Skip to main content

View Diary: Fiscal cliff: What the GOP stands to lose (14 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I would be ok if Obama agreed to 37% top rate (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mindara, bear83

    IF all these other tax hikes were left in place. I think the capital gains, dividends and estate taxes are more important and do a better job than the personal income tax at getting the super rich to pay closer to their fair share.

    How come we have not heard much about these other scheduled tax hikes? Is it expected that they will happen or expected that they will reach a deal to extend these tax cuts?

    •  because so many of the 0.0001 %'ers (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mindara, democrattotheend, bear83, a2nite

      don't want us to know that they really don't work for a living.

      These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece the people... -Abraham Lincoln

      by HugoDog on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 12:05:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I want 'em all to go up (0+ / 0-)

      The Republicans have had a decade + of these "job creating" tax cuts. What they never told us was that the jobs were for bankers in the Cayman Islands and Switzerland.

      Let's drive off the curb and negotiate down from Clinton's rates.

      Filibuster reform now. No more Gentleman's agreements.

      by bear83 on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 12:27:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Me too. But in terms of priorities (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Roger Fox

        I think the marginal income rate is less important, because that is more likely to hurt those making around $250,000 than the super rich. Not that those making $250,000 shouldn't pay more, but I am less concerned about them than about the filthy rich with the fancy accountants who can help them avoid paying most income tax.

        •  good point (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          democrattotheend, bear83

          Short of repealing the Reagan tax cuts and the 1986 TRA....

          I would add 6 brackets

          Which is not too far from adjusted dollar brackets in 1938.

          FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

          by Roger Fox on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 01:00:30 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I agree (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            And make sure bonus and unearned income is included in that, since most CEO's make more money that way than in salary.

            I would rather see them agree to 37% for those making $250,000+ if they could go higher than 39.6% on those making over $1 million.

            •  This would be a sensible way to go (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Roger Fox

              if we could get higher rates on the filthy rich who make more than $1 million a year.

              Not that I feel sorry for those just above $250,000 - under the Clinton rates, they would be asked to pay $360 more per every $10,000 above $250,000. If you're making $260,000, $360 more in tax isn't asking a lot.

              Filibuster reform now. No more Gentleman's agreements.

              by bear83 on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 02:13:27 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site