WASHINGTON ? Senate Democratic leaders on Wednesday proposed a 5 percent surtax on people with incomes of more than $1 million a year to pay for the package of job-creation measures sought by President Obama and to quell a brewing revolt among Democrats against the White House plan
The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, said the surtax would raise $445 billion over 10 years, just about the amount needed to pay for the jobs bill. Mr. Reid said his proposal would ?have the richest of the rich pay a little bit more? ? ?5 percent more to fund job creation and ensure this country?s economic success.?
Mr. Reid?s proposal was meant to draw a sharp contrast with Republicans and to win over Democrats who were resisting the president?s proposal due to the tax increases he had suggested.
The approach is unlikely to win any backing from Republican leaders who strenuously oppose increases in tax rates, saying they would put a damper on the economy and penalize ?job creators.? But the plan, which Senate Democrats had aired last year to a cool response from the White House, is seen by party strategists as having appeal with the public.
Indeed, the Democratic proposal seems much more about politics than policy. Even if the wavering Democrats could be rounded up, Senate Republicans could block the proposal by denying Democrats the votes needed to overcome a near-certain filibuster. In the House, which Republicans control, it would be unlikely to even come to a vote since Republicans led by Speaker John A. Boehner have dug in against any new tax increases.
But Senate Democrats see the surtax proposal as a way to build on the populist rhetoric both they and Mr. Obama have been increasingly using as a way to draw distinctions with Republicans and accuse them of being unwilling to ask Americans who have benefited the most from the economy to help those who are struggling.
?It?s interesting to note that independents, Democrats and Republicans and even the Tea Party agree it?s time for millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share of taxes,? Mr. Reid said Wednesday.
__________________
__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
far better to tax the middle class....... and the rich apparently get no benefit from society, all of us middle class peons are just anchors holding them back right?
our continual tax cutting for the rich over the last 50+ years has done wonders for the middle class as it has also continually shrunk as well during this period!!! maybe if we just double down yet again, maybe, just maybe this time the results will somehow magically be different then all the tax cuts for the rich over the last half a dozen decades..... somehow
Don't you feel some of the big corporate tax cuts were a way to keep the companies in the USA rather than some "off-shore" location? I feel a bit of money coming in is better than no money at all coming in.
Don't you feel some of the big corporate tax cuts were a way to keep the companies in the USA rather than some "off-shore" location? I feel a bit of money coming in is better than no money at all coming in.
let me put it this way.....
Virginia = income tax
Tennessee = no income tax
I can't work in TN and live in virginia and just choose what money to "patriate" to virginia, as in keep a bank account in TN and just say, well I am not using the money in virginia so therefore I shouldn't be taxed on that part of my income......
but that is exactly what these companies are doing, THAT IS THE PROBLEM, instead of allowing them to get away with it we need to force them to pay their taxes, there is no reason that google and drug companies should be taxed at 3% due to using fancy accounting tactics across multiple countries to avoid paying taxes...
I can't work in TN and live in virginia and just choose what money to "patriate" to virginia, as in keep a bank account in TN and just say, well I am not using the money in virginia so therefore I shouldn't be taxed on that part of my income......
but that is exactly what these companies are doing, THAT IS THE PROBLEM, instead of allowing them to get away with it we need to force them to pay their taxes, there is no reason that google and drug companies should be taxed at 3% due to using fancy accounting tactics across multiple countries to avoid paying taxes...
I do agree that all states should pay the same. Living in California, we pay about as high as anyone (don't know for sure, but I believe it is in the top 10 %) and all should be taxed the same.
I do agree that all states should pay the same. Living in California, we pay about as high as anyone (don't know for sure, but I believe it is in the top 10 %) and all should be taxed the same.
that is actually in know way, shape or form the point I made...... at all.......
I do agree that all states should pay the same. Living in California, we pay about as high as anyone (don't know for sure, but I believe it is in the top 10 %) and all should be taxed the same.
I disagree. States don't all offer the same services, and the cost of services varies state-to-state. The population density of New Jersey is 1196 inhabitants per square mile. Wyoming is 5.8. Now, go build some roads to connect those inhabitants. Wyoming will have to build a lot more road than New Jersey.
Why should the citizens of Wyoming have to limit their budget to what New Jersey citizens consider to be reasonable?
__________________
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Linear Mode
