Posts
My post last week saying not extending temporary tax cuts is not increasing taxes caused a little uproar at righty blogs like State 29 and the Cornbeltway Babies. Both were crying about so-called tax increases, while completely ignoring the neeed to invest in our future.
Here is a story that goes into more detail about the Democrats plan when it comes to taxes. It says they plan to decrease taxes on the middle class and consider not extending the tax cuts for the most wealthy.
All of these should start us on the track of balancing the budget and should help jumpstart the economy. When consumers have more money in their pockets they spend it, which creates jobs.She (Speaker Pelosi) spoke of pursuing an estimated $300 billion that people owe in back taxes, eliminating deficit spending and reducing wasteful federal spending.
"As we review what we get from ... collecting our taxes and reducing waste, fraud and abuse, investing in education and in initiatives which will bring money into the treasury, it may be that tax cuts for those making over a certain amount of money, $500,000 a year, might be more important to the American people than ignoring the educational and health needs of America's children," Pelosi, D-Calif., said in an interview aired Sunday.
A budget rule, known as the pay-as-you-go rule, that was approved by the Democratic-run House on Friday requires that tax cuts have corresponding cuts in government spending or tax increases elsewhere to pay for them.
"What we're saying is Democrats propose tax cuts for middle-income families. And we want to have 'pay-go,' no new deficit spending. We're not going to start with repealing tax cuts, but they certainly are not off the table for people making over half a million dollars a year," Pelosi said.
9 comments:
Nice nickname for CBB. :-)
Nice nickname? Try weak and sad...
Jordan, in a past post I called the blog the Cornbelt Wacko Boys. Did you like that name better?
And any thoughts about the main content of the post?
I certainly have little problem with the quoted section of your post; for the most part. However, understand I don't believe taxes should be raised. Not extending the tax cuts further is raising taxes...why not just cut out some of the spending in the bloated government?
The wealthy,you and the rest of liberal blogosphere, seem to have no problem taxing in oblivion pays most of the taxes in this nation. In fact, 3% of our population pay 67% of the taxes...
And as far as a middle class tax cut? Give me a break...after they get done raising the minimum wage, there won't be a tax cut big enough to offset that for my family. And I wouldn't even say we have the luxury of calling ourselves "middle class."
Wikipedia says
"The United States is the richest country, and in 2000, the mean wealth was $144,000 per person.[3] In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth.
In 2003, the wealthiest 1% of the population in the United States, which has a system of progressive taxation, paid over 34% of the nation's federal income tax; the wealthiest 10% bore 66% of the total tax load; the top 25% of income earners paid 84% of the income taxes; and the upper half accounted for virtually the entire U.S. tax revenue (nearly 97%)."
(The citation "[3]" is to an article in the Globe and Mail.)
Thanks for correction: 10% of the wealthy bare 66% of the tax burden.
The point still stands.
@Jordan... Actually the point doesn't stand.
Assuming for the sake of argument that the statistics provided are accurate the if the top 10 percent control 71% of the nation's wealth then under a perfectly rational tax system they should also account for roughly 71% of the taxes with 38% of the total tax revenue coming from the wealthiest 1%.
Democrats could have it both ways if they wanted to. They could replace Bush's tax cuts with other tax cuts and be revenue neutral about it.
I like Ron Wyden's tax ideas. He'll take McGovern's advice and "Tax money made by money the same as money made by men." In other words--no special rate for capital gains. Jerry
If the wealth has been taxed then my point still stands. Having accumulated wealth and the tax burden are two different issues.
Post a Comment