Skip to main content

Nancy Pelosi
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Larry Downing/Reuters)

Nancy Pelosi, House minority leader and thorn in Speaker John Boehner's side, released a letter she sent to Boehner, demanding an immediate vote, since he's so concerned about taxpayer uncertainty, on extending just the middle class portion of the Bush tax cuts.

There's a problem, though, with Pelosi's formulation of middle class as those earning less than $1 million, which is at odds with what both President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have set as their income threshold for the middle class: $250,000 annually.

This makes a pretty big difference when it actually comes to revenue raised. Citizens for Tax Justice does the math.

■ Pelosi’s proposal would save 43 percent less revenue than Obama’s plan.
CTJ’s preliminary estimates show that Obama’s proposal to extend the Bush tax cuts for the first $250,000 or $200,000 of income a taxpayer makes would save between $60 billion and $70 billion in 2013 compared to the GOP proposal to extend all the tax cuts, depending on economic conditions. Leader Pelosi’s proposal to extend the Bush tax cuts for the first $1 million of income would save 43 percent less revenue than Obama’s proposal.

■ 50 percent of the additional tax cuts proposed by Pelosi would go to millionaires.
The additional tax cut that would result from Pelosi’s plan compared to Obama’s plan (the additional tax cut resulting from extending the Bush tax provisions for taxpayers’ first $1 million of income instead of “just” their first $250,000 or $200,000 of income) would not be targeted towards the “middle class.” In fact, 50 percent of this additional tax cut would go to taxpayers with adjusted gross income (AGI) in excess of $1 million.

Millionaires would benefit so much comparatively because the tax cut applies to the first $1 million of their incomes. That means their tax cut, even though they would still be paying on income over $1 million, would be substantially larger than it would be for someone making, say, $45,000.

Politically, Pelosi was undoubtedly trying to highlight Boehner's hypocrisy. Picking the $1 million mark as her line really does highlight the fact that Republicans are protecting millionaires, and that they are doing so at the expense of the deficit. That's great for rhetoric, but as far as the public is concerned, $150,000, $250,000 or $1 million is pretty much all the same when it comes to tax fairness.

Rhetorically, $1 million is easier to use as a cutoff, but substantively, Pelosi should revise her cutoff downward.

Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Thu May 24, 2012 at 11:42 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (28+ / 0-)

    "There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning." —Warren Buffett

    by Joan McCarter on Thu May 24, 2012 at 11:42:25 AM PDT

  •  I'd propose a logarithmic scale (12+ / 0-)

    instead of brackets, but there are enough exploding heads already.

  •  This is more of the same stupidity (29+ / 0-)

    that kept the Bush/Obama tax cuts in place instead of letting them expire. There was (and is) no reason to negotiate anything at all regarding the cuts, when they are due to expire, just let them expire.

    •  Just let them expire. (18+ / 0-)

       The Bush tax cuts were enacted with the Republicans agreeing that they would expire.  Let them expire.  It's what the Republican politicians agreed to. It's what Bush agreed to.

      There is no need to revisit the prior agreement.  Should it become necessary in the near future, I'm sure that Congress will see the need then, and will do what is necessary.

      Democrats - We represent America!

      by phonegery on Thu May 24, 2012 at 12:05:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  1918 - I agree with you (13+ / 0-)

      The Dems don't have to do anything, convince anyone to schedule any votes, reach across the aisle, be bipartisan, negotiate, or anything other than sit on their hands. Magically all the tax cuts will expire on Dec 31, 2012 and the federal government will have revenue it needs. As we were all told many times the Bush tax cuts were highly weighted to benefit the rich, so let them all go.  

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Thu May 24, 2012 at 12:14:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Dems would never consider letting cuts expire (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        zaka1, Dump Terry McAuliffe

        They didn't when they still controlled both houses at end of 2010, and they won't when GOP controls House and has virtual Senate parity this year.  Believe me, I wish it were otherwise.

        Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not?

        by RFK Lives on Thu May 24, 2012 at 06:58:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Dems did not control the Senate (0+ / 0-)

          after Feb 4, 2010.

          •  No offense, but bullshit. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Nada Lemming, RFK Lives

            Letting the tex cuts expire does not require legislation, but rather a lack of legislation. Therefore If the Dems have enoughs vote for a filibuster to block a bill (which they do), then on this issue they utterly control the Senate. The DEMOCRATS extended the tax cuts, not the GOP.  And even if they lose the Senate majority in November they still have the power to let these expire. No more excuses for these spineless weasles.

            Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!

            by bigtimecynic on Fri May 25, 2012 at 01:49:54 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You are forgetting (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              RFK Lives

              they are Dems, not progressives.  The big money and Powers that Be control enough Dems that there is no way the tax cuts expire.  None of them.  At least not in any practical way.  Besides, expiration will be greeted with a "sky is falling" media response that will help wreck the economy, rally the GOP base, and ensure that the 2014 midterms turnout like the 2010 midterms did.  And, the victims of that will be the Senators that we're asking to stand in the way of renewal.

              What we'll get is one of the follwoing scenarios after the November election:

              If Romney wins:  This will probably also mean that the Senate has flipped as well:

              1.  All of the tax cuts get renewed, through reconciliation if neccessary.

              If Obama wins:  Dems hold the Senate and GOP controls House:

              1.  All of the tax cuts get renewed.

              2.  The tax cuts get restructured through some changes to the tax code, and other shell game procedures, that have the net effect of extending the high-end cuts.

              3.  The GOP agrees to some number like $1M or $5M and above on regular income as the cap for the tax cuts in exchange for permament extension of the cap gains cuts and inheritance tax reduction.  These last two are where the Powers that Be really have a stake.

            •  My Point (0+ / 0-)

              is simply that Dems did not control the Senate at the end of 2010.  I see this mistake over and over again, even here on Kos.

              As for the tax cuts, Dems believed that, after the Great Recession, tax cuts for the middle class and poor needed to be extended.  Rethugs held these hostage in exchange for extension of tax cuts for the wealthy.

              I do not believe it would have been politically viable to allow all tax cuts to expire at that time.  I also think that economically it would have been a dangerous move.

              This time around, I hope they are all expired.

              I also think your calling Dems 'spineless weasles' goes too far.  I'd say you could use that energy more effectively against the Republicans, and help move Congress toward more progressive incumbents.

    •  The problem is... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      subtropolis, indie17, BusyinCA, TRPChicago

      ...that letting all of the tax cuts expire would result in some rather substantial tax increases at the bottom, as well as at the top.  And while the tax cuts may disproportianately benefit the wealthy, it's those lower income working households who haven't seen pay increases in years who can least afford to see their taxes go up.

      As for Pelosi's proposal, I have no problem with a cutoff at $1 million/year, as long as it is part of a temporary continuation.  Next time it comes up for renewal push for a lower amount.  The point is in getting Republicans to accept any tax increase on the wealthy.  Once that is done, Grover Norquist's power is broken and the chances of future negotiations being at least semi-reasonable increases.

      Political Compass: -6.75, -3.08

      by TexasTom on Thu May 24, 2012 at 08:05:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I have no problem paying a few percent more (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Robobagpiper

        in taxes as long as I have a job.

        No job == no taxes.

        I can't want that.

      •  IF the GOP agrees to an upper limit (0+ / 0-)

        and that is a BIG if, it will most certainly come with a demand that everything that is being renewed will be renewed permanently.  Why would they ever concede anything without getting a permanent solution?  That is why they won't agree to any decoupling - because once that happens, there will never be another high end tax cut.  There won't be anything on the low end to trade for it.

        My bet is that they agree to the $1M limit.  The Powers that Be really don't care about those of us who make between $250K and $1M.  We're closer to the rabble than to them.  What they really want is the cap gains taxes and the inheritance tax to stay low. Those don't significantly benefit anyone making under $1M/year.

      •  yes... (0+ / 0-)

        It is completely irresponsible to make any tax cut "permanent."

        We do not know what the future will hold, and it may be necessary to raise taxes at some point.

        Actually, of course, the Bush tax cuts -- and even the Reagan tax cuts -- were irresponsible, and the point to raise taxes again is now, especially for the obscenely wealthy.  

        The wealthy are not dependent on roads or railways.  They have their jets and their dressage horses and their yachts.  And they certainly do not care about public schools or health care for the elderly or  poor.  They feel entitled to every cent they can grab, not obligated to pay for the privilege of living in America.  

        Unless we raise taxes now and raise them mostly and substantially on the wealthy, our country will fall swiftly into a decline from which we can never recover.  

      •  I didn't starve during the Clinton years... (0+ / 0-)

        so I can't see that going back to those tax rates will be too painful.  If that's what it takes, I'm in.  Let the damn cuts expire.

        •  Put this in context... (0+ / 0-)

          ...many people saw their wages fall behind inflation during the Bush years.  Those same folks got nailed hard as a result of the recession/depression that we're currently trying to recover from.

          For folks who have seen their real wages decline and who are struggling to get by on, say, $30,000 for a family (even a small one), it could indeed be quite painful.

          Personally, I wouldn't be hurt particularly if those tax cuts expire.  But I also know that I'm doing better than many.

          Political Compass: -6.75, -3.08

          by TexasTom on Fri May 25, 2012 at 10:19:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  It will never pass - accentuate thehypocrisy (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Egalitare, AaronInSanDiego

    If Rs won't support that, it truly exposes them

    The Elephant. The Rider. The Path. Figure those out and change will come.

    by Denver11 on Thu May 24, 2012 at 12:02:44 PM PDT

  •  Perhaps she consulted with Kirsten Gillibrand (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    along, dkosdan, Matt Z

    who also proposed $1M as the cutoff, the first time this issue surfaced. She argued it needed to be that high to spare 'small business owners' who are the job creators of the economy, and she didn't mean it rhetorically either.

    "I'm sculpting now. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

    by eXtina on Thu May 24, 2012 at 06:36:42 PM PDT

  •  they wont vote for either (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    glorificus, indie17

    so might as well submit the one that is more popular politically.

  •  Thorn in Boehner's side? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    marty marty, PorridgeGun

    She rescued the republican party (i.e. “impeachment off the table”).
    What naive joke.

  •  $1M is Schumer's preferred cutoff too (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TRPChicago

    not that Pelosi actually cares about his desire with regards to policy, but it's clear she thinks the only way the "middle-class" extension will pass in the senate, even with the lame-duck leverage of an Obama win, is with a $1M cutoff. With any other measure I'd say she's crazy to give up the leverage of the difference between $250,000 and $1Million. But on this one, I think she's pretty safe. If anything passes, whether at Christmas or by Easter, it's going to be at that number, not higher. Maybe, if the president wins comfortably, and Nancy is Speaker again, the Dem senate could set the cutoff at $500,000. But it's not worth worrying about that right now.

  •  All Bush Tax Cuts Should Expire (6+ / 0-)

    And start all over.

    "Don't Let Them Catch You With Your Eyes Closed"

    by rssrai on Thu May 24, 2012 at 06:44:38 PM PDT

    •  To start over, we need a Democratic Congress, (0+ / 0-)

      ... filibuster reform, a more solid majority than a bare 50 in the Senate (new Ben Nelsons will abound whenever narrow votes give them leverage) and a significant chipping away of the Blue Dogs in the House.

      Even then, a lot of the House comes from districts where constituents have high enough incomes (e.g. NY, CT) and/or reliance on favorable capital gains treatment (e.g. FL). That makes watching the Bush tax cuts expire without "saving" any of them a bigger political problem than many of us commenters recognize.

      This bundle of tax issues is dangerous. It has the prospect of splitting activist Progressives from other Democrats, to the likely benefit of That Other Party if this breaks loose before the elections.

      Obama and strong Democratic majorities in 2012!

      by TRPChicago on Fri May 25, 2012 at 04:33:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What (0+ / 0-)

        Are you talking about?

        We have 100% of the leverage, now and later.  Why is it in our interest to capitulate before the election?   There is a class war.  Pelosi upwardly defining middle class as one million dollars for no reason should get her leadership position taken away.  Bad policy, and losing politics.  

        If you haven't earned my vote when the time comes, don't blame me when you lose.

        by Nada Lemming on Fri May 25, 2012 at 06:22:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  There is not so much leverage as you think (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TRPChicago

          By your logic, the GOP had the leverage in the debt ceiling debate.  They didn't really win that one (as evidenced by their scrambling to undo the sequester now), even though they could "do nothing".

          Lets be clear, it is simply not an option to let all of the tax cuts expire, just like it was never an option to not raise the debt ceiling.  The folks at RedState were saying exactly what you are saying last summer about that issue:  "just let the country default, it will be better in the end".  They were wrong, and so are advocates of complete expiration.

          If the tax cuts expire, EVERY working American will get a tax increase, even those who don't currently pay taxes, because some of the provisions are direct low-income tax credits that will go away.  For someone making $25,000/year, losing $1,500 in tax credits is HUGE.  Much bigger than someone making $5,000,000, who loses $45,000 in increased marginal rates.  And, losing that $1,500 is not magically going to get that person a better job.

          Plus, letting all of the tax increases expire will cede this issue entirely, on a silver platter to the GOP for the next two elections.  It could spur a backlash where the GOP runs on a tax cutting platform, wins the presidency and both houses in 2016, and enacts something even bigger.  Remember, they did the tax cut in 2001 with a 50-50 Senate, through reconciliation.  They'd do it again in a heartbeat.  Look at what the GOP accomplished in 2010 with only the health care bill to gin up the base.  And, lest we forget, the "Tea Party" was launched on tax day 2009 - not a coincidence.  Taxes is the one issue that unites all republican constituents, and Dem crossovers.  

          No, Dems cannot allow this hostage to be shot, even by doing nothing, anymore than the GOP could allow the country to default.  

          •  Oh please (0+ / 0-)

            All they have to do is nothing.  Nothing.  It's not so hard to pay hardball when it's passive.  If the worst happens, Clinton era prosperity!  No downside whatsoever.  

            If you haven't earned my vote when the time comes, don't blame me when you lose.

            by Nada Lemming on Fri May 25, 2012 at 12:17:24 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  No, I'm not for "capitulating" at all. (0+ / 0-)

          I was replying to the previous comment, which was: "All Bush Tax Cuts Should Expire. And start all over."

          You can't do that "start all over" thing without a solidly Democratic Congress. And I don't know what you mean by "capitulating." If you mean to let the Bush tax cuts expire and wait for Republicans to see the light, that'll be a long wait indeed.

          That being unlikely, what tax rates would you like to see? The Bush cuts involve all brackets. I'm pretty sure that doing nothing means the lowest bracket would go from 10% to 15%, a 50% increase. Rates on long term capital gains go from the present 15% (maximum, less for lower income taxpayers) to 20% and on dividends, up to 39%. There would be a number of other impacts, as well.

          The strategy of the GOP was to couple the brackets so that it is much harder to raise just the top rate, whatever income level it applies to. The GOP will like your idea of letting everything expire and starting from a new base more than de-coupling. Why? Because (1) it will therefore be the Democrats who imposed tax increases on the middle class and (2) Republicans can raise even more enormous amounts of money.

          As for leverage ... where do you get your 100%? Unless we can change the filibuster rule, passing things in the Senate is pretty difficult. (Blocking is easy, but that certainly is not starting all over.) What leverage do you think we have now in the House - which must initiate revenue legislation (Art. 1, Sec. 1)? What exactly gets a GOP-controlled Ways and Means Committee to act?

          Obama and strong Democratic majorities in 2012!

          by TRPChicago on Fri May 25, 2012 at 09:47:25 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Start over (0+ / 0-)

            The entire debate is dishonest.  What was wrong in the 90s with that tax structure?  Absolutely nothing.  You want a civil society, you pay for it.  Period.  The rest is kabuki to convince us that the dems really are fighting for us, when they are really pandering.  Change the debate.  Say no, well do nothing, if you won't even agree to so little.  They are the ones with a motivation, not us.  It was our power all along.  

            That you buy into the tax cut = mandatory means you believe in the republican line of thinking, just not so severely.  

            If you haven't earned my vote when the time comes, don't blame me when you lose.

            by Nada Lemming on Fri May 25, 2012 at 12:15:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  With respect, you're making a case for wholesale (0+ / 0-)

              ... tax reform with this "start over" simplicity. I'd be for that. Let's all be for that. But don't be confident you'll get what you want out of such a process. Tax policy is an area where Democrats and Republicans become blended in amazing ways.

              As for the "tax structure" in the 1990's, I think you're being nostalgic about the wrong thing. But we're so far apart on the realities- the doability of fair taxes, not the ultimate goal - that the game isn't worth the candle.

              Obama and strong Democratic majorities in 2012!

              by TRPChicago on Fri May 25, 2012 at 12:39:56 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Good populist rhetoric, but the millionaire's tax (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PubliusPublicola

    would not make a pimple on the ass of the deficit.

    Spending has to shrink, and taxes must be raised, both across the board, in order to make any difference.   Oh, that there was a candidate out there that had the sac to tell us this truth, instead of trying to buy our votes.  

    The only way to beat the game is to rig it to guarantee that everyone wins something. That's not possible if there is a house.

    by SpamNunn on Thu May 24, 2012 at 06:52:35 PM PDT

    •  What if that difference (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TexasTom

      turns out to be renewed recession?

      I agree that taxes need to be raised more broadly, but doing it all at once would be disastrous. The Bush tax cuts should have been phased out starting in 2009...if they were phased out a bit at a time, the change would not produce the jolt that letting them all expire at once would.

      At any rate, I'm sure Pelosi's proposal is pure politics, which is the only thing that makes sense to do now...this isn't about policy, or negotiating positions, it's about the election. Everyone knows nothing of value is going to be accomplished before the new Congress is sworn in next year.

      "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

      by Alice in Florida on Thu May 24, 2012 at 07:45:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Walter Mondale (0+ / 0-)

      was the last presidential candidate to openly run on a tax increase.  He won his own state, barely, and that was it.

  •  Repubs Will Certainly Reject Everything (5+ / 0-)

    so they set a ridiculously high bar for messaging purposes.

    She could've set it at $10 million and they'd refuse.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Thu May 24, 2012 at 06:53:24 PM PDT

  •  Do you think she will? (0+ / 0-)
    Rhetorically, $1 million is easier to use as a cutoff, but substantively, Pelosi should revise her cutoff downward.

    "Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

    by Diana in NoVa on Thu May 24, 2012 at 06:54:51 PM PDT

  •  But we do need a millionare's tax bracket (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TexasTom, zaka1, subtropolis, Robobagpiper

    A family doctor and Mitt Romney really shouldn't be in the same tax bracket...

    -1.63/ -1.49 "Speaking truth to power" (with snark of course)!

    by dopper0189 on Thu May 24, 2012 at 06:55:32 PM PDT

  •  It doesn't matter what amount she said, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Alice in Florida

    remember the Republicans will not allow a dollar to be raised in taxes on the rich no matter how much is cut.

    I think Speaker Pelosi is just doing political theater, sitting on her hands will be just as effective.

    Unless the Rs realize the middle class has more votes than the rich, and they realize how much they like their cushy do-nothing jobs.

    •  The GOP is counting on a revolt of middle class... (0+ / 0-)

      ... taxpayers - to increases in their income tax rates as well as for capital gains and interest (think 401Ks of retirees, etc.).

      It's decoupling rate brackets that will be the battleground. And that has been the Republican strategy since the cuts were first introduced.

      Obama and strong Democratic majorities in 2012!

      by TRPChicago on Fri May 25, 2012 at 04:38:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  yeah (0+ / 0-)

        That won't happen.  Those taxes are a pittance on the middle class. Did you even notice you tax cut? I didn't.  It was tiny.

        If you haven't earned my vote when the time comes, don't blame me when you lose.

        by Nada Lemming on Fri May 25, 2012 at 06:30:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I noticed mine (0+ / 0-)

          The tax increase on people making between $75,000-$500,000 will be noticeable.  Perhaps more on the lower end.  Hell, I notice every year when my income exceeds the limit for SS deduction.  All of sudden, my paycheck increases by over $800/month.  That is real money to those of us in the sub-$1M income range.

          •  But (0+ / 0-)

            If you are making enough to stop paying ss, you are not in the middle class.  And if you think you should continue not paying your fair share in taxes, I understand you didn't make that claim yetought if you did, you are an * and not worthy of my time.  

            My wife and I grossed just over 200k last year, so I know what I'm talking about here.  We won't miss the money.  We have everything we need and then some.  It's time for people who can pay more, to pay more.  

            Now, because I took a full time job, I will make less than 100k, a lot less.  I can still afford to pay more, proportionately.  

            When I made 29k a year, I couldn't pay a dime more.  Now I can.  

            If you haven't earned my vote when the time comes, don't blame me when you lose.

            by Nada Lemming on Fri May 25, 2012 at 12:08:56 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Why do we need a tax cut? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    marty marty

    We are as irresponsible as our leaders are in terms of supporting the needs of a first world nation. We should have tax increases until our bills are paid. The stimulative effect of lower than required or fiscally supported taxation has proven to be nation wrecker. Funny how the left and right can agree on something. No one in America is as broke as America, and that is just what we wanted as America, and now we got it.

    •  Common sense: (0+ / 0-)

      Anyone worrying about deficit reduction at this point must be taking economic advice from the Germans.

      When the economy starts to come back we'll need to raise interest rates and taxes.  Until then, we need stimulus.

      America can print money.  We may be running on empty in a sense but "broke" is the wrong word.

      -6.12 -4.87 I don’t need insurance I need health care. You have sick people and doctors. Any third parties looking to profit from disease should go to hell. (Stolen from a comment somewhere on the Internet.)

      by jestbill on Thu May 24, 2012 at 07:31:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Except that taxes are at ridiculously low levels (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bigtimecynic

        right now, particularly for the wealthy. Taxes on wealth are so low that they may be counter-stimulative (i.e., they can keep so much of their money they don't need to take any risks to get out and make more).

        "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

        by Alice in Florida on Thu May 24, 2012 at 07:48:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  If the GOP have their way the economy will NEVER (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        indie17

        recover.  They want the 1% to rule and everyone else as slaves.  Now if they bring jobs back that will be at a much lower wages.  What do you think happend in Right to Work (for less) state?.  the GOP want austerity.  that is what England has with no growth whatsoever.

        We need to have higher taxes for everyone over $250K and use the money to stimulate the economy and pay down the GOP incurred debt.

        •  I REALLY wish (0+ / 0-)

          people would stop treating the national budget like their kitchen budget!

          In the short run you don't have to raise taxes to get money to stimulate the economy.  You just print the money.

          That said, it won't hurt anybody to let the Bush cuts expire.  What WILL hurt is to stop there and expect good times.

          -6.12 -4.87 I don’t need insurance I need health care. You have sick people and doctors. Any third parties looking to profit from disease should go to hell. (Stolen from a comment somewhere on the Internet.)

          by jestbill on Fri May 25, 2012 at 07:19:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The only thing the Powers that Be (0+ / 0-)

            hate as much as taxes,...is inflation.  Printing money is inflation, and they will never stand for that.

            •  LOL... (0+ / 0-)

              and here we are back at the beginning of this little thread: taking advice from the Germans.
              TPTB will find that (austerity) medicine worse than the disease.

              -6.12 -4.87 I don’t need insurance I need health care. You have sick people and doctors. Any third parties looking to profit from disease should go to hell. (Stolen from a comment somewhere on the Internet.)

              by jestbill on Fri May 25, 2012 at 11:09:52 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  America is NOT broke (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        indie17

        Not when I see time after time people spending $1 million, $2 million or $4.8 million to TEAR A HOUSE DOWN.

        Raising taxes on the rich is EXACTLy the type of thing this country needs.  The excess at the top is ridiculous.

        Unfortunately, I have yet to read anything on the taxes that SHOULD be allowed to go up.  The Capital Gains and Dividend taxes.  The guy who paid $4.8 million to tear a house down works for a very large investment bank.  It's very likely he's paying 15% taxes on his 'income' much like Mitt Romney has been.  That's scheduled to go up to 20%  I know WHOOP DE FUCKING DOO.  We're all paying 28% to 35%.  However, 20% is ALOT better than 15%.  The GOP really doesn't care as much about the highest marginal rate going from 35% to 38%.  Most of the really wealthy don't have income to tax at 38%.  Most of them live off Cap gains and dividends which are being taxes at 15%.  

        Personally I think ALL Bush tax cuts should go but especially the Cap Gains and Dividend tax cuts as well as estate tax cuts.  They're the most blatantly skewed towards the wealthy.  If it means I get to eat one less pizza pie a month to do so, well I'll gladly support my taxes being raised the pitiful amount I go in order for these fucking bastards to pay a more equitable share.  

        If we let the taxes go up, we'll soon see how NOT broke we really are.  We never were, it's just that the money was robbed from our public coffers and divied up among the banksters and other assorted crooks who are paying $4.1 million  or $4,666,667 million or $20 million to tear down a house.

        This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

        by DisNoir36 on Thu May 24, 2012 at 08:02:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Just to point out (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Nada Lemming

      the actual Left isn't down with any of that sh..inola, but our numbers in the US are so miniscule that we may as well not exist, and the powers that be of all stripes and functions  make sure they keep things that way.

      The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges. ~ Anatole France

      by ActivistGuy on Thu May 24, 2012 at 07:59:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Do They think we are stupid? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    marty marty

    Why do any of these shill pretenders from the WH on down deserve any support?  Meet the Romney's!
    Dimon/Corzinne 2012.  Since they already own the WH just cut out the Middlemen and apply savings to the deficit lol.

  •  $150k, $250k, $1 million all the same? (0+ / 0-)

    Maybe where you live.

    I would hope that $150k is OK in most places, but it really is only OK for a lot of people in a lot of places, especially those who don't get nice benefits, live in places like San Francisco, Chicago, New York,  and have the costs associated with 2 people working and trying to raise kids.

    That's the real problem of cutoffs:

    At the lower end they are levels that a lot of people who do not consider themselves to be rich are affected.  Heck, many of them are affected just at the time in their lives when kids are getting ready for college and medical expenses are starting to climb.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Thu May 24, 2012 at 07:47:21 PM PDT

    •  It is a MARGINAL tax rate (0+ / 0-)

      So someone making $300,000 of taxable income - note that their gross income may be $400,000 or more prior to accounting for state taxes, property taxes, mortgage interest, and charitable contributions - will pay higher taxes on $50,000. Their first $250,000 is taxed the same as today.

      •  Again, when you start talking lower levels, (0+ / 0-)

        you're talking about people who do well for themselves, but not millionaires, etc.

        I have no real problem with taxing well-to-do folks, but lumping them in with Trumps and Kardashians is a great way to look out of touch with reality and anti-success, especially if inflation kicks up.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Fri May 25, 2012 at 12:40:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Perhaps .... (0+ / 0-)

    She is setting up an old fashioned bargain?  Always ask for more than you know you will get so that in the end - you get what you really wanted/expected.  

  •  Same ol' (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nada Lemming

    Dem pols don't exactly negotiate against themselves.  After all, Dc pols, if not 1%ers precisely, are close enough, and can use their political connections in their post-electoral career to glide into the 1%.   However, for all the crying I hear among Dem partisns about "working people voting against their self-interests", the first thing Dem pols do on any issue is begin by negotiating against those same working people they excoriate for "failing to vote in their self-interest."  Working people are perfectly capable of recognizing our own economic self-interest, and the reality is that voting for anybody on the ballot is voting against our economic self-interest.  So most working people end up voting about other things, whether its guns or abortion or what have you, because it's understood nobody in DC will represent our economic interests.

    The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges. ~ Anatole France

    by ActivistGuy on Thu May 24, 2012 at 07:57:39 PM PDT

  •  Nancy (0+ / 0-)

    do the right thing move it to your husbands income 100million. To hell with the little people.

  •  it's still f*cked up (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PorridgeGun

    they should be talking about raising the capital gains rate not about raising income taxes.

    meanwhile - let them expire.

    big badda boom : GRB 080913

    by squarewheel on Thu May 24, 2012 at 08:59:54 PM PDT

  •  Oh Christ. You're really providing Pelosi cover (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nada Lemming

    on this? A wealthy Congresscritter making a move to protect millionaires is now seen as "undoubtedly" rhetorical? Really? Undoubtedly?  No doubt at all, huh?  This article reminds me that regardless of progressive positioning, the primary function of Daily Kos is to get Democrats elected.

    I've got a better idea, stop calling this a "middle class tax cut", which it isn't, and put pressure on these people. This a millionaire tax cut that also happens to benefit the middle class as a political sweetener. That is a world of difference from a "middle class tax cut", especially when it comes to raising badly needed revenue.  

    Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!

    by bigtimecynic on Fri May 25, 2012 at 01:58:51 AM PDT

  •  if she wants to call it "middle class" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Russycle

    it should match the social security cap, about 110,000. Of course they could also go even better double the cap and then match that. Middle class people pay social security tax on every dollar of income.

    •  I agree, but I think this is just theater (0+ / 0-)

      The Republicans won't agree to any hike, so Nancy can say she met them halfway but they wouldn't budge.  Not that anyone will care, but possibly David Brooks will throw her a bone in one of his both Sides Do It columns.

      Hopefully the Democrats will just let the damn cuts expire, then they can negotiate new middle-class friendly cuts with the GOP.  Since these will be framed as cuts instead of the current framing of tax increases on millionaires, they'd have at least a chance of passing.  But honestly, best strategy is just let the current cuts die then start over.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site