So people making more than $200,000 per year are going to pay for the American Jobs Act

[NNN0LHI]

Who can argue with that?

Don

[NNN0LHI]

1. You know, I didn't think this thread would be real popular on DU before I posted it

Wonder why that is?

Quick, isn't there a cow mooing in the driveway somewhere?

:rofl:

Don

[LoZoccolo]

3. If people really wanted this, they'd be cheering it on.

If they are right-wing trolls posing as left-wingers, they'd want it to sink because they'll have a harder time dividing DU.

[Fumesucker]

4. A little context?

Perchance a link?

[NNN0LHI]

11. A link to what? You want a link to what I was thinking?

This is a funny place.

Don

[Fumesucker]

15. Why on Earth would you think that?

It goes against everything that's happened politically in the USA for the last thirty years.

[Angry Dragon]

37. I did not read it as your opinion........

[NutmegYankee]

5. Well, we can't argue with it! So what's there to say?

I mean, I could do a :toast: or :fistbump: or :headbang: or :woohoo:, but that's about it.

[LoZoccolo]

2. K&R n/t

[rucky]

6. Eric Cantor?

[former9thward]

7. People making over 200k are not going to pay for the Jobs Act.

Charities are. People over 200k will lose their charitable deductions. Since that is supposed to raise $400 billion that means an effective loss to charities of $1 trillion because if you don't get the deduction then you won't make a contribution.

[NNN0LHI]

8. Well lets just consider this increase in your taxes as charity then

There, that make you feel better?

Don

[former9thward]

23. I don't make 200k so it doesn 't make me feel anything.

Increases in taxes are not charity though. You have a weird world view if you think that.

[leftstreet]

9. Good. Charities only perpetuate poverty n/t

[Llewlladdwr]

12. Charities perpetuate poverty? How does that work? NT

[leftstreet]

21. Think about it n/t

[former9thward]

25. It looks like you can't back up your 'point'.

Not surprising.

[leftstreet]

26. I've never come across someone who didn't 'get' it. I'll Google for you n/t

[AngryAmish]

44. A charity gave me a scholarship to college

When I was in high school my dad got sick and could not work anymore. I was working and did what I could but there was no way I was going to college without that scholarship. I was poor then, got an education, am rich now. That charity, at least in my case, ended some poverty.

[elehhhhna]

28. charitable donations by the wealthy DROPPED DramATICALLY WHEN THE buSH Cuts

kicked in.

please.

[former9thward]

41. Please yourself.

I am not making up the numbers. Just going by what Obama is saying. If eliminating the deductions for charity will raise 400 billion then that means one trillion dollars of giving will be lost. Those are Obama's numbers not mine.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

60. +1

[Llewlladdwr]

10. So much for no new taxes on anyone making less than $250K. NT

[sufrommich]

13. I'm OK with that. nt

[NNN0LHI]

14. Just look at it like you are doing your fair share to help the country out in its time of need

Buck up.

:patriot:

[Llewlladdwr]

16. Will you still feel that way when it's down to $150K?

Or 100K? How about $75K?

[sufrommich]

20. Are you against taxes going up to pre Reagan levels? nt

[NutmegYankee]

22. You do realize you are wrong right?

Obama campaigned on rolling back the Bush cuts above 200k for individuals and 250k for families.

[hfojvt]

36. I'd love to see it go down to $75K

70% of American households make less than $75K.

[Drahthaardogs]

49. $75K for a couple is just middle class, not even upper middle class

Bad idea.

[hfojvt]

50. so apparently to you "the middle" means 70% and up.

see, for me, middle would be more 30-70%. When you've got 70% below you, you are not in the middle any more.

[Drahthaardogs]

51. Oh spare me

75K for a couple is still middle class, upper middle class is considered 100-125K. You are trying to use percentages (50%)= middle class. There is working class, middle class, upper class, rich, and super rich. Most people are working class. Most basic professionals are middle class. No, I would not support a higher tax on anyone making less than 125K per year, or in other words, anyone considered middle class or working class.

[hfojvt]

57. that's generally what the word "middle" means

you seem to want to redefine it so that the people in the middle are the working class, and the people in the top group, except for the very top, is the middle class.

"Upper middle class is considered 100-125K"

Considered by whom? People that I know making far less than 50K would consider 125K to be pretty focking rich. As Obama said during the debate with Hillary "$106,000 is not middle class, less than 6% of the country makes more than $106,000".

[Drahthaardogs]

61. It is not "generally" what middle class means

You want to re-define a class definition that has been loosely accepted for decades, not me. 50% does not equal "middle class" You and Obama seem to think that the percentage of people who make up the class dictate what is middle class. Did it ever occur to either of you that middle class = middle salary, somewhere between poor and rich? Please read this simple Wikipedia entry so you too can understand what middle class means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class


I see no benefit in taxing the hell out of white collar professionals, i.e. engineers, nurses, etc. or skilled laborers like welders, electricians, plumbers, etc. These are the middle class folks, and are far and away the backbone of our economy. These people pay taxes and have extra income to consume.

[hfojvt]

62. that wiki article starts out by admitting ambiguity

"While the concept is typically ambiguous in popular opinion and common language use."

You want to set your own definition as some standard that everybody should accept. I also note that right away they start emphasizing the "UPPER" middle class "Overall, middle class persons, especially upper middle class individuals, are characterized by .."

Nope, the word middle should mean middle even when it is attached to the word class. I know that people who make $100K want to think that they are not rich, because they keep looking up at the people making more or about the same and ignoring the much larger group of people, who seem to be beneath their notice, people who make much less money. As Bender said in the Breakfast Club "You don't know any of my friends, You don't look at any of my friends, and you certainly wouldn't condescend to speak to any of my friends."

Further "taxing the hell" is one hell of a rightwing meme. The tax increases on those poor struggling $80,000 a year households would actually be very small. http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/140

"So with a rather modest tax increase of $179 on the upper middle class and $1,339 on the little rich brings in another $30 billion a year. Never mind that it is crazy to ask people making $130,000 to pay another $1200 in taxes. Apparently Democrats now would rather increase taxes on people making less than $20,000 a year and to cut funding from LIHEAP and VAWA, which Obama has done and proposes to do."

I don't think $179 is gonna kill them. Nobody scream very much when my taxes (on my $12,000 income) were increased by $160 in Obama's tax "compromise".

[Drahthaardogs]

63. Whatever.

$80,000 per year is about what two married teachers would make. Call it "rich" if you want. It's not and they don't need a tax increase.

[hfojvt]

65. it's more than what 80% of the country makes

and nobody NEEDS a tax increase, but if you do not increase taxes for those making $80,000 a year by $200, then you also end up not increasing taxes on people who make MORE than $80,000, including all of the multimillionaires.

Those who make over $200,000 are perhaps 10 million people. As they save 3% on their income between $80,000 and $200,000 that becomes #36 billion in lost revenue. Well what is better, $36 billion for society or $3,600 for somebody who makes more than $200,000? And it is only a tax increase of 1.8%. That's hardly "taxing the hell out of them".

The Bush tax cuts should definitely be reversed for those with income over $75,000, but seemingly those people, at least some of them, are too selfish to be asked "what they can do for their country". They will give up $300 of their tax cuts when it is pried from their cold, dead hands.

[NutmegYankee]

19. Families over 250k, individuals over 200k. Nothing has changed. nt

[Better Believe It]

17. Of course they will. Well, that sounds good in an election campaign anyway!

[Bobbie Jo]

27. ?

What does that even mean?

[LooseWilly]

18. I'm looking forward to seeing Obama fight for something...

This plan doesn't seem awful. Of course, the part about maintaining the cut on employee contributions toward Social Security is a bit of a Trojan Horse for the Republicans (or the DLC) to use to later justify cutting social security benefits (argue that "it's running at a deficit"- and don't admit that a cut on taxes to fund it is contributing to that deficit...), but maybe, if Obama can actually fight for something successfully... he might grow enough of a spine to fight for a second thing.

I'm not holding my breath though. ;)

[lumpy]

24. He's out fighting for it as we speak. Duh.

v

[Occulus]

43. At this point, when Obama fights for something,

I get nervous about the something's survival.

[girl gone mad]

29. I can argue with it.

I think it's dumb economics.

Raise taxes when inflation starts to become a serious burden, not in the midst of deflationary depression. We need as much money to stay in the private sector as possible.

Right now is the time to expand our deficit. Like Richard Koo says, it's incredibly irresponsible to even be talking about reducing the deficit.

[Angry Dragon]

38. No

you need the bulk of the monies to shift down to the bottom, to the people that will spend it
you need the cash to circulate, it is estimated that the monies then will be spent 6-7 times

[girl gone mad]

39. Far better to spend without raising taxes right now..

Or to target a much higher income.

People in the 200K income bracket likely do spend much of their income, and they invest as well. We need that money to stay in the economy.

Decreasing the private sector surplus through increased taxation forces people to borrow more from banks. Not good at a time when the goal should be to reduce private debt levels as much as possible.

Alternately, these people will simply cut back on spending and investing, which is deflationary.

[Angry Dragon]

40. Any facts or figures to back up your claims??

The top hedge fund manager personally made $5.4 BILLION in 2010
and paid 15% on his money.

Investing is not keeping the money in the economy when corporations are sitting on trillions of dollars.
Keeping the money in the economy is putting the bulk of the money in the hands of the people at the bottom.
They do not have the money to invest.

So if you have some facts to back up your opinion now is the time to throw them out there
or your opinion is just a republican talking point...........

[girl gone mad]

48. He isn't talking about just raising taxes on top hedge fund managers.

He's talking about raising taxes on anyone making over $200K.

We can put money into the hands of people at the bottom without taking it out of the hands of people in the middle, which is counterproductive.

The economics of it is simple. Read Richard Koo. The way to decrease unemployment is to increase the deficit. The public deficit represents a private sector surplus. More available money in the economy means more money to spend and invest without having to borrow from banks. This is what we need, regardless of your opinion of hedge fund managers, which is beside the point.

[Hippo_Tron]

56. If you're close to $200k, the amount will be pretty small

We're talking about returning to the Clinton era tax rates which is a 4-5% increase on income OVER $200k. So if you have $250k of income (AFTER DEDUCTIONS), you'd pay an extra 4-5% on the last 50k. That's about $2500 per year, or about 1% of taxable income. A pretty small increase.

[Hippo_Tron]

55. There's a difference between deficit reduction and taxing the rich

You're right that reducing the deficit has a negative stimulative effect according to Keynes' models. However, taxing the rich, and then spending that money on the non-rich would be stimulus neutral. It would also alleviate the suffering of the non-rich during this time. We should indeed be deficit spending but there's no reason we can't tax the rich as well, so long as we spend that money rather than using it to pay down the debt.

[girl gone mad]

58. It's not Keynesian theory, it's just regular national accounting.

Raising taxes on people making over 200K increases the demand for money (dollars).

How will the rich get the dollars they need to pay their higher tax bills? They'll cut discretionary spending and reduce their savings. Worse, the rentiers will just raise rents and squeeze the money back out of the productive classes.

This won't relieve the suffering of the non-rich because there will be no net job creation.

This is the kind of policy action you take when you're worried about inflation. It's a bad move in the middle of a recession.

[Hippo_Tron]

64. Tax increases = automatic price increases is an economic fallacy that the right uses all the time

It's true in perfectly competitive markets, but those are virtually non-existent in the real world. Prices are set to maximize profit. If a landlord can get more money by raising the rent, they will raise the rent, regardless of whether they get a tax increase or not. Even that is an over-simplification of how prices are set, but I won't go into behavioral economics.

It was the same crap the banks kept saying about interchange fees. If congress regulates interchange fees there will be no more free checking because they have to make up for it somewhere. Yet they did regulate interchange fees and somehow I still have free checking. The fact is that when you make billions of dollars in annual profits, there's nothing forcing you to pass the cost on to consumers.

Additionally, any cuts in discretionary spending made by those making over $200k (assuming they happen), will be replaced by spending from lower income people for who are going to spend a much higher percentage of their income.

[Nye Bevan]

30. Obama taxing the rich to create jobs = 4 net recs?

What's going on here?

[NNN0LHI]

31. I was shocked it got 4

That is the truth.

As for your question, "What's going on here?", think about it for a minute. I think you can figure it out.

Here is a hint: Trust Fund Baby

Don

[Claudia Jones]

33. it is an obvious trap

That is why people are avoiding it. The OP is misleading, not to mention taunting and inflammatory.

No, the hundreds of people here who do not agree with you on this are not trust fund babies. I don't believe that you thought they were. It was just a clever, calculated, and malicious

[Number23]

34. Particularly as that has become the Demand du Jour around here

It's very interesting that now that it looks as though the pres will raise taxes to create jobs, the same folks demanding that he do just this are now exceptionally quiet.

Not the first time this strange phenomena has happened here though. Won't be the last.

[sad sally]

32. Since Congress and the President are responsible writing and for approving the tax laws,

this part of the Jobs Plan may be delayed (the paying for it part).

The tax code is filled with a total of $1.1 trillion in credits, deductions and exemptions, and since people are free to arrange their financial affairs in such a way to take advantage of reducing and minimizing tax liability, getting tax laws changed that have benefitted the well-to-do might not be so easy.

[hfojvt]

35. you mean it already passed the House and Senate?

Holy cripes that was fast!

Who knew that the Republicans would fold so quickly?

[Atman]

42. Okay, so this will probably affect me.

Oh well. It won't change my life or my lifestyle. If it helps our country's economic situation, I'll suck it up. Understand, I'm right on the cusp, but this could still hit me. What I don't understand is how someone making real serious big bucks is bitching about a tax increase to help his/her country. If it won't hurt me, it certainly won't hurt some douche bag making 7 billion dollars a year.

[TwilightGardener]

45. I'm not arguing with that. Not at all.

[BR_Parkway]

46. They'd finally live up to the name "job creators"

[LadyInAZ]

47. I hope not... just lower the bar

just a little... then I'm affected... I'm tired of being hit as middle class financially... we are not rich... we went to school, worked many hours, climbed the latter of success... and we have very little breaks when it comes to taxes or purchasing of goods... let a car dealer knows what you making... $$$$$ goes up... i tired of being the middle target.... tax the rich instead.... they can afford it

[Zax2me]

52. And these small business owners - will now start hiring?

After another tax raise?
The sense here is non-existent.

[TwilightGardener]

53. Lots of people here arguing with it. Raising taxes, eliminating tax breaks

sounds good until OBAMA suggests it, and then it's bad. Beat him over the head for not raising taxes, call him stupid for suggesting raising taxes. It's how I know so much of DU is not sincere.

[girl gone mad]

54. I am very sincere.

Raise taxes on the highest brackets once we pull out of this deflationary recession/depression. Raising taxes on the middle brackets now is a big mistake. This is basic accounting, not rocket science. Here's what the math looks like:

Current Account Balance + Government Deficit = Private Sector Surplus

=> Reducing the deficit reduces private sector savings.

Simple. Why can't Obama's economic advisers figure it out? I have no idea.

[mmonk]

59. The House where it will die.