The Expiration Of The Bush Tax Cuts To The Rich - The Corprorate Media Will Now Ignore The Deficit

When the discussion relates to unemployment, the corporate media will let Republicans drone on and on about the deficit, but not ask them about what can be done to help the millions of unemployed. However, when it comes to letting the Bush tax cuts expire for those making over $250,000 (the rich), mentioning the deficit suddenly becomes a dirty word. Finally, the media simply will not dare mention that top marginal tax rates were higher during most of the Reagan era.

Democrats should pass the tax cuts for the 95% of American making less than $250,000, and dare Republicans to filibuster to protect the top five percent!

<>

Notice how these guys like Hannity and the others complain about the high bracket but never tell how much they pay percentage wise. I bet you they pay less as a percentage of their income than most of their audience,

It all depends on who you have fill out the tax forms. They have the best so they pay the least.

A flat tax on all sources of income with no upper limits, no caps and an exemption for the first $30,000 of annual income.

Wages, capital gains, profit from sale of real estate, stocks, interest income, etc., all have the same flat tax rate. Sales tax is a local thing and would not be included. The tax could be as low as 10% - 15%.

Flat tax will remove the advantage the rich currently have. If you like to pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffet and the other billionaires then you don't want a flat tax. If, instead, you want the rich to pay their fair share of taxes then you should push your elected representatives for a flat tax and don't shut up till they get it done.

At least, many of them are.

Like all simple solutions, this won't work. Take a family of four making $36,000 and holding a mortgage; now, that family pays no federal income tax in many areas, because the cost of housing and therefore the mortgage deduction are so high. Under the flat tax, they now pay between $600 and $900, meaning this struggling family now has to live on $50 to $75 less a month. That's the trouble with an arbitrary line like the exemption; anywhere you draw it on a national scale ignores regional discrepancies in the value of the dollar. A buck goes a lot further in rural Texas than in downtown Austin, I would expect? And the difference between Austin and New York City is probably as pronounced. So while in some areas $30K is enough to get by, in other places it is not. Is it "fair" to apply the same tax?

Taxes need to be considered by the effect they have on the public. If taxes force a wealthy family to enjoy fewer or lesser luxuries, like a Cadillac instead of an Infiniti, that sucks. If taxes force a family to skip meat twice a week, that's usury. Taxes which go beyond someone's ability to pay are excessive taxes, crippling taxes, and are the stuff of revolutions. Taxes must always be based on the ability to pay. The only thing which is fair, really, is to tax luxury and not necessities. A graduated tax is the fairest kind of tax, in my book.

Looking at the first post of the thread, the top tax rate in the late years of WWII was 94%. Why would anyone pay 94 cents on the dollar in tax, ever? Because they were patriots, and it was necessary, I bet. Why can't America's wealthy be patriots now, and simply pay 40%? The nation clearly needs it, they can sure as hell spare it more readily than the populace they've been bleeding for decades, and it would be the patriotic thing to do!

That would be about $81k for an individual, $162k for a married couple.

Sorry to say but you all have drank the kool-aid on this one, folks.

The rich pay more? You have your facts wrong. Because of all the loopholes the rich pay next to nothing compared to their actual income. It's all about percentages. You pay a far higher percentage of your meager wages than the rich do. Add in social security and medicare and you pay double or triple the rate that the wealthy pay. 76% of American corporations pay NO taxes. Exxon paid ZERO taxes in 2009 but got a $100 million check from the gov't. Who's making up for the loss of taxes from Exxon? You are. And anyone who actually works for a living.

You conveniently failed to notice the exemption for the first $30,000 of income. Your $36,000 a year family will pay far less under a flat tax.

The link is a pro-status quo hatchet job against a fair tax, not worth the time to even breeze through it. Don't waste our time with neo-con lies and fear tactics. We're all tired of it. There are also dozens of websites dedicated to lying about climate change so as to continue to benefit the wealthy at the rest of our expense (perhaps fatally so) that get their funding from big corporations, hiding the funding source behind a bevy of foundations, trusts, organizations, etc.

If you say you are against a fair tax, isn't that the same as saying you are for an UNFAIR tax system. Yup. It is. Think about it.

Yeah, if the Fair Tax was SUCH a progressive idea, then why is it the brainchild of Neal Boortz, an arch-conservative economic neo-clown who has great disdain for the poor and middle class? Why do Republican politicians like Mike Huckabee and idle "Lucky Sperm Club" members like Steve Forbes support it? Why is Joe the Plumber hawking it? Why is the only neo-con on the whole thread . . . the one who is SUPPORTING the Fair Tax?

Yeah, so, no need to look at the many logical and mathematic reasons on why the middle class and working poor will be screwed beyond belief under the Fair Tax while the severely undertaxed rich will STILL have loopholes, STILL stay where the cheap labor is, STILL underpay and STILL use the U.S. as their own personal tax haven, or "mint"? "I'm right, PERIOD. End of debate."??

Actually, it isn't saying the same thing. At ALL. I'm for a PROgressive tax system where the wealthy pay 45-50%, easing the burden of the middle class and working poor.

Republicans want a massive federal deficit DUE TO low taxes on the rich!

Because, then, the gov't has to BORROW WITH INTEREST the money that the government should simply be taking in taxes. And, since most of the US treasuries are owned by rich people, rich people get the interest! At a reduced tax rate, even, because it's unearned income!

Over $400 billion a year is paid in interest, most of that into the top 1% of the US income-earners.

So not only are rich people's taxes LOWER, they also get an extra 5 or six figures a year in lightly-taxes interest on the national debt!