President Obama has become afflicted with premature capitulation. While his avowed enemies within the ascendant G.O.P. seem intent on a Bush restoration of sorts. The supine executive has agreed to a continuation of the Bush tax cuts, in a deal short on benefits for the middle class, while adding to the mountain of debt the Republicans claim to abhor. That party's abhorrence attends when the debt helps the lower classes, it ends when it helps the upper class.
Since the President made a bad deal, I figure he was simply lacking the perspective of City Council members from cities around the country. As most people recognize, the nation's City Councils are the great repository of deep economic and political theory. So, hearing the call of duty once again, here goes my plan to pull the president's Nusse out of the fire.
I respectfully suggest that someone within the Democratic leadership should offer a proposal containing the following basic elements:
A:
Taxpayers earning below $250,000 will keep 90% of their current tax cut. These taxpayers would lose 10% of their current tax cuts.
The "average" taxpayer, according to the President, would see their taxes increase by $3,000 if the entire tax cut expired, therefore, if they kept 90% of the cut their taxes would increase just $300 (three hundred) per year.
Every penny of this increased tax revenue would be dedicated to deficit or debt reduction.
B:
Taxpayers earning between $250,000 and $1,000,000 would keep 50% of their current tax cuts. A person in this bracket earning $625,000 per year would see their taxes increase by about $11,000 per year. Those fortunate enough to earn a million dollars would see an increase of about $22,500 per year.
Half of the increased revenue from these increased payments would be dedicated to deficit or debt reduction. The other half would go toward funding infrastructure improvements.
C:
Those earning above $1,000,000 would see their tax rates revert to the rates in effect before the Bush tax cuts--an increase from 35% up to 39.6%
Half of this increased revenue would go to deficit or debt reduction and the other half would go toward funding infrastructure improvements.
_____________
All segments of the population would share in the sacrifice needed to get our fiscal affairs in order. All segments of the population would benefit from a revitalized infrastructure.
The unemployed would be put to work in all phases of the gargantuan task of getting our infrastructure up to par and up to date. The improvements would include a viable, 21st Century rail passenger and freight system worthy of a First World power, highway improvements, public park restoration, power grid improvements, urban revitalization, seashore cleanup and buffering, removal of tinder from forests which fuel dangerous forest fires. The list is practically endless and the needs are great.
Work which focuses on such basic improvement of our nation pays immediate dividends because it is work which must be performed in this country, by this country's workers, many of which are currently unemployed or under-employed. The components of these improvements should and must be domestically produced. This could be the engine which drives a long term and sustainable recovery and a sustainable economy.
It makes more sense than padding the bank accounts of the wealthy.
Might that be hard for Republicans to vote against, Mr. President?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
John Gonder for President 2012. Maybe I'll finally get a tour of the White House.
Shirley:
Of course I'd never say no but it's shaping up more like 2112.
You can stay in the Lincoln bedroom, and I'll throw in one of Dolly Madison's shawls as a keepsake
John,
The Goverment does not have a Taxing problem they have a spending problem. What you need to send to your President, is a plan where he cuts out the forced charity (social programs) placed on this country. We the People will be happy to give to those that try hard and still need a helping hand, not those just looking for a hand out.
If you and the liberal party still find it nessery to keep the social programs then pull the money out of your pocket if you see such a value to it and keep your hands out of mine.
Three decades of tax, trade, and regulatory policies favoring the richest capitalists, have accounted for the greatest transfer of wealth since the Gilded Age -- a tiny minority of 1%of Americans account for a staggering 25% of the country's wealth at present - up from 7% 30 years ago, when we still had a viable middle class. And you're trying to argue that there is no "taxing problem"?! Look up some historical data and you'll find that more jobs have been created when the top marginal rate was higher. You should also be aware that this piling on of more wealth to the richest, non-neediest of Americans cannot be - and has not been - accomplished without the exploitation of the poor and working classes.
Stay tuned. If these inequities continue (and they likely will under Republican rule), you will soon be swatting beggars off your windshield, as happens in third world countries.
And, Vman, good luck paving your own roads, putting out your own fires, and providing health care for your elders, etc. Every man for himself!
P.S. Merry Christmas, Ebenezer!
Ruth,
I beleave in paying for Services like Fire, EMS and Police. My problem is Social Welfare for life.
The problem is people like John and your self think you are owed something. You think the people that make more money because they work harder and have made it to a level you call rich should give it to the Goverment to redistribute.
That line is set at a level you are ok with now, but what happens when it get to your income level and they want more from you.
The problem with your view is that 47% of all Americans don't contribute to the taxes and programs that they take from. It takes the rest of us and I include the 1 to 2% that you dislike and pays the most into the tax base.
Btw.
Merry Christmas.
Because we all know that everyone who has more money got it by working harder and everyone who doesn't have much money doesn't work hard.
/sarcasm
Yep and somepeople don't work at all right Jeff.
Love how Liberals find ways to twist the words of people In the attempts to show others are not as caring.
When the ones that keep people down are the liberals themselves because they need the voting base.
Thank you Ruthanne, as usual you said it much better than I can.
VetteMan,
Do you seriously think that a peson can become outrageously wealthy by just working hard? My family has been working hard for generations and are still not even upper middle class.
The 1% made their wealth on the backs of people like my family. They own businesses and exploit their employees. Then they blame these same employees for the position they are in.
Everyone knows that trickle down economics does not work. People who have tons of money keep it for themselves. But they do save some for heavy political donations for the candidates they like. When these candidates become elected officials they owe their souls to their contributers, and the cycle continues.
Unfornately love does not make the world go around--money does.
"When the ones that keep people down are the liberals themselves because they need the voting base."
--Vette Man
This comment stands in contrast to a recently unearthed comment from the head of Tea Party Nation, Judson Phillips, who believes it is right and proper to restrict voting--the excercise of an inalienable right--to "property owners" because they have a greater stake in the community.
I can't guess where that thread might lead, but I'd wager it won't be higher quality public education, or needed protection of the environment through restrictions on property owners' businesses or property.
It might well lead to a world of Vette Man's liking where,
"If you and the liberal party still find it nessery to keep the social programs then pull the money out of your pocket if you see such a value to it and keep your hands out of mine."
I know it would not jibe with the words of one who said, "what you have done to least of my brethren, you have done to me."
Regardless of one's standing in or out of religion, the need of each of us to help make this shared journey a better one for us all is, in my mind, the measure of how we rate as a civilization.
No hard feelings Vette Man, but I don't want in your world.
Just a reminder that the healthcare bill included about $500 billion in tax INCREASES.
And let's not forget the massive small business and individual tax credits in the health care bill, either.
Went back and checked the CBO report. The $500 billion was net of the "massive small business and individual tax credits." The small business credits amount to only $37 billion. The individual tax credits are really the subsidies to buy insurance. Not what many would call a tax cut. Those amount to about $100+ billion.
So, the total tax increase is more like $650 billion. Thanks for the correction.
"Just a reminder that the healthcare bill included about $500 billion in tax INCREASES."
My whole point was to increase taxes on all income classes, and let all income classes share in getting us out of the hole Bush drove us into. Misapplied military retaliation against a phantasmal enemy cost us much more than my suggested tax increases. And your abhorrence of a tax increase to fund healthcare, which would bring true humane relief to our own citizens, is suggestive of unusual priorities I simply can't stomach.
When we cannot afford a military, and we cannot afford welfare/subsidies to arms manufacturers, and when we cannot afford tax breaks to multi-millionaire corporate citizens of convenience, and when we cannot afford a system of healthcare shell games that provides profits but denies healthcare, maybe then we can afford to spend our own money to protect our own citizens in a way that other civilized nations have been doing for years.
John laid out the larger case pertaining to priorities well but I wanted to point out some details of Rich's much lamented tax increase:
All businesses in the country with 25 or fewer employees and average annual salaries of less than $50,000 will receive tax credits on a sliding scale to help cover health premium costs. In Indiana, that means roughly 92% of all businesses in the state will receive tax credits, up to 35% of costs for smaller firms. If they choose to participate in state health exchanges, their tax credit limit will be raised to up to 50% of costs for the first two years.
Likewise, individuals with incomes in the $11,000 to $44,000 range will receive health premium tax credits as will families with incomes between $22,000 and $88,000. As of 2009, the median household income in Floyd County was just a little over $40K. That again constitutes a large majority who will see tax credits.
On the other hand, the main tax increases are small percentages affecting only a small number of people. A 0.9% Medicare surtax will apply to wages in excess of $200,000 for single taxpayers and over $250,000 for married couples, impacting roughly 2 to 2.5% of the country's population a small amount.
Wealthy investors will see a 3.8% levy charged against the lesser of (1) their unearned income or (2) the amount by which their adjusted gross income exceeds the $200,000 or $250,000 threshold amounts. That means that for the first time ever, those whose large incomes primarily come from investments rather than work (interest, dividends, capital gains, annuities, royalties, and rents) will be required to contribute to the Medicare fund that will someday cover them just as the rest of us have been doing for decades. They'll now have to pay in a share in order to be eligible to withdraw later. Bummer.
That such small increases on such a small segment of the population will generate so much revenue speaks not to significant tax increases but is instead indicative of the extraordinary concentration of the nation's wealth among so few people, some of whom have never had to work a day in their lives.
I merely pointed out facts. I'm not sure how that represents "unusual priorities that I cannot stomach." Since I took my information from the CBO site, i believe those facts to be objective. But I guess that makes me "unstomachable."
My point, which I did not state but will now, is that I find it interesting that these tax increases which were passed only nine months ago did not get a single mention by the main stream media in the recent discussion. At the same time, any tax cut going back to the 1980's was discussed in detail.
If you would care to check the CBO site, you would see that the bulk of the increases come in the form on the additional fees/taxes related to healthcare services. (Sorry to disappoint on that 'so much income from so few people' thing.) Those fees will be paid by someone.
I am looking at the CBO site, Rich. The Medicare increase on upper level incomes I mentioned singlehandedly generates far more revenue, i.e., tax increase in terms of actual dollars, than do any of the other provisions calculated. So much more, in fact, that most of the others added together in various combinations don't equal that one provision.
Post a Comment