Skip to main content

View Diary: President Obama asks public to pressure Congress on middle-class tax cut (102 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Honestly...a $2K tax hike is OK by me. (8+ / 0-)

    I find the whole $250,000K cut off to be way to high.

    In the year 2000, our after tax income was in the 120,000 range.  Keep in mind I'm writing off mortgage interest, state taxes, charitable donations etc.

    Last year is as in the mid-150K range.

    Raising my taxes by a couple grand a year won't kill me.  In fact, I probably wouldn't even notice.

    I railed against the Bush tax cuts for myself in 2001.  I did the same in  2003.  And while the payroll tax cut served a necessary purpose, it should be lifted on income over 50,000 and not capped anymore.  You make $300,000K, you pay payroll taxes on all of it.  

    You can bomb the world to pieces but you can't bomb it into peace - michael franti

    by FarmerG on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 01:19:24 PM PST

    •  Yes, part of the problem is that dinging the (0+ / 0-)

      1%ers only goes so far - heck you could take ALL of their income and the federal deficit would still loom large.

      Somebody once told me, that by contrast that there are WAY more people in the middle class - for example 40 times more just in the 3rd and 4th quintiles (they provided no link so I couldn't evaluate the veracity of this claim but I'll take it at face value - heck, who'd post untrue information on the internet and risk looking foolish?).  So, taking just a rather modest cut from all these people can add up meaningfully when it comes to deficit reduction . . ..

    •  I agree with this post, start to finish (0+ / 0-)

      Focusing on tax cuts for everyone is a FETISH. If Bush hadn't won and we never had those tax cuts, the deficit would be GONE.

      The economic 'danger' in raising taxes on the middle class in the middle of a 'recession' is NONEXISTENT. We need stimulus and tax HIKES on the wealthy...what are they going to do, PAY the taxes? Hell, no...they'll INVEST the money and create some frickin' jobs before they ever give Uncle Sam a dime.

      Trickle down economics was worse than a lie--it's the opposite of reality. Always has been, always will be, and yet it SELLS so well to millions of American dopes.

      "I feel a lot safer already."--Emil Sitka

      by DaddyO on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 01:32:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Great attitude, but for me a 2,000 tax hike would (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vpd4

      be extremely painful, as the recession has left me in pretty bad shape.  IN general, remember, wages have flat-lined since the 70's, but the top 2 percent are raking in the dough.  Therefore it is appropriate that they go back to the Clinton era rates, and it's appropriate, at least at this time, that those below $250,000 NOT go back to the higher rates.  THink of it as a continuing stimulus, which is definitely needed.

      --------------------- “These are troubling times. Corporation are treated like people. People are treated like things. …And if we ever needed to vote, we sure do need to vote now.” -- Rev. Dr. William J. Barber

      by Fiona West on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 02:19:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's better for the economy to spend it. (0+ / 0-)

      You get the multiplier effect if the 2K is circulated, and in the end, that money will end up with the gov anyway in the form of sales and income taxes after it's been used a few times.  It's really a stimulus after you remove the politics.  The tax monies over the 250K threshold aren't been circulated anyway, regardless of what supply-siders say, so at least the gov will circulate it rather then it sitting in the caymans.  (at least that's my take on it).

      ...if you could brighten the day of someone who is lonely or afraid on my behalf that would be something I would love. -Station Wagon.

      by TheDuckManCometh on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 05:56:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site