Repub tax policy, gravy for rich, hostile to the middle class

We see this over and over, the repubs do giveaways to the rich and stick it to the middle class. Bush did it in 2001 tax cuts, that benefited the rich more than the middle class, and they are back at it again on the alternative minimum tax deal going on now.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/12/08/pf/taxes/amt_next_week/index.htm?postversion=2007120806

Repubs just protecting their blue blood buddies, hey we're rich, we can buy our own congressmen, and we'll make the middle class pay for the govt.

The AMT has for 20 years been a growing TAX INCREASE on the middle class because it was not originally indexed for inflation. Each year, more and more middle class earners grow into what was 'rich man's pay' in the 70's when this was invented. The repubs like it, they can do nothing and raise taxes on the middle class.

Now the AMT produces $50B a year, and the middle class has to pay it under a system that originally was designed only to tax the wealthiest, but was not indexed to inflation.

The rich should be paying the tax, period. The repubs show no fiscal responsibility by allowing a one year fix, with nobody else paying the tax, and allowing it to just go to the budget deficit. This will lead to a continuing fall in the value of the dollar, and rising gasoline prices at the pump as the dollar falls and it takes more dollars to buy a barrel of imported oil.

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. No free lunches.

 

Strange how you like to make everything a partisan issue. Dems had 8 years in the WH to reverse the AMT.

It makes no sense to provide tax relief by raising taxes on someone else. Much like the Dems wants to do with the SCHIP program by increasing benefits for the poor but tax them with more tobacco taxes to pay for it.

We have a $3 trillion budget. Stop spending so much and we wouldn't have to continue raising taxes. Both parties are guilty.

BTW, tax revenues when up after the tax cuts. Funny how that works, huh?

 

The politician most responsible for the relentless expansion of the Alternative Minimum in recent years is Bill Clinton, says the Wall Street Journal.

 

This is not about trying to provide tax relief. This is about trying to put the tax where it belongs. When the AMT was started it was intended to only hit the rich, but it was not indexed to inflation. If we don't cut spending, we should not 'just cut taxes', or the deficit will go up and the value of the dollar will fall, and oil will cost more, and the middle class will be hit that way. So somebody should pay the tax, or we should cut spending.

If someone is gonna pay the tax, should it be the middle class who have crept into those brackets through inflation, or the rich, who the tax was originally designed for?

True. Like the repubs pass a $500B medicare drug benefit with NO NEW TAX to pay for it, and by law prohibit the govt. from negotiating for volume discounts, guaranteeing big pharma CEOs their bonuses for years...

The tax cuts didn't work to stimulate the economy in 2001 and 2002. That's why Greenspan and the fed had to drop their drawers (fed funds to 1% in 2003) in order to get the economy going again and to help get Bush reelected. The tax cuts did not work, because they mainly went to the wealthiest americans. What do the wealthy do when the get a tax break, they save it and buy a stock or a bond. What does the middle class do with a tax break, depending where you are in the middle class, save it or pay off credit cards, or buy something they need like a new car, or a semester of tuition.

It was the abnormally low rates that birthed the inflation in housing prices and the subprime mortgage debacle, combined with lack of oversight of the mortgage industry, which was abused to the detriment of many borrowers and investors.

The abnormally low rates were the sellout to get Bush reelected. Independent Federal Reserve Board? I don't think so.

Don't drink the repub coolaid. Tax cuts are not alway good. When combined with spending increases like has happened the last 7 years, they have decimated the value of the US dollar, and accounted for rising inflation, mainly in oil, other commodities like gold, silver, copper, housing, health care, college tuition, food. Oil and food are typically omitted from 'core inflation' because they are volatile, but if they remain elevated as they have for the last year, they ARE PART OF CORE INFLATION.

 

You can thank Bill Clinton.

The vast majority of personal income tax is paid by the rich, not the middle class. The top 1% pays about 40% of our taxes. Maybe you would like them to pay all of our taxes?

A bipartisan bill. Did you forget that fact? I sure in the hell don't support such spending, do you? Want to cut medicare, do you? I would.

Lower taxes and lower spending benefits everyone. Funny how we forget that these rich people are the ones employing Americans and investing in America.

 

Who Pays Income Taxes?

 

Very narrow minded view. Do you think Clinton alone is responsible for AMT, passed 30 years prior and maintained across all administrations and congresses? Naw.

The big mistake has been not indexing for inflation. Nobody has stepped up to that one. Then you could have a coherent discussion on what level it should kick in at. As it is now, eventually, everyone will grow into it, and that's wrong.

Another thing about Clinton, he did other things that would hurt the middle class, that few are aware of, such as changing the calculation of inflation to understate it, to reduce the cost of living adjustments to social security recipients and govt. retirees. That shaved trillions off the long term cost of social security future unfunded liabilities, and assisted him in balancing the budget in 2000. Not everything he did was FOR the middle class, but those things he did that were not helpful to the middle class CONTRIBUTED TO FISCAL CONSERVATISM, a balanced budget, and a more sound finacial future for the nation.

When Bush has come passed legislation, it has tended to target assistance to the wealthy while being fiscally liberal and decimating the dollar, creating the largest single year run-up in debt, and a 60% increase in the total US debt in just 7 years. This is fiscally irresponsible and harmful to the middle class.

The poor already pay no taxes, they get earned income credits to boot. But yes, the rich can and should pay more of the tax burden. Warren Buffet has about $50B and it grows at least 10% a year, or $5B a year. You could tax him at 80% and he'd still grow his net worth by a billion a year. He says the govt. should tax guys like himself and Bill Gates more, and I agree with him.

And like all bi-partisan bills, a compromise. The repubs would not budge on taking out the provision to disallow negotiation on the volume discounts, guaranteeing a windfall to big pharma. The repubs controlled the house, senate and white house.

Overly broad and clearly not always true. We could eliminate all taxes and all govt. and go back to being like the native indians, roving tribes, and I don't think that's what anyone wants.

Nobody forgets that the rich employ americans (when they're not off shoring their jobs). And they employed americans in the 90's and paid higher tax rates, because it was still a great deal for them. And they made PLENTY of money, there was no need to give them a gift, at the expense of becoming fiscally irresponsible, decimating the dollar, creating inflation that robs the purchasing power of all americans.

The tax cuts failed to stimulate the economy early in the decade and the federal reserve saved it with the lowest interest rates in 40 years to get Bush re-elected.

Clinton raised taxes on the rich in 1993, balanced the budget by 2000, and with less govt. demand for debt, interest rates came down naturally due to less demand, which reduced the cost of small business to raise funds and start businesses, and ushered in a very nice 6 year expansion without resorting to fiscally irresponsible measures.

 

Who should pay the taxes?

 

It's not me with the narrow minded view of laying all the blame on one party. I never see you complaining about democrats. Guess will find out if you're willing to do so when the Dems take the WH and they pass another massive gov't spending program called Universal Health Care and have to raise taxes on everyone to pay for it.

The entire tax structure is flawed. Simply redoing the AMT will not solve our problems. It needs to be simplified, close all the loopholes, and have very few deductions. We also have some of the highest corporate rates in the world, which is another reason why so many of them go elsewhere.

There are very few Buffets and Gates in this country. The top 1% includes people making less than $1M and the average AGI is about $350,000. Yeah, tax them at 80%. The robinhood approach has proven not to work in this country. Katrina exposed how well this philosophy worked in New Orleans.

The Dems didn't oppose spending $500B on this program, they opposed the way it was being spent. You are willing to accept huge gov't spending programs, if done your way, despite the overwhelming evidence that our gov't has failed all of us managing big spending programs.

Anyone can balance a budget on the back of the military and taxpayers, but it doesn't make for good policy. Bush's policy has been disastrous, but higher taxes are not the answer.

 

Wrong question. Why do we need to raise taxes at all? We are overtaxed in this country ... federal and state income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, local taxes, corporate taxes, etc.

Spend responsibly and more taxes aren't needed. If the Dems truly don't like the drug program, repeal it and use that money to pay for the AMT proposal.