(Loan Me A Dime?) Taxing the Rich, the Obama Way (And Saying Bye-Bye to America's Financial Well-Being)

You've undoubtedly got your own ideas about how inadequate the latest (perhaps the only?)  Obama Tax-the-Rich scheme is, and I've certainly got mine.

The Rude Pundit has nutshelled it:

So let's be sure we're absolutely clear here: when President Obama talks about raising revenue by having the wealthy pay their fair share, he is not talking about passing a single tax increase on individuals. What he is talking about is limiting certain kinds of deductions, closing loopholes, and allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire on people making over a million bucks a year. That's it. Yes, tax rates do return to a higher level on the very wealthy because the Bush tax cuts were allegedly designed to be temporary, enacted in flush times, but supposedly with a sunset just in case times were rough again. In other words, it was the model of "kick the ball down the road" legislating.

But to say that President Obama wants Congress to pass higher taxes is a lie. In fact, what he wants Congress to do is make the Bush-era tax cuts on the poor-to-merely wealthy permanent. If Congress doesn't do that, and Obama doesn't cave again on it, all the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire and the revenue crisis is over.

Of course, none of this is preventing the scumsucking pig fellaters of Congress from laying into the very moderate plan Obama proposed. Let's check out what the most heinous motherfuckers are saying.

Click here for the rest.



My man, ex-Labor Secretary (and so muuuuch more), Bob Reich, provides all the proof we need that the rich own this debate (and will not be paying very much even if the Rethugs let Obama's program pass - which has a snowball's chance . . . .)

Taxing the Rich, the Obama Way

By Robert Reich

Warren Buffett is a tough negotiator, which is one reason why he’s the second-wealthiest person in America.

So when the President refers to his new initiative to raise taxes on millionaires as the “Buffett rule” we might expect he’d start the bargaining from a tough position.

But this is Barack Obama, whose idea of negotiating is to give away half the house before he’s even asked the other side for the bathroom sink.

Apparently Obama will propose that people earning more than $1 million a year pay at least the same tax rate as middle-class earners. That’s aiming mighty low.

America’s median income is about $50,000. The typical taxpayer at that level pays approximately 20 percent in taxes.

Granted, that’s a higher rate than most of today’s super rich pay because of countless deductions, credits, and loopholes – including, especially, their ability to take their incomes in the form of capital gains, taxed at 15 percent. That’s a big reason Buffett’s hundreds of millions a year are taxed at just over 17 percent — a lower rate than his secretary faces, as Buffett often says.

But a 20 percent rate is still ridiculously low compared to what millionaires and billionaires ought to be paying. Officially, income over $379,150 is supposed to be taxed at 35%.

And even 35 percent is a pittance compared to the first three decades after World War II. Before Ronald Reagan slashed taxes on the rich in 1981, the highest marginal tax rate was over 70 percent. Under Dwight Eisenhower it was 91 percent. Even if you include deductions and credits, the rich are now paying a far lower share of their incomes in taxes than at any time since World War II.

The estate tax (which only hits the top 2 percent) has also been slashed. In 2000 it was 55 percent and kicked in after $1 million. Today it’s 35 percent and kicks in at $5 million. Capital gains – comprising most of the income of the super-rich – were taxed at 35 percent in the late 1980s. They’re now taxed at 15 percent.

Meanwhile, the top 1 percent’s share of national income has doubled over the past three decades (from 10 percent in 1981 to well over 20 percent now). The richest one-tenth of 1 percent’s share has tripled. And they’re doing better than ever. The last time the top 1 percent got that much was in the roaring 1920s.

So much money is now concentrated at the top that what we really need are more tax brackets at the high end, higher marginal rates in each bracket, and a tax code that treats all sources of income – whether ordinary or capital gains – the same.

The marginal tax rate ought to be raised to 50 percent on income between $500,000 and $5 million, 60 percent on income between $5 million and $15 million, and 70 percent on income over $15 million.

In light of our history, and in the face of future budget deficits that will otherwise cause taxes to be raised on the middle class and government services to be sliced, this is the least we should expect from the richest among us.

Why shouldn’t the President be calling for this, instead of asking that millionaires and billionaires pay at a rate average earners pay?

At least begin from a tough negotiating position, Mr. President. You might as well. 

Congressional Republicans will oppose any tax increases on the wealthy, whom they call “job creators” — even though big companies are sitting on more than $2 trillion in cash and aren’t creating any jobs at all, while 99 percent small-business owners, who account for most new jobs, make under a million dollars a year. (GOP Budget chief Paul Ryan has already accused the President of waging “class warfare” with his millionaire tax plan.)

And you can also bet Republicans, as well as their allies on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, will continue to harp about the large portion of low-wage earners who pay no income taxes — without mentioning that they pay a higher portion of their incomes than anyone else in payroll and sales taxes.

Besides, the public supports raising taxes on the rich. (In an August CBS News/New York Times survey, 63% of respondents favored increasing taxes on households earning more than $250,000 a year to help close the budget deficit.)

We don’t yet know the details of the President’s proposal. The White House hasn’t said what the minimum rate on millionaires will be, or how they’ll define a “middle class” income. Maybe he’ll surprise us by starting out much higher and tougher.

I hope so. But as he’s proven time and time again, when it comes to negotiating Barack Obama is no Warren Buffett.

This article was published at Nation of Change.

And for a final (blow)job on our political scene, Driftglass nails Tom Fucking Friedbrain:

At the ass-end of 30 years of escalating Republican psychosis, who is there left to convince? Who remains unaware of what the GOP is up to? Who is there in the whole wide world of sports who has not noticed that the Right is hell-fucking-bent on smashing this country to bits, selling the scrap the China and selling its people into indentured servitude?

Offhand, I can think of only five distinct groups who possess that kind of fortified, adamantine cluelessness -- the dead, the long-term comatose, the criminally insane, very small children and Tom Friedman.

(Well, those five and the +50% of the American electorate who have no idea where they are or who is running their country, so fuck 'em.)

So why does this awful, awful hack have a job at the New York Times?

Because he is rich.

Because he is connected.

And because his fatuous Centrist naughtytalk

My fear is that both parties have just started their 2012 campaigns. In which case, the rest of us will just sit here, hostages to fortune, orphans of a political system gone mad, hunkering down for a bad century.

gives people like fellow billionaire Mike Bloomberg and the "No Labels" grifters big happy boners.