The Gang of Six SIGNIFICANTLY LOWERS Taxes on the Wealthy

[Fearless]

These are the federal income tax brackets today:


single person non-corporate:


1. $0-8500 your tax bracket is 10%
2. $8500-34500 your tax bracket is 15%
3. $34000-83600 your tax bracket is 25%
4. $83,600-174400 your tax bracket is 28%
5. $174400-379150 your tax bracket is 33%
6. Above $379150 your tax bracket is 35%

file jointly (married):

1. $0-17000 your tax bracket is 10%
2. $17000-69000 your tax bracket is 15%
3. $69000-139350 your tax bracket is 25%
4. $139350-212300 your tax bracket is 28%
5. $212300-379150 your tax bracket is 33%
6. Above $379150 your tax bracket is 35%

file separately (married):

1. $0-8500 your tax bracket is 10%
2. $8500-34500 your tax bracket is 15%
3. $34000-69675 your tax bracket is 25%
4. $69675-106150 your tax bracket is 28%
5. $106150-189575 your tax bracket is 33%
6. Above $189575 your tax bracket is 35%

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

If the "Gang of Six" Plan passes this will change to THREE brackets at:

1. 8-12%
2. 14-22%
3. 23-29%

http://assets.nationaljournal.com/pdf/071911ConradBudgetExecutiveSummary.pdf

It is true that we don't know what the dollar figures will be but we do know that the HIGHEST BRACKET WILL PAY AT LEAST 6 TO 14% LESS. This is a second TAX GIVEAWAY FOR THE RICH!!


For heaven's sake call the White House. Tell them this is not acceptable!

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact
Comments: 202-456-1111


Your Senators: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Your Representatives: https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

Edit: Grammar.

[bbinacan]

1. Does it close any loopholes?

And if it does, what would be the NET tax effect?

[Fearless]

7. "If CBO scored this plan, it would find net tax relief of approximately $1.5 trillion."

http://assets.nationaljournal.com/pdf/071911ConradBudgetExecutiveSummary.pdf

(Top of page 4)

[FreakinDJ]

17. So the Gang of 6 want to "Double Down on the Bush Tax Cuts"

plunging the working poor and middle class further down the road to serfdom

[Fearless]

21. They will argue that the poor get a tax cut to... which they do...

But they will omit that tax cuts do NOT create jobs.

[FreakinDJ]

23. So where is the REVENUE - the bill is as bad as the rest

[Fearless]

25. EXACTLY!!

[WinkyDink]

45. Everyone at the 15% rate will be bumped up to 22%.

[Joe the Revelator]

53. Prove it.

[Erose999]

63. This agression will not stand, man.

[WinkyDink]

44. The poor need money, Social Security, Medicare. Not all poor are young and healthy.

[WinkyDink]

43. Doesn't matter. Not everyone would be using loopholes. GET THE MONEY STRAIGHT OFF THE TOP.

[SnakeEyes]

51. The rich use loopholes

They can afford the people to find and file them properly. That's how rich people don't pay the proper percent they are supposed to pay.

[jtown1123]

60. It closes deductions for the middle class to doubly screws us

[Mz Pip]

2. If this is true

and I mean if,then I'm done.

[Arugula Latte]

24. Not just you. The entire country is done.

We wouldn't survive that loss of revenue.

[gratuitous]

3. Please withhold your analysis or criticism until it's too late

At which point, you will be told that you shoulda said something earlier.

[RagAss]

9. Amen !

[slipslidingaway]

11. +1 n/t

[Maven]

13. Exactly.

[nashville_brook]

20. priceless!!

:applause:

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[QC]

37. LOL!

:rofl:

[Dawgs]

58. LOL!!! n/t

[Marrah_G]

59. Bingo

[jtown1123]

61. hahaha bless you

[muffin1]

66. !

Perfect reply! :rofl:

[Enthusiast]

74. Noticed that, too, did ya?

I hate to complain about the President even though he deserves it. I'll just shut up now.

[Occulus]

75. I am SO using that from now on

PERFECT response to that particular concern brigade.

[myrna minx]

77. LOL.

[tekisui]

82. Perfect!

[dana_b]

87. lol

or "well, did you criticize congress too??" - as if we're fuckin' stupid.

btw - :fistbump:

[Enrique]

91. yep

:thumbsup:

[Laf.La.Dem.]

4. DO NOT CALL THEM RICH

They are job creators!!!

:spank:

[mmonk]

16. LOL

Yes, proper respect for our lords and barons.

[Courtesy Flush]

92. Hey neighbor

New Iberia here :hi:

[tritsofme]

5. While closing loopholes and raising $1 trillion in revenue.

So what is the problem? Or is this just one of those knee jerk whining type of things?

[Fearless]

14. First that the cuts are for $1.5T as I quoted above... AND

Most of that it gets rid of the AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax) which is supposed to stop the wealthy from taking advantage of special tax cuts for the poor. So even if their $1T estimate is true... it puts us 500 BILLION further into the red in their OWN WORDS.

[bbinacan]

27. The AMT has become increasingly regressive. n/t

[Fearless]

29. There is no doubt it needs to be reformed... however not removed...

The theory behind it is VITAL. The rich should not profit from tax breaks set up for the poor.

[bbinacan]

31. Yep, go back to the original law that

targeted the the top 155 earners.

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. I think the "$1 trillion in revenue" from the loopholes offsets far large decreases from the rates

which is why the net effect is a decrease of $1.5 trillion in revenue. As well as the decrease in tax rates specified in the OP, it abolishes the AMT which cuts revenue by $1.7 trillion.

[rhett o rick]

Are you familiar with the expression, "Dont buy a pig in a poke"?

Lower tax rates on the rich and we will give you "closing loopholes" in a poke. Bullshit. Close the loopholes first then lets talk.

[muriel_volestrangler]

30. It's not even in a poke - they seem proud that it decreases tax revenue

I agree the loopholes should be closed first - that, and the increase in the debt ceiling.

[WinkyDink]

46. Raise the taxes on the wealthy, and raise TWO trillion. Where are all these closed loopholes, BTW?

[Mz Pip]

48. If that's the case, fine

A lot of corporations and very wealthy people come nowhere near to paying 35% in taxes. Sometimes with the loopholes it's way below even 10 - 20%.

So if lowering the max tax rate to 29% and closing loophole so that people actually end up paying 29%, then fine by me.

But color me skeptical.

[WatsonT]

65. Simplifying the tax code in a way that increases revenue seems fair to me

people had a big problem with GE paying zero taxes last year. And then a proposal comes along that might lower their theoretical tax rate but increase the actual amount they pay by eliminating loopholes and people are pissed that their tax rate is reduced.

We focus on the wrong things. The only thing that really matters is what people/corporations end up paying come tax season. Not what they might pay if they don't utilize loopholes.

[Me.]

6. Thanks Obama For Change They Can Believe In

[AzDar]

8. K & R

& oh, we are so fucked...

[woo me with science]

10. Of course they do.

Rope-a-dope!

[still_one]

12. and how will this help the deficit again? /nt

[The Magistrate]

22. Honestly, Sir: When a Family Has More Bills Than Income, Dad Always Asks for Less Hours At the Plant

Taking in less money is the very best way to pay off mounting bills --- every family in the U.S. of A. knows that!

[still_one]

38. I appreciate your wit /nt

[Starry Messenger]

15. Of course it does.

This is a heist.

[Still Waters]

19. That's some great hope and change there for them

a lot of stress, fear, and pain for the dwindling middle class

[NutmegYankee]

26. I'd only accept this if ALL income was taxed at that bracket.

As that would actually raise taxes on the rich, who often pay 15% on capital gains.

But I doubt this will happen...

[Recursion]

57. Well, not yet "all", but "more" income is taxed at that bracket

That's how it ends up being revenue-positive.

[rhett o rick]

28. They will never, ever close loopholes. Lower the rates AFTER THE LOOPHOLE ARE CLOSED. Dont be a

gullible.

[SnakeEyes]

52. They were closed once before

Tip did a great job in the 80s. Problem is politicians let them creep back in later. They can be closed again

[rhett o rick]

54. Not by the current cast of thieves in Congress. nm

[Mimosa]

33. Steve Wynn must love them. *gag*

Will Obama agree to this economic piracy?

[TBF]

34. As we both know Mr. Obama is quite good at giving away the farm -

he's done it several times now.

[robinlynne]

41. He says he supports it and it is along the lines of his own thoughts.

[soryang]

35. The "Grand Bargain" equals "The Grand Sellout"

More Obama gifts for the Wall Street Grifters.

[Dawson Leery]

36. This is a tax giveaway for multi-millionaires and billionaires.

[Enthusiast]

80. Call them by their real name-

Job Creators. :crazy:

[Mimosa]

39. I'm missing our blue link friends on this topic.

I want some counter arguments.

[jtown1123]

64. There are none. This plan is so bad it seems like a nightmare.

[muffin1]

67. They're probably still meeting...

Should we go with 'he doesn't have a magic wand' again? 'Rope-a-dope'? 'Chess'? 'He's the adult in the room' making the tough choices? 'Would you rather have Bachmann or Palin'? Who knows? Maybe they'll come up with a new one - these sure as hell are getting old and moldy.

I'm sure we'll all find out soon. Oh, joy. :hi:

[ddeclue]

40. I think I just threw up a little in my mouth...

:puke:

[Lasher]

42. Why is any form of a tax cut included in a deficit reduction bill?

Why would any form of an actual Democrat fall for such treachery, much less endorse it?

[WinkyDink]

47. What LOOPHOLES are allegedly cut? I keep reading about them......

[jtown1123]

62. They cut tax deductions that help the middle class...disgusting

[neverforget]

49. Only in DC would they solve a deficit problem with less revenue

[begin_within]

50. What it should be

1. $0-8500 your tax bracket is 0%
2. $8500-34500 your tax bracket is 10%
3. $34000-83600 your tax bracket is 25%
4. $83,600-174400 your tax bracket is 35%
5. $174400-379150 your tax bracket is 45%
6. $379150-500000 your tax bracket is 55%
7. Above $500000 your tax bracket is 65%

[Fearless]

55. +1

[Enthusiast]

81. With no loopholes.

I mean, we are at war all over the fucking place.

[Recursion]

56. Well, they'll have a lower rate, but probably end up paying the same or a little more

It's tough to honestly call this a "giveaway".

[Fearless]

68. Closing loopholes creates a 1T dollar revenue... the tax cut costs 1.5T... net -500 Billion.

[Recursion]

70. I don't trust any legislators' scoring on this

I'll wait to see what CBO says. Though, yeah, the spin (intended for the Norquist crowd) that this is a 1.5 trillion cut is troubling, but I think it's probably playing a little fast with the truth.

[Fearless]

89. If anything the CBO will find it worse rather than better.

This is what the gang of six believes... -500 Billion... CBO will likely find greater.

[Recursion]

90. Per Yglesias, the gang of six 1 trillion is *on top of* letting the Bush tax cuts expire

http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/07/20/274271/gang-of-six-proposal-raises-much-more-revenue-than-deal-john-boehner-already-rejected/

That's a good sign, to me.

[bklyncowgirl]

69. As always the devil's in the details

Right now, with all the deductions available to them the rich usually end up paying at a rate far below what they are actually assessed at. Eliminate the deductions and you'd probably get as much or more out of them then they're paying now. Same thing with corporate taxes.

The devil, of course is in the details. My big concern is that the deductions that are going to be cut are going to be the few that the middle class can take advantage of i.e. deductions for home mortgage and for state and local taxes--a big deal for people who live where I do--New Jersey.

For example, with the home mortgage deduction, I would think that an elimination of deductions on interest on second homes and on primary residences more than a certain percentage above the median for your area would be fair. (Obviously I don't own a second home!).

For social security I would support first raising the cap and then if and only if that's not enough looking at benefits. I don't see anything about raising the cap here.

[Recursion]

71. Why should you get a deduction for your mortgage when I don't get one for my rent?

I never understood that.

[bklyncowgirl]

73. Actually, a "residential" allowance could be considered for both renters and owners

The idea has always been to encourage home ownership. I have not strong feeling about it either way. I suppose a "residential" allowance would have to be regionally assessed as housing prices vary considerably.

[Recursion]

76. But why do we want to encourage home ownership?

And why are we using the tax code to do it? (I know you're not the one who made the decision or anything, it's just always stuck in my craw because I've always lived in cities where buying a house was a silly idea.)

[LoZoccolo]

78. Because people who own property in a community have an incentive to strengthen and maintain it.

I'm a renter, by the way, but I do see the logic in this argument. You have an incentive in the upkeep of your community if your property value is tied to it.

[dreamnightwind]

83. All homes are owned

It's a question of whether they're owned by the occupants or by someone who is profiting on the inability of the occupants to afford the home they live in. I think homes should, in general, belong to the occupants. Investment ownership is profiteering and should be discouraged.

I'm less certain about the home mortgage interest deduction. If it was removed, it would further deflate housing prices, since owners would be paying more. Deflating housing prices even more, in this market, is death to many existing home owners (me). We'd walk away, broke and with ruined credit, increasing the downward spiral of the economy. After great pain, it might bring home prices down to where working-class people could afford them. Or it might open the floodgates for vultures to step in and buy tons of property cheap, then rent it out to the less fortunate (not a desirable scenario).

I generally don't believe in better-off people renting homes to the less affluent, it just seems wrong. I know there are some situations where a person would actually find it desirable to rent rather than to own, but these situations should be rare and occupant home ownership should be the preferred situation.

[spooked911]

86. the mortgage deduction results in a HUGE tax break

that many homeowners have been counting on. They shouldn't take it away but phase it out if they are going to get rid of it.

The mortgage deduction also seems to be subsidizing the banking industry to some extent, which I don't think is a good thing.

[Recursion]

88. I don't want a house. I'm fine in an apartment. They should all be condo?

What would people with bad credit do? Or people who have to move a lot? Or people who are starting out and living in a city where prices are sky-high? Some of us don't want the hassle and expense of owning a home. I'm not sure that's quite as rare as you think.

[Enthusiast]

72. Why bother to call the White House?

Are you joking? It's clear where Obama stands on this issue. He created THE FUCKING DEFICIT COMMISSION. He didn't listen to me before, on any issue. Millions of us have been ignored.

[spooked911]

84. but you better vote for him in 2012!

Can't have the crazy asshole Republican win.

:sarcasm:

[Dr Fate]

79. Shared sacrifice. Between the poor and the middle class, that is. n/t

n/t

[spooked911]

85. these people are simply evil

goddamn them to hell