Republicans shoot down tax on rich

FriendlyFire

Codex WMDicanious
Joined
Jan 4, 2002
Messages
21,761
Location
Sydney
Republicans shoot down tax on rich

Senate Republicans have defied President Barack Obama on one of his top election-year issues, derailing a Democratic bill forcing the top US earners to pay at least 30 per cent of their income in taxes.

The vote came the day before Americans' annual taxes are due.

The 51-45 count along party lines was designed more to win over voters and embarrass senators in close races this election year than to push legislation into law.
Advertisement: Story continues below

Obama denounced the vote, saying, "It's just plain wrong that millions of middle-class Americans pay a higher share of their income in taxes than some millionaires and billionaires."

Republicans called the measure a divisive Democratic distraction from the nation's real problems.

"This legislation will do nothing with regard to job creation, with regard to gas prices, with regard to economic recovery," said Senator Jon Kyl, the No. 2 senate Republican leader.

Monday's vote was the first time a so-called "Buffett rule" proposal has come to a senate vote this election year. Citing complaints from billionaire Warren Buffett that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary, Obama has said everyone earning at least $US1 million a year or more should pay at least 30 per cent of their income in taxes.

With presidential and congressional elections approaching in November, the vote was a glimpse of the broader battle the two parties are waging over an economy that's still having a tough time creating enough new jobs.

The senate vote was on a measure that would impose a minimum 30 per cent income tax on people making over $US2 million yearly and phase in higher taxes for those earning at least $US1 million.

The fight has been politically irresistible for both sides.

It allows Democrats to take shots at Mitt Romney, the wealthy, all-but-certain Republican presidential nominee. He has released data showing he paid an effective tax rate of only around 14 per cent in 2010 and about 15 per cent last year, earning around $US21 million both years.

For Republicans, it's a chance to accuse the measure's Democratic backers of pressing for tax increases that will divert money employers could otherwise use to expand and hire more workers.

Romney ridiculed the Buffett rule on Monday, telling a campaign audience the revenue it would produce would fund the government for only about 11 hours.

The senate measure would raise $US47 billion over the coming decade, barely enough to notice against the roughly $US7 trillion in budget deficits expected over that period. Administration officials have conceded that by itself it would do little to trim those shortfalls, instead emphasising its fairness.

Obama's tax return shows he earned nearly $US790,000 last year and paid an effective tax rate of almost 21 per cent.

On average, the wealthy already pay higher income tax rates than those who make less.

People making $US1 million or more annually paid an average effective rate of 25 per cent last year in federal income and payroll taxes that finance the safety-net programs Social Security and Medicare, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Centre, a Washington group that studies taxes. Those earning $US50,000 to $US75,000 paid an average effective rate of 12 per cent, the group said.

The White House says that even so, some millionaires pay lower rates than many of those earning less. That is largely because many wealthy people earn income from dividends that are taxed at just 15 per cent, instead of the top 35 per cent rate on salaries

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/republicans-shoot-down-tax-on-rich-20120417-1x4wv.html#ixzz1sH3O2AEI

Arent the mandatory 7 Trillion dollar cuts going to kick in soon ? I dont see the Ryan budget passing which means the old agreement will still stand.

This tax increase should have been passed, as well as Bush tax cuts allowing it to expire. Anyway will be interesting too see what ends up getting cut from the budget since any tax increases are out.

EDIT: I also find it amusing that the Republicans succeeded by fillibustering it
 
Politics as usual, I'm afraid. :dunno: I don't see that much more needs to be said on it. Just proves that Republicans don't give a crap about the deficit. Not that this proposal was more than a drop in the bucket towards the deficit, but better a drop in the bucket than ignoring it altogether.
 
Did anyone ever notice how the Democrats never make the distinction between income taxes paid and capital gains taxes paid when discussing this ******ed rule?

Does anyone want to guess what happens when you increas capital gains taxes to 30%?
 
Did anyone ever notice how the Democrats never make the distinction between income taxes paid and capital gains taxes paid when discussing this ******ed rule?

Does anyone want to guess what happens when you increas capital gains taxes to 30%?

The rule is on net taxes paid, so it establishes a floor. I've taken this to mean there is a functionally sliding capital gains tax rate that approaches 30% as wage income becomes a smaller fraction of a millionaire's total income.

So do you want to tell us how the markets will freeze up and the great machine of capitalism will come to a screeching halt?
 
Does anyone want to guess what happens when you increas capital gains taxes to 30%?
From 1987 to 1997, the top rate ranged from 28.00 to 29.19. Those, of course, were dark, dark days for the stock market and American economy.

Contrast that with the boom we have had since the rates went down to 15ish-16ish in 2003.
 
Revenue goes up?
This seems to be a rather fun game. Let's play a bit.
Does anyone want to guess what happens when you increas capital gains taxes to 30%?
Free university?
Does anyone want to guess what happens when you increas capital gains taxes to 30%?
Affordable decent healthcare for everyone?
Does anyone want to guess what happens when you increas capital gains taxes to 30%?
Housing as a basic right?
Does anyone want to guess what happens when you increas capital gains taxes to 30%?
Decent public schools?
Does anyone want to guess what happens when you increas capital gains taxes to 30%?
Roads better maintained than those in Albania?


*lookingleft*
*lookingright*

Yup, 28% capital gains tax and we got all of that.
 
From 1987 to 1997, the top rate ranged from 28.00 to 29.19. Those, of course, were dark, dark days for the stock market and American economy.

Contrast that with the boom we have had since the rates went down to 15ish-16ish in 2003.

Followed by a second Great Depression 4 years later...

Wouldn't it have been preferable to have "dark days" over "global economic crisis"?
 
I say all those rich people who wont pay taxes are unpatriotic, I mean you dont have to have a G-5 private jet.
 
View Post
Does anyone want to guess what happens when you increas capital gains taxes to 30%?

Less financial market speculation and more productive business investment.
 
Did anyone ever notice how the Democrats never make the distinction between income taxes paid and capital gains taxes paid when discussing this ******ed rule?

Does anyone want to guess what happens when you increas capital gains taxes to 30%?

Congressional approval rating will also increase.
 
Well, seeing as those budget cuts kick in largely from the Pentagon just goes to show the Republican party is more interested in their personal checking accounts than they are in national security. But honestly, who didn't know that already?
 
Well, seeing as those budget cuts kick in largely from the Pentagon just goes to show the Republican party is more interested in their personal checking accounts than they are in national security. But honestly, who didn't know that already?

Realistically the Defense budget could be cut much more drastically and it wouldn't adversely affect national security. All that's required is the political will to recognize that the US doesn't need to pursue every current foreign intervention and every current weapons purchase.

Here's an interesting read if you're interested:
http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS_HardChoices_BarnoBensahelSharp_0.pdf

EDIT:
And if Republicans were legitimately seeking to improve the economy and spur job creation then we'd see them urging increased spending on infrastructure and education - the 2 areas where $1 of government spending yields more than $1 in increased economic activity.
 
Oh I agree. Wealth without security is a curse not a blessing, our allies could more evenly share the cost of national defense, yadda yadda.

I just find it amusing along the lines of "We need our fiscal house in order! We need to cut spending! Wait no, don't cut benefits for me cut them for somebody else. Wait no, don't tax me, tax somebody else. I guess getting our fiscal house in order isn't important after all if I have to help pay for it."

Heck, even the American Catholic Church has canned the Republican budget proposal as unchristian and harmful to those who have the least ability to cope with it. You know something is just wrong with the bill when the Catholics are willing to issue that condemnation so soon after the row with the Democrats over birth-control.
 
Top Bottom