Jan Schakowsky Introduces Bill To Raise Taxes For Wealthiest Americans

Source: Huffington Post

Jan Schakowsky Introduces Bill To Raise Taxes For Wealthiest Americans
First Posted: 03/16/11 02:53 PM Updated: 03/16/11 02:54 PM

WASHINGTON -- Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) announced new legislation on Wednesday that would create new tax brackets for earners who make significantly more than the baseline for the current top income bracket.

Currently, the top marginal tax rate of 35 percent applies to income starting at $373,650, and the tax code fails to distinguish between earners making a few hundred thousand dollars a year and those making a few hundred million dollars a year. "LeBron James and LeBron James’s dentist: same difference," New Yorker financial columnist James Surowiecki quipped last year during early debate over the extension of the tax cuts enacted under former President George W. Bush.

Meanwhile, income inequality continues to soar, as Schakowsky, one of the 18 members of President Barack Obama’s debt commission, noted on Wednesday.

“In the United States today, the richest 1 percent owns 34 percent of our nation’s wealth -- that’s more than the entire bottom 90 percent, who own just 29 percent of the country’s wealth,” she said during her prepared remarks at a press conference. “And the top one-hundredth of 1 percent now makes an average of $27 million per household per year. The average income for the bottom 90 percent of Americans? $31,244."





Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/16/jan-schakowsky-income-tax_n_836624.html

Any estate over $2M (for a couple) should be subject to estate taxes.

I didn't like them extending the income tax holiday for two more years. But they did at least put the Estate Tax back in there when they did.

10 years ago. It declined every year for 10 years, then there was no tax at all for 1 or 2 years, then went back up.

It chaps my ass that people enjoying Capital Gains are taxed less than people who Work for their money.




Who will STAND UP and represent THIS American Majority?
Platitudes, Rhetoric, Empty Promises, and Excuses are meaningless now.

"By their WORKS you will know them,"
And by their WORKS they will be held accountable.

But at least she's trying and if nothing else bringing the issue back into the public eye.
:applause:

let alone a vote. And a the bill would be defeated by the majority. The Repunk idea of shared sacrifice is the working class makes the sacrifice and the wealthy elites share the benefits.
It's only class war when we fight back.

It won't be discussed as it's a loser for the repunks.

in doing that in the past, but it's damn well time they learned. Get out there and play it like the Rethugs do -- bang the drum loudly and repetitively and persistently. If the media isn't covering it, go about it other ways. Look at WI --- make it a HUGE issue, because it is in both Washington and Republican majority states across the country. Tack it onto the demonstrations that are ongoing -- it's part of the issue, so embarrass the Rethugs everywhere. Look at what's happened with Rethug approval and Walker's approval in WI. This is something the majority of Americans agree on -- get EVERYONE involved and the Rethugs won't have any choice.

how the Repunks will portray them in the media, which does have an element of truth as the Repunks own the media. There comes a time when you have to take a stand, and all the Democratic leadership inside the beltway need do is look at Wisconsin.
Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything.
The Koch Brothers' two votes carry no more weight than two union members.

...not to dis "Democrats" or anything.

for which no one has good answers.

Republicans even bragged about stopping anything from getting through the senate that might make Obama look good and nothing did without 60 votes. The House passed over 244 pieces of legislation that got filibustered and killed in the senate by the minority.

With the help of the big man.

But Democrats at the top have trouble with that concept.

We should never have lost to the Neanderthals.

will support it now.

wealthy. They were forced to extend them and never initiated them. Bush initiated them.

Not this White House. You do realize Obama was not president 10 years ago, right?

Told my rep Saturday that it is about time for someone to stand up and start the process of raising taxes on the rich.

It is insane that the top brackets were given the tax break again, but at least this is one way to remedy that error.

I'm convinced that the only way we're going to get anything done is to make such a stink, they can't ignore us. Look at how hard Wisconsin is working at it. Look what Egypt did. I'm too old to take to the streets, but there is surely something I can do to make my voice heard.

Pitchforks in the street time! We're mad and we're not going to take it anymore.

tax cuts for the rich in the first place. No only Dems, either. A bi-partisan stink.

:cry: Leave the Koch Brothers alone! :cry:

:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

Do I really need this? :sarcasm:

Go get 'em Jan!

But I agree, this is really overdue. And the Democrats can easily use this in 2012, and expose the GOP as the corporate whores they really are when they try to kill it.
Go Jan! :yourock:

as soon as FAUX and rest of the M$M falls into some crack in the earth.

As long as the propaganda machine is whirling, 50%+ of the people in this country will support their own extinction.

This must be priority #1. We need our voices back, we need to silence the lies.
Does the 1st amendment give the right to slander and libel? Is the right to lie and deceive guaranteed by our constitution? I sense a problem.

Jesus Christ. MAKE THEM PAY!

Stay off small planes! (Not kidding at all.)

It's a great effort, but nothing will come of it.

Passing it should be quite a challenge, though.

First, the rates suggested by Robert Reich:

$0 to $50,000 No taxes. (Great! Poverty level. Will kick the economy.)
$50,000 to $90,000: 10% (Still good. Will kick the economy.)
$90,000 to $150,000: 20% (Still good. Below current rates.)
$150,000 to $250,000: 30% (Still good. Below current rates.)
$250,000 to $500,000: 40% (Still good and only marginally above current rates.)
$500,000 to $5-Million: 50%
Above $5-Million: 60%

My shot:

$0 to $50,000 No taxes.
$50,000 to $90,000: 5%
$90,000 to $150,000: 15%
$150,000 to $250,000: 30%
$250,000 to $500,000: 40%
$500,000 to $3-Million: 50%
Above $3-Million: 80%

Our household has been within that range but with two kids at UC ($25,000 a year EACH, $50 K total) and skyrocketing medical, it was actually hard to make ends meet at times. A very average house in San Diego has a huge mortgage payment, add a payment on even an old car, and over a thousand a month just for health insurance (I have pre-existing conditions, tough to get even that), plus very high homeowner insurance because of fire and quake dangers out here, and it's pretty well all accounted for without any lavish expenditures. I'm self employed so also have to drive a lot, no public transit most places I go, and gas is through the roof, too.

Our income has dropped with the bad economy as my business has dried up, so we're not at that level anymore, and we've depleted what little savings we had. If our taxes went up, we'd lose our house -- as many people here have.

I'm good with raising it on people over $250K, and on corporations. Perhaps raising it on a lower income tier would work if you were exempted when you have kids in college or can prove high medical/insurance costs.

But what you could live off comfortably in say, a small town in the south with no dependents, good public transit, and for a person in good health doesn't work for a family living in a major city in CA with college age kids, health issues, and other basic high costs of living. And yes, the kids both work, too. Now the oldest has graduated, no job in his field.

cost of living and in a state with no state income tax.

I'm inclined to focus the attention on also closing loopholes for the richest individuals and taxing corporations anyway. I'm not sure changing the tax rate by itself will do much for folks who can hire creative accountants.

Since the rich are not altruistic, nothing stops the rich from paying more to the IRS now, but they don't, IOW they all have accountants whom they pay to find every deduction and loophole possible, don't you think that as the govt increases the taxation then those people will demand more salary, or if they are business owners they will increase costs to the consumers of their products, or layoff workers or move their business to another country that taxes less? Every tax increase will be inevitably passed on to the middle class it always is and we are always told we are better off for it.

Increasing taxes on the rich makes for good political rhetoric, hell the rich themselves use it, (see Warren Buffet)...but it will not solve the problem.

Confiscating wealth, now thats another story altogether, confiscating wealth to share equally among the Prolatariate is really the only fair solution, wouldn't be nice to call Oprah your neighbor?

i can't see inherently fair in taking wealth from someone for no other reason than they happen to have more of it. What right do you have to that individuals wealth? Don't get me wrong, i believe the wealthy should pay their fair share- and that share being a greater proporation of their wealth than the lower incomes but i still believe that people should be allowed to enjoy a good proportion of what they earn. Some very wealthhy people in this country built themselves from scratch.

You can't have it both ways, the rich are motivated by greed, they have no altruistic motivation to fund govenment programs that help those less fortunate. If they did then we wouldn't be having this discussion and the USA would not have a 14 trillion plus debt because our wealthiest would have been making extra payments to the IRS for these many years on their own.

When a rich person gives money to charity, you can bet a years salary they are going to take the exemptions on their tax returns, etc...

Corporations devour resources, pollute the environment and pass on the costs that the govt enforces on them back to the consumers, this is a vicious cycle that costs the middle and lower income brackets the most.

The bottom line is that taxing them only forces them to recoup those lost dollars by sucking it out of the middle class, the rich own the means of production, the middleclass and poor are the means of production.

The only solution is for the government to confiscate the wealth of the rich use it to create and enhance programs that help the less fortunate thereby leveling the playing field (equality) but then the govt must place a limit on the ability of the rich to recoup those dollars from the middleclass a wealth cap.

That is the only way that we are assured that the middleclass does not ultimately pay for everything which is the case today.

And double tax rate for Democrats like Evan Bayh that work at FOX.

ExxonMobil and Oil industry -- in fact, let's NATIONALIZE our oil -- !!

Nationalize OIL and have the govt manage it, but at the same time have a long range comprehensive plan to get all Americans off of OIL for transporation..... i.e., Hydrogen fuel cells, use the profits from the OIL to subsidize the costs open up hydrogen pumping stations that are run by solar panels all throughout the USA, creating hydrogen is extremely simple and if you use solar power to do it then it costs practically nothing after the initial install.... Free energy from Water converted back to water as it is used in the vehicle. Didn't you ever wonder why there is so much water on the planet.... Simple solution to all of our energy needs... Just needs more investment and a true LEADER that can communicate that vision to all AMericans and get them onboard.

I would make 0-50k 1%. Don't let them make the "they don't even pay taxes" argument.

That will stop the trickle down effect.

These people are hard up, the say $7 million is not enough and they can't hold on.


:sarcasm:

I am sure this will not go far!

Schakowsky knows this.

As much as it should be done - It won't occur - To simply allow the huge Bush tax cuts for the rich to expire - with democratic majorities in both houses and a democratic president could stop it from being renewed for the wealthiest.

This defines the word GRANDSTANDING!

And at least she has it on her record that she tried, unlike all the Dems who just round-heeled and voted to extend the Bush tax cuts. Of course, some of them were among the wealthiest Americans too.

But I really doubt you could even get that.

Ask for something really ideal, except something slightly less than ideal but is still pretty damn good.

One of my favorite congresspeople. :yourock:

If we just look back to when Clinton had the balls to raise the top bracket to 39%, we were in pretty good shape.

Of course they do anyway. But yeah I'm with you, even 39% would be a huge improvement.

it is the elites who have enriched themselves by draining wealth from the many --

from our commonwealth --

How about we simply charge them for the 80% of our water that they use --

and the MIC for the 80% of our oil that they use --

and let's run up a bill for the pollution of the planet and the damage done to

animal-life and human beings?

There is no wealth for the few without their exploiting what belongs to all of us --

From A to Z --

Remember Perot -- made all his money providing billing services -- think that's what

it was -- for Medicare!

Gates -- money for internet was paid for by taxpayers --

ExxonMobil -- oil industry -- mining companies --

AND WE CHARGE CORPORATIONS NOTHING FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF USING OUR AIRWAVES --??


Maybe we should rethink some of those things?

Rush et al. say that raising taxes on the richest among us is punishing success. In this worldview, then, the "bottom" 90% must be failures, and these losers must be punished for losing. Someone must always be punished.

Wait a sec... why must there be punishment? Did something go wrong? If the system works just fine, why must anyone be punished? If the system of super-winners and lowly-losers works like a charm, then wouldn't "losing" be punishment enough? Something must be amiss if there is punishment to be meted out. What could it be? What ever could it be? Hmmm...

Income inequality! That's what went wrong. If too much of the wealth being in the hands of too few people is the cause of the problem, then these rich folks SHOULD be "punished."

Of course, in the Republican view, the problem (if they MUST entertain the notion that there is one) is that way too many lazy people are sharing 29% of the wealth.

:eyes:

------------------------------

:evilgrin:

the name of their game. Even if it means shipping/outsourcing our jobs.

Too bad Republicans can't figure that out. Also, to bad our Democratic Administration and Dem Congress Critters can't either.

Wake the hell up America!

gets very little information with which to work or understand anything!!

BP spent $75 MILLION in one month after Gulf catastrophe on PR!!

And look at the nuke industry right now -- mouths couldn't be moving any faster

telling us Japan is meaningless!!


Pitiful -- !!

So, eh -- who owes whom?

Great move.

But no way no how in this congress. Maybe the next one if enough people come awake and decide to leave the vegged out sheep family.

of what used to be the middle class and poor. I'd like to see a little of this alleged "shared sacrifice" that the thugs speak of in their rhetorical scripts. Yeah, like the rich and powerful are going to let their taxes be raised. Let's face it, if a Democratic President can't say no to tax cuts for the millionaire, billionaire pigs, are the Republicons really going to allow this? lol.......sorry, wish I could be more optimistic, but I live in reality, not in stories or by having conversations with "God". I appreciate the effort, but it's a non starter. I want to be wrong, I hope I'm proven wrong. I'll take ownership in being wrong, and be happy to do so.
Lou

:thumbsup:

feels so good to be a democrat.

would have been saying all of these things before the 2010 election, before the recess when they didn't want to talk about raising taxes because the Blue Dogs were worried about hurting their chances in the elections and had been talking about income inequality, job losses because of our diasasterous trade policies, our unfair tax policies etc... as well as been stronger on the issues instead of caving to appease the Republicans (and the corporate paymasters) on every issue so that the R's could just vote NO on everything anyway we wouldn't be in the shape we are in now.

I hope she points out the correlation between 1945 tax rates and now.


We have Bush's war to pay for, and since it benefited his high-income friendsypoos, that 1945 rate should be restored.



http://www.munknee.com/2011/03/in-this-time-of-economic-crisis-are-americas-wealthy-unpatriotic/



http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph#

There are TONS upon TONS of money out there. It's quite concentrated in a few elite groups of hands. But there it is. And most of it was stolen from us. If we're hurting for money, if our country is hurting for money, if our people are hurting for money, if our life-saving safety-net programs are hurting for money, well there it is.

That I have only one rec to give!!

We can only hope. Perhaps we should all continue to remind people what the Republicans stand for. Or should I say who? The Republicans are for the top 1%. Period. Keep reminding people of their actual record on the issues and their failed policies (hello! global recession anyone?) and the truth will put them out of office.

There has got to be a way to distinguish between new professionals (often steeped in debt) coming out of law, medical, dental, vet, business school (etc) and earning a couple hundred grand, versus millionaires and billionaires. Personally I don't think those earning under $50K should pay much at all (if any), and then go up a sliding scale from there. No reason why someone making 350K should have the same rate as someone with income(wages/interest) of $3M/yr. It should all be re-worked so that the very richest in our society actually pay some taxes too.

$1-10 million: 45%
$10-20 million: 46%
$20-100 million: 47%
$100 million to $1 billion: 48%
$1 billion and over: 49%

Why less than 50% for billionaires? I think it'd look better like this:

1-10 million: 70%
$10-20 million: 75%
$20-100 million: 80%
$100 million to $1 billion: 85%
$1 billion and over: 90%

$10 million after 70% tax is $3 million
$20 million after 75% tax is $5 million
$100 million after 80% tax is $20 million
$1 billion after 90% tax is $100 million.

Seems reasonable to me.

Good for her! How about voter referendums?? I'd vote for that!!!

but good luck with that.

Do you want the budget balanced?

If we kept Clinton's tax rate, the debt would have been PAID.

Want the Clinton economy, bring back the Clinton taxes on the rich.

which means it will never even get a hearing

Jan rocks!

....let's not be too hasty, Jan....the Republicons and their rich corporate friends may not like us....are you sure we shouldn't be keeping our powder dry?....better check with the Prez....

....where in the hell is this legislation going to go?....we couldn't get this through when we controlled the House....more kabuki legislation....

And while we're at it, un-cap Social Security. There will be no further claims of financial insolvency if they do.

Rp

All income, whether earned or unearned, over $500,000 is taxed at 95%. This is absolutely fair to everyone in the country, since we'll all be taxed at the same rate.

It was opened in December. Good luck getting it closed now.

We need steep graduated brackets for the ultra rich. If they want to keep income over a million dollars, it has to be invested in areas where it benefits everyone - like clean, renewable energy.

I can hear Boner now, "Well There Goes All Those Jobs!"

Sadly, with our congress (specifically the House) full of GOP corporate thugs, we'll never see this pass.

She as safe as safe can be, too. They won't even try to astroturf her out of office.

Thanks for the thread, Judi Lynn.