Obama Tax Plan Would Ask More of Millionaires

By JACKIE CALMES
Published: September 17, 2011

WASHINGTON — President Obama on Monday will call for a new minimum tax rate for individuals making more than $1 million a year to ensure that they pay at least the same percentage of their earnings as middle-income taxpayers, according to administration officials.

With a special joint Congressional committee starting work to reach a bipartisan budget deal by late November, the proposal adds a new and populist feature to Mr. Obama’s effort to raise the political pressure on Republicans to agree to higher revenues from the wealthy in return for Democrats’ support of future cuts from Medicare and Medicaid.

Mr. Obama, in a bit of political salesmanship, will call his proposal the “Buffett Rule,” in a reference to Warren E. Buffett, the billionaire investor who has complained repeatedly that the richest Americans generally pay a smaller share of their income in federal taxes than do middle-income workers, because investment gains are taxed at a lower rate than wages.

Mr. Obama will not specify a rate or other details, and it is unclear how much revenue his plan would raise. But his idea of a millionaires’ minimum tax will be prominent in the broad plan for long-term deficit reduction that he will outline at the White House on Monday.

~snip~

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/us/politics/obama-tax-plan-would-ask-more-of-millionaires.html

plus we only has 60 votes for 14 weeks - it wasn't for 2 years. Franken didn't get sworn on until June. Byrd & Kennedy were literally dying & Scott Brown was sworn on in January or early February.

Even now we have Dem Senators who will oppose this. Just wait, you'll see. As usual, the problem is Congress - now the insane Repub House but even without them, there are conservative Dem Senators who would block it. But, of course, right now we need 7 Repubs to get anything thru the Senate.

Republicans are literally going to Raise taxes for the middle & working class people AND completely shut down any tax increases on the rich.

I guess the short summary of all that is this - Obama's NOT THE PROBLEM!

It's by nature a body which exists as a brake on changes to policy: though holds, through procedure, and through the filibuster. With the 60 vote requirement, even when we DID have those votes, the Republican blockade in effect gave each and every Democrat a veto on any and all legislation.

if it reflected the will of the people, that would be an accident because it's not elected equally by the people, giving states, not people power --equal power. and through the filibuster, majority rule is impossible anyway --even though those that hold the majority could not do so on their proportion of popular support because the Senate is elected undemocratically.

Who cares what he's doing now. Let's get all pissed off about what he didn't do long ago.

Because there is no way the repukes will pass it.

in those numbers?

Well, just do the math....and that's already 60 take away 3....
not counting quite a few others.


Dems put off votes to extend Bush tax cuts until after elections

09/23/10 06:49 PM ET

A rift between centrist and liberal Democrats in both chambers of Congress has derailed plans for House and Senate votes on extending tax cuts before the election.

Senior Senate Democrats said they plan to leave Washington by the end of next week without voting on an extension of the George W. Bush-era tax rates, which are set to expire at the end of the year.
<>
Sen. Evan Bayh, a centrist Democrat from Indiana, said the divisions in his party emerged in stark contrast during the lunchtime meeting. “A majority of opinion was probably for having a vote, but for a majority of people who were running, maybe not,” he said.

Bayh and other centrists, including Sens. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Jim Webb (D-Va.), have said they would not support imposing higher taxes on wealthy families given the rocky economy.
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/120687-dems-put-off-tax-cut-votes-until-after-election


I don't know why folks on political boards don't know what happened just a year ago? What does that say about us? We want to blame somebody, so might as well be this President? :shrug:

Rather, bump up the tax rate by about 3% over the current top rate.

raising the rich's top tax rate brings out all the usual (flawed and repugnant) arguments about slowing down the economy and job creation and so on. all lies, of course, but effective in today's climate.

the minimum tax idea, on the other hand, only affects rich people who have overused loopholes and deductions and so on to get their tax rate lower than the tax rate the middle class pay. so the tax "increase" on the rich is to a level no higher than many americans are already paying, so it's very hard to argue that this is unfair or adverse for the economy after all, if that tax rate is so bad, why not lower the taxes on the middle class?

a little late, though.

Why is it too late to generate more revenue?

Oxymoronic? Naw, just MORONIC. :puke: