|
|
Post by anointedteacher on Nov 13, 2010 18:22:46 GMT -5
CTJ: Senate GOP Bill RAISES TAXES on Bottom 60% of Americans Share
by Lefty Coaster
Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 09:02:48 PM PST Visiting the Citizens for Tax Justice website I learned that the Bill Senate Republicans are behind would RAISE TAXES on the bottom 60% of Americans. That's right while maintaining tax cuts that average $46 Million each year for each of the top 400 households Republicans want to raise taxes on the bottom 60% of Americans! Citizens for Tax Justice
Senate Republicans have introduced a bill (S. 3773) to make permanent the income tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration for all taxpayers and to repeal most of the federal tax on the estates of millionaires. This bill would not make permanent the expansions of the Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Tax Credit included in the recovery act.
# Under the Republican plan, the bottom 60 percent of U.S. taxpayers would pay $124 more in 2011, on average, than they would under President Obama's plan.
# Under the Republican plan, the richest one percent of U.S. taxpayers would pay $45,893 less in 2011, on average, than they would under President Obama's plan.
. # Under the Republican plan, the richest one percent of taxpayers would receive 34.5 percent of the total tax cuts in 2011.Lefty Coaster's diary :: :: Citizens for Tax Justice is one of the few groups the specializes in tax issues without putting a right wing slant on their analysis. As a disclaimer I have made donations to them in the 1980s when I was upset by Reagan's tax cuts for the rich. They have a sterling reputation for their fair analysis of tax issues. When it comes to tax issues I turn to CTJ for the vbest information availablethat's why they're on my blog roll. Check out CTJ's interactive MAP
Earlier while I was looking at the controversial Perter G. Peterson Foundation's website one of the links under the heading Taxes jumped out at me.
Tax Rate for Richest 400 Taxpayers Plummeted in Recent Decades, Even as Their Pre-Tax Incomes Skyrocketed
According to a CBPP report, the wealthiest in our country are making more money (with pre-tax income up 400 percent since 1995) and getting taxed far less (almost half of the 1995 rates)
An excerpt from the report: The effective federal income tax rate for the 400 taxpayers with the very highest incomes has declined by nearly half over the past two decades, even as their pre-tax incomes have grown five times larger, new IRS data show.
The top 400 households paid 16.6 percent of their income in federal individual income taxes in 2007, down from 30 percent in 1995. This decline works out to a tax cut of $46 million per filer in 2007, or a total of $18 billion in tax cuts for these households per year. $46 MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR IN TAX CUTS EACH Republicans are willing to bring the Federal Government to a stand still so this elite group can continue their tax holiday. Here's an except from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities Report pdf
The top 400 households paid 16.6 percent of their Tax Rates Dropping Sharply for Highest Earners income in federal individual income taxes in 2007, down from 30 percent in 1995. This decline works out to a tax cut of $46 million per filer in 2007, or a total of $18 billion in tax cuts for these households per year.
To make it into the top 400, a household needed an adjusted gross income of at least $35 million in 1992 (in 2007 dollars) and $139 million in 2007.
The decline in effective tax rates at the very top is due in large part to the capital gains tax cuts enacted n 1997 and 2003. The top marginal tax rate on capital gains is now 15 percent, less than half the
top tax rate on wages and salaries. The top 400 taxpayers derived two-thirds of their income from
capital gains and qualified dividends in 2007.
Over roughly the same period, the top 400 filers enjoyed huge gains ipre-tax incomes. The average pre-tax income of this group rose by over 400 percent between 1992 and 2007, equivalent to a $275 million increase per person, after adjusting for inflation. In 2007 alone, average pre-tax incomes rose by 31 percent among these individuals.
In short, the top 400 filers now pay much lower effective tax rates on vastly larger incomes Should we continue to run our country according to what's best for these 400 families as the Republicans want to bully us into? These 400 already control the Republican Party. Do they control the Democratic Party as well? We should have our answer by Christmas. |
|
|
|
Post by Nikkol on Nov 15, 2010 8:23:35 GMT -5
GOP lawmakers take tough stand on Bush tax cutsFew points: "I think that extending all of the current tax rates and making them permanent will reduce the uncertainty in America and help small businesses to create jobs again," Boehner said. "You can't invest when you don't know what the rules are." Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress want to make the tax cuts permanent for lower- and middle-income families, while letting them expire for individuals making more than $200,000 a year and married couples making more than $250,000. Republicans want to make the tax cuts permanent for everyone.The tax cuts enacted under the Bush administration in 2001 and 2003 reduced marginal income tax rates at every level. They also provided a wide range of income tax breaks for education, families with children and married couples. Regarding the Center for Budgeting report...... maybe it's just me...but I'd prefer if we're going to discuss the changes in economy based on the year, those years should be used throughout -- I don't think it's fair to compare 1992 - 2007 with 1995 - 2007. And maybe it's just me...but paying 30% a year in taxes sounds kinda high..... $10,000 - $3,000 tax = $7000/yr $100,000 - $30,000 tax = $70,000/yr $1,000,000 - $300,000 tax = $700,000/yr Same impact on each three scenarios. It seems kinda high.... on any pay scale.
|
|
|
|
Post by anointedteacher on Nov 15, 2010 10:16:34 GMT -5
GOP lawmakers take tough stand on Bush tax cutsFew points: "I think that extending all of the current tax rates and making them permanent will reduce the uncertainty in America and help small businesses to create jobs again," Boehner said. "You can't invest when you don't know what the rules are." We tried Bush's tax cut for almost ten years and it didn't help small businesses or creat jobs. Many jobs were sent oversea by the same corporations that received the cut tax. Now, that would be the best thing to do... We can't afford tax cut for everybody on 100% of their income. What Pres. Obama want to do is to give tax cut on the first 200,000 for singles and 250,000 for couples. This way everybody will receive a tax cut. He also want to invest in small business by giving them tax credits. What he don't want to do is reward corporations the sent jobs over sea in countries that they know they can't move their corporation to.... also they are closing the loopholes that these corparation have been cheaping the governemet. Bush's tax cut reduced the tax revenues for 2001 to 2008 tax years by 2.74 trillion dollar... along with two unpaid and unrecorded wars and medicare D and some thing else... which increased national debt and deficit. Pres. Oabama reduced the deficit from 1.44 Trillion dollar to1.29 Trillion and it will be reduce more by 2011. I think it is too high for those who are make less than 200,000.00, but those who are mak1ng 250,000 + can afford it |
|
|
|
Post by Nikkol on Nov 15, 2010 15:45:51 GMT -5
Two points:
1) Not sure about how the deficit was cut based on us making more money for the bailouts.....
2) When ppl make more money, they spend more money and so although I don't make anywhere near $250K, your house will probably be more expensive, but possibly percentage wise everything is the same as someone that makes $25K.... just because a person makes more money doesn't equate to being able to "afford" more in taxes......
|
|
|
|
Post by anointedteacher on Nov 15, 2010 19:37:20 GMT -5
It is only fair to set a limit on tax cut... Those who make over 250K will get tax cut up to 250K and those who make less will get tax cut on their entire income...
It have been reported that the wealthiest that receiving tax cut are not spending their exra revenue, but saving it... so the extra money they have is not going into circulation... The middle class spend the extra cash, so the money is going into circulation which will create more jobs, because demand with increase, so companies will have to hire to keep up with the demand.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nikkol on Nov 16, 2010 7:57:25 GMT -5
It is only fair to set a limit on tax cut... Those who make over 250K will get tax cut up to 250K and those who make less will get tax cut on their entire income... Fair would be that everyone gets tax cut no matter how much they get..... why punish those who make over $250K? My idea of 10% across the board still sounds like the BEST idea. Where is that information? (not sure how to google what you stated as fact) |
|
|
|
Post by anointedteacher on Nov 16, 2010 9:16:55 GMT -5
I will look for the link... I read it last week, but I can't remember which site...
I don't think those who making over 250,000 are being punished... what is unfair is to force the poor who is not making enough to live an half-way decent live to paid taxes that can't afford. We shouldn't force the middle class to sacrifice Health Insurance, because too much is take out of their check... The poor and middle class work the hardest and can't afford to pay high tax. But the wealthy can and would not hurt them a bit.... There tax rate will still below what it was when Clinton was the President.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nikkol on Nov 16, 2010 13:46:43 GMT -5
I will look for the link... I read it last week, but I can't remember which site... I don't think those who making over 250,000 are being punished... what is unfair is to force the poor who is not making enough to live an half-way decent live to paid taxes that can't afford. We shouldn't force the middle class to sacrifice Health Insurance, because too much is take out of their check... The poor and middle class work the hardest and can't afford to pay high tax. But the wealthy can and would not hurt them a bit.... There tax rate will still below what it was when Clinton was the President. Just because a person makes $300,000 doesn't mean they can "afford" and not be hurt by more taxes. Even when I look at when I first started out and only brought in about $800 a month, my expenses are a LOT different then when I got my first job making only $26K....yes, I made more money, but also my expenses were more... |
|
|
|
Post by krazeeboi on Nov 16, 2010 15:53:15 GMT -5
I think it's very interesting that this nation's fiscal house was in order when the rich/super-rich were being taxed at much higher levels than they are now.
|
|
|
|
Post by anointedteacher on Nov 16, 2010 16:33:08 GMT -5
WASHINGTON -- After rejecting the deficit-reduction recommendations offered by the chairmen of President Obama's debt commission last week, Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) has drafted a comprehensive proposal of her own. Schakowsky's plan would reduce the deficit by $427.75 billion in 2015, without raising taxes on middle-class Americans or making cuts to federal expenditures that benefit them. As member of the 18-member debt commission, and outspoken critic of the draft report introduced by former Clinton administration chief of staff Erskine Bowles and former Sen. Alan Simpson, (R-Wyo.), her suggestions carry some weight. "The middle class did not benefit from the Republican economic policies that led to the current deficit -- they were the victims," Schakowsky told reporters on Capitol Hill Tuesday. "They should not be called upon to pick up the tab." Schakowsky's plan calls for a $110.7 billion cut in the defense budget, including troop level reduction and scaling back weapons production. The Simpson-Bowles proposal called for only $100 billion in military spending cuts. Increasing economic stimulus was another focus of Schakowsky's agenda, which would provide $200 billion in measures to spur economic growth by funding unemployment insurance and federal job creation programs. She also calls for $132 billion in tax hikes from companies that ship jobs overseas. Schakowsky's recommendations stand in stark contrast to the Bowles-Simpson recommendations which would reduce the rate of increase of Social Security benefits and gradually raise the retirement age, among other things. "Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit," Schakowsky told reporters. "Addressing the Social Security issue as part of the deficit question is like attacking a rat to retaliate for the September 11 attacks," said Schakowsky. At least 14 of the 18 members of the deficit commission must agree to the report in order for it to proceed forward to a Congressional vote, something that looks increasingly unlikely. Last Friday Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.) announced he will work with seniors' organizations, unions, and members of Congress, to develop an alternative to the Simpson-Bowles recommendations. At her press event today, Schakowsky signaled a willingness to work with Sanders and others in further developing a viable alternative. ============================================== I think I will like this proposal... it benefit the middle class and the unemployed and it will creat job.... Someone in Washington is thinking!!!! I hope Pres. Obama uses his executive order to sign this bill...
|
|
|
|
Post by anointedteacher on Nov 21, 2010 16:56:23 GMT -5
Rich Americans Save Tax Cuts Instead of Spending, Moody's Says www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-13/rich-americans-save-money-from-tax-cuts-instead-of-spending-moody-s-says.htmlBiden: Richest won't spend tax cuts dyn.politico.com/members/forums/thread.cfm?catid=15&subcatid=51&threadid=4425410Warren Buffett: I 'Should Be Paying A Lot More In Taxes' www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/21/warren-buffett-paying-more-taxes_n_786516.htmlWASHINGTON -- Billionaire Warren Buffett rebutted claims that the Obama administration is unjustly hurting business orders with high taxes by saying that in fact, the wealthy have never had it so good. "I think that people at the high end, people like myself, should be paying a lot more in taxes. We have it better than we've ever had it," he told ABC's Christiane Amanpour in a clip played on "This Week" on Sunday. When Amanpour pointed to critics' claims that the very wealthy need tax cuts to spur business and capitalism, Buffett replied, "The rich are always going to say that, you know, 'Just give us more money, and we'll go out and spend more, and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you.' But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on." On Tuesday, Buffett wrote a New York Times op-ed in the form of a letter to "Uncle Sam," thanking him for saving the U.S. economy: When the crisis struck, I felt you would understand the role you had to play. But you've never been known for speed, and in a meltdown minutes matter. I worried whether the barrage of shattering surprises would disorient you. You would have to improvise solutions on the run, stretch legal boundaries and avoid slowdowns, like Congressional hearings and studies. You would also need to get turf-conscious departments to work together in mounting your counterattack. The challenge was huge, and many people thought you were not up to it. Well, Uncle Sam, you delivered. People will second-guess your specific decisions; you can always count on that. But just as there is a fog of war, there is a fog of panic -- and, overall, your actions were remarkably effective. Buffett isn't the only billionaire who has argued for higher taxes. Both Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and his father, Bill Gates, Sr., recently came out in support of a Washington state measure to "create a 5 percent tax rate on annual income exceeding $200,000 for individuals and $400,000 for couples, and a 9 percent tax rate on income that tops $500,000 for individuals and $1 million for couples." Buffett has spoken out in the past about taxes for the wealthy, telling the Senate Finance Committee in 2007 that the estate tax should not be repealed. "I think we need to...take a little more out of the hides of guys like me," Buffett testified. |
|
|
|
Post by anointedteacher on Nov 21, 2010 17:00:05 GMT -5
Analysis Shows Rich People Save, Not Spend. Obvious Solution? Bigger Tax Cuts! By Susie Madrak crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/analysis-shows-rich-people-save-not-sI say the solution to this problem is obvious: more tax cuts! Tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 under President George W. Bush were followed by increases in the saving rate among the rich, according to data from Moody’s Analytics Inc. When taxes were raised under Bill Clinton, the saving rate fell. The findings may weaken arguments by Republicans and some Democrats in Congress who say allowing the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to lapse will prompt them to reduce their spending, harming the economy. President Barack Obama wants to extend the cuts for individuals earning less than $200,000 and couples earning less than $250,000 while ending them for those who earn more. Don't be silly! No, it won't. It will simply point out that previous tax cuts just weren't big enough! “I would tend to wonder how much the tax cut actually influences spending behavior,” said Chris Cornell, an economist who mined government reports back to 1989 for West Chester, Pennsylvania-based Moody’s Analytics. “Spending by the top 5 percent of households seems much more closely tied to business- cycle issues than it does to tax-cut issues.” The Moody’s research covering couples earning more than $210,000 found that spending by the wealthy is more likely to be influenced by the ups and downs of the stock market than changes in income-tax rates. |
|
