need that money, the folks above don't. That explains the polling, which finds that most Americans would prefer the extension of middle class tax cuts, and the end to high end tax cuts .... BUT ... they are unwilling to give up their own tax cut to prevent the top end from getting their cut extended.

Of course, the 2-3k tax break for income UNDER 250 is also received by those at the top. But the media will not mention that fact.

In a prior post, I note that the "real money" isn't in the 250k to 1 Million group, but in the 3 million and up group. The curve at those incomes stops being anywhere close to equal, even at a percentage basis.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

70. k

[ProudDad]

74. Utter bullshit!