Senate Republicans Block Tax Cut Plan that Leaves Out High Earners

[Hobbes]

"Only the little people pay taxes." - Leona Helmsley

 

[pickett235]

Interesting chart from the Washington Post:

Study the numbers on the right side a bit.
Compare the taxes cut for $1,000,000 incomes compared to $100,000 incomes.
A person with an income of $1,000,000 makes 10 times what an earner who makes $100,000 does.
Does his taxes get cut by the same ratio? 10 times?

It would be interesting to see a chart next to this one showing the amount of taxes paid by the various income levels.
Our county’s deficit problem (just as in an individual, family or business) is not driven by the amount of it receives but the amount it spends.

 

[vvvvvvv]

"Only the little people pay taxes." - Leona Helmsley

Ms. Helmsley was later convicted of tax evasion and sentenced to 16 years. However, she served less than two years.

That quote is from the housekeeper's testimony.

 

[vvvvvvv]

It would be interesting to see a chart next to this one showing the amount of taxes paid by the various income levels.
Our county’s deficit problem (just as in an individual, family or business) is not driven by the amount of it receives but the amount it spends.

This.

I know many people who think that a family of four with a household income of $50K fits the definition of "rich".

At that point, you're still getting paid by Uncle Sam (as in your refund exceeds your withholding).

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

If only Republicans were not trying to put plaintiffs' lawyers out of business

I would phrase it slightly differently: If only the R's were not trying to eviscerate THE last significiant bastion of power that we the little guys have against the huge corporate and governmental powers that be, when they act oppressively, maliciously, and wrongfully, to right the wrong with the appropriate amount of damage awards - the power of a JURY of our peers.

They'd like nothing more than to annihilate one of the critical "Four Boxes" of power that we the people have in this country, along with a couple of others:

-Soap Box (1st Amendment)
-Ballot Box (1st Amendment)
-Jury Box (7th Amendment)
-Cartridge Box (2nd Amendment)

The %@#$% D's try to eviscerate the 4th one listed there, and the #@@#$%#$ Rs try to eviscerate the first 3 - is it any wonder I hate both major parties, and vote 3rd party at every opportunity?

It's not about the lawyers - who cares? It's about retaining our POWER as potential and actual jurors, to be able to let a JURY of our peers decide how to punish huge corporate and government interests when they lie, cheat, steal, oppress, maim, and otherwise shaft the little guy. So-called "tort reform" is nothing more than a coordinated, organized, smoke and mirrors scheme, bought and paid for by huge corporate interests (including health-related interests) to steal the power of the people, through fully-informed juries, to right wrongs and hold them accountable to the people for their wrongdoing - of course by "capping" the awards at "X" amount, regardless of how egregious the behavior and regardless of what the fully informed jury decides what the correct punishment should be (the damage award), after fighting tooth and nail for months and years against $600/hour lawyers for the fat cats, pulling every trick in the book to try to prevent a jury verdict from occuring in the first place.

On the taxes, both parties suck hairy sweaty gonads - of course the Bush tax cuts should be made permanent, by a factor of x10 or x20. But is it smarter for (a) the Rs to try to frame this as "they won't give us a fair bill leaving the rich un-excepted, so we couldn't vote for one - it's all the D's fault", or for (b) Ds to try to frame this as "we gave a fair bill to extend the tax cuts, but the Rs filibustered it to protect the very rich fat cats"?

I'm not sure, but I think the answer is (b). I think the American people (nationwide average) mostly will buy argument (b) on or before Nov 2012, if nothing happens, more than argument (a), on balance - but it will be highly contested of course. Might depend upon whether the economy re-tanks.

Right or wrong, our income tax structure has always been a bit progressive in nature, at some times in history since 1916 much more on the progressive side (1960s and early 70s), and at times much less progressive (recently). It could stand to be a smidge more progressive than it is, IMO, on folks earning over 1 million per year - it would still be many many many times less progressive than it was on those folks in the late 60s, and eminently "fair", IMO. So I think they should have just passed what the Rs consider a "bad" bill, as a starting point, to protect the middle class, small busines owners, and the poor, NOW, for 2011 purposes, and protect the wobbling economic recovery (again, small business and middle class) -- and then the Rs could work toward amending it next session, and let a new regressivity proposal on the rich folks stand or fall on its own merit. So personally I will blame this on the Rs - but I hated both wings of the republicrat uniparty already, so doesn't really matter. I personally don't think ANYONE should pay ONE RED CENT of *federal* income tax if you make less than about $35K/year individual, or more if you have kids - gawdsakes, we didn't even HAVE an income tax before 1916 - surely we can get by without taxing the poor and below-median-income folks on the federal level (but let state income taxes stand to be decided on a state by state basis, at whatever level the states and their people decide).

 

[RickN]

I would phrase it slightly differently: If only the R's were not trying to eviscerate THE last significiant bastion of power that we the little guys have against the huge corporate and governmental powers that be, when they act oppressively, maliciously, and wrongfully, to right the wrong with the appropriate amount of damage awards - the power of a JURY of our peers.

They'd like nothing more than to annihilate one of the critical "Four Boxes" of power that we the people have in this country, along with a couple of others:

-Soap Box (1st Amendment)
-Ballot Box (1st Amendment)
-Jury Box (7th Amendment)
-Cartridge Box (2nd Amendment)

The %@#$% D's try to eviscerate the 4th one listed there, and the #@@#$%#$ Rs try to eviscerate the first 3 - is it any wonder I hate both major parties, and vote 3rd party at every opportunity?

It's not about the lawyers - who cares? It's about retaining our POWER to let a JURY of our peers decide how to punish huge corporate and government interests when they lie, cheat, steal, oppress, maim, and otherwise shaft the little guy. So-called "tort reform" is nothing more than a coordinated, organized, smoke and mirrors plot by huge corporate interests (including health-related interests) to steal the power of the people, through fully-informed juries, to right wrongs and hold them accountable to the people for their wrongdoing.

Only problem is there are not doing any such thing. They are trying to rein in a runaway system that is being milked for everything possible. I find it very amusing that every legal beagle I know says they regulate themselves, but insist no other industry can.

Now back to the original topic. Some interesting info that makes you wonder who is really trying to help the wealthy.

Treasury Department analysis of how much the rich would have paid without the Bush tax cuts and how much they actually did pay. The rich are now paying more than they would have paid, not less, after the Bush investment tax cuts. For example, the Treasury’s estimate was that the top 1 percent of earners would pay 31 percent of taxes if the Bush cuts did not go into effect; with the cuts, they actually paid 37 per*cent. Similarly, the share of the top 10 percent of earners was estimated at 63 percent without the cuts; they actually paid 68 percent.

[Broken External Image]

[Broken External Image]

 

[JB Books]

Only problem is there are not doing any such thing. They are trying to rein in a runaway system that is being milked for everything possible. I find it very amusing that every legal beagle I know says they regulate themselves, but insist no other industry can.

As usual, Rick, you simply spout the kool aid on this issue. We DO regulate ourselves. Lawyers are routinely disbarred for various offenses, and UNLIKE the medical doctors, we simply cannot move to another jurisdiction and start practicing again without resolving outstanding issues.

A lawyer who steals from his clients, and is caught, is typically disbarred for life. They may reapply, but the chances of them being readmitted is extremely remote.

I have been intimately involved in lawyer discipline, and I would say to the Good Lord himself, that we do a tremendous job of policing our own.

And Dr. Tad is correct, the Republicans are attacking the jury system.

 

[JB Books]

Wolfie,

I know you enjoy taking shots at me, but as usual you are off your mark.

Just because I do not advocate laying land mines across the US-Mexican border, and just because I disagree with the idea of sending snipers to murder women and children who illegally cross the border, does not mean I support an "open borders" policy.

In all of my threads regarding immigration, I have consistently advocated "securing the border" as a first step. That entails detection technology, more enforcement of immigration laws, and more immigration officers/border patrol agents on the ground. Not slaughtering people who come here illegally.

The fact is we simply WILL NEVER deport the 11-20 million people who are here illegally. It is NEVER going to happen. We do not have the finances to create and staff the infrastructure necessary to do so. Additionally, there are millions of US citizens who are the spouses and/or children of illegals. These are AMERICANS, just as much as you are me, despite the fact their skin is darker, or they have an accent.

The solution...one more time kids...is simple. Secure the border. Shut it down. Mainstream the folks here who have not committed crimes (and spare the rebuttal about illegal entry being a crime). Then strictly enforce immigration laws to prevent history repeating itself.

As for the tax issue, yes, I believe that I have some social responsibility. I believe that I should pay taxes, but it should be fair. I employ, both directly and indirectly, quite a few people. They contribute to the stream of commerce. I buy equipment. I lease equipment. My advertising budget alone is over $1,000,000 a year. Frankly, I have to reap a reward commensurate with the amount of risk and stress I endure. The profit should not be taxed out of my business.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

Only problem is there are not doing any such thing.

Says who - you? Not true at all.

They are trying to rein in a runaway system that is being milked for everything possible.

Again, not true at all. Absolute hogwashy nonsense. That's the big lie they'd have you believe - and apparently you now believe it - the big lie is working you see, and the casualty is going to be YOUR ability to right a wrong as a juror when YOUR friend, neighbor, or family member is maimed or killed due to gross negligence or worse.

 

[vvvvvvv]

They are trying to rein in a runaway system that is being milked for everything possible.

[Broken External Image]

Please cite a source. Observations of what they are doing says otherwise.