Why are Democrats terrified of taxing the rich?

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/09/10/democrats_scared_taxes&source=newsletter&utm_source=contactology&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Salon_Daily%20Newsletter%20%28Not%20Premium%29_7_30_110

-snip-

Jon Chait adds that these people's worldviews are so warped by their bubbles of privilege that they don't understand that six figures doesn't qualify as struggling. Matt Yglesias blames media framing of deficit issues. Everyone is probably right.

But, honestly, the Democratic party no longer seriously represents working interests, in part because working interests aren't organized anymore, and because, you know, there's no elite approval or money in it.

I think if Democrats can't pass a soak-the-rich tax bill before the midterms, they should wait until after the midterms and pass their tax cuts-for-everybody bill, abandon all pretense at seriousness about anything, and allow Obama to veto it and let all the cuts expire, after the midterm damage has already been done. (Not that I expect that Obama would veto it.)

But once "moderate" Democrats cave on this, Democrats in general should stop hand-wringing about why they can't get their natural constituencies in the working poor and working class to come out and support them in midterms, and why working-class whites keep voting for Republicans. They're killing broadly popular liberal agenda items like raising taxes on the rich and the public option -- based on a "fear" of government overreach limited to anti-liberal elites -- so that they can pursue "necessary" measures -- popular solely among said anti-liberal elites -- like austerity cuts to Social Security and reigning in the deficit by cutting back on government spending in the middle of a job crisis.

I've heard (I don't know for a fact)that many small businesses would have their taxes increase if the cuts to those making $250,000 or more were allowed to expire. That may be a problem if that is the case. I'd like to know how valid that is if anyone has those numbers.

Disidoro, anybody who is self-employed or owns a small business knows that expenditures and business related costs are not 'income.'

There's gross income, then after all business related expenses and investments are deducted, what remains is 'net income.'

That means for a business with a single owner, if after all expenses, wages, costs of goods sold, rents, etc. are paid and there is over $250,000 left in retained earnings then the portion over $250,000 would be taxed at a higher rate (assuming the current tax cuts are allowed to expire).

If it is an S-Corp owned by multiple individuals - then you might be talking much greater numbers before they are impacted. If you have an S-Corp owned equally by 4 people - and this is their primary income then you are talking over $1,000,000 in retained earnings before that company would see its tax profile changed.

SATSQ

EVERYTHING?

Just asking...

I think the liberal political class (liberals who intensely follow politics) care greatly about taxing the rich. I care about taxing the rich. You care about taxing the rich.

But the average working poor person probably doesn't give a rat's ass about the tax rates for the rich. They would care about tax rates for themselves, but not for the rich.

and how the undertaxation of the rich impacts their own lives.

and surveys show support for such policies = stronger as you go down the income ladder.

so i guess you're wrong.

Very simple.

Can you write five and six figure checks to the Democrats in power?

Can you offer a Senators mother/father/brother/sister/wife/children lucrative "consulting" jobs or offer to let them sit on boards as "assistant vice assistant to something or the other" for six or seven figure salaries?

If you can't, the Democrats in Washington will forget you the moment they are sworn into office.

Just let them.

pubs as soft on communism, crime, drugs, or terra; weak on national defense; or fomenting class warfare: in essence, dems cave on virtually issue, letting pubs set the national agenda. Surely everyone with even a lick of sense and a mere modicum of knowledge can see where fulfillment of a virulently extreme RW PNAC agenda has brought us to in our national life. I'm counting on BHO to launch a progressive New Deal after the mid-term elections. ;)

Leaders of the democrat party seem to always be running scared. No matter what they do they will be attacked for being tax and spend liberals so why not ignore their critics and do what is right? Letting the Bush tax cuts expire is the responsible and right thing to do. I'm tired of the deadbeat rich not contributing to society.

inflicted on this Republic, its Constitution, the rule of law, international law, other sovereign nations, the fiscal soundness of the Federal government, the economy, the standard of living, and we the people in general could have been mitigated, if not avoided: but the fear of smelly, messy pants seems to have been too acute. ;)

Both parties serve the same masters, and vie for the same $$. Neither mainstream party acts effectively as an advocate for the people. Liberal values and causes have been reduced to nothing more than campaign rhetoric that never sees the light of day post election.

That way we the serfs can be relied upon to support the interests of...the ruling class

Pretty slick deal

even if the same, or similar, policies result

Now, I guess, to answer your question, we avoid fights with people who can buy PR firms by the dozen.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5553408-503544.html

Society is stratified by economic class. The ruling class is rich first, political second.