Now that Democrats have been reduced to a minority party in the Senate, having lost the House in the 2010 elections, they’ve decided they are going to push a redistributive taxation plan, with no chance of success
Democrats, in a stark shift in messaging, to make big tax-break pitch for middle class
Senior Democrats, dissatisfied with the party’s tepid prescriptions for combating income inequality, are drafting an “action plan†that calls for a massive transfer of wealth from the super-rich and Wall Street traders to the heart of the middle class.
The centerpiece of the proposal, set to be unveiled Monday by Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), is a “paycheck bonus credit†that would shave $2,000 a year off the tax bills of couples earning less than $200,000. Other provisions would nearly triple the tax credit for child care and reward people who save at least $500 a year.
The windfall — about $1.2 trillion over a decade — would come directly from the pockets of Wall Street “high rollers†through a new fee on financial transactions, and from the top 1 percent of earners, who would lose billions of dollars in lucrative tax breaks.
There is zero chance of this getting passed in either the House or Senate. It will probably not even make it out of committee. This is a cute little stunt designed to dupe people into thinking that Democrats care.
The plan also would use the tax code to prod employers to boost wages, which have been stagnant for four decades despite gains in productivity and profits.
I wonder if they would take responsibility when workers are shifted to part time or are replaced with technology?
With Republicans in control on Capitol Hill, Democrats have little hope of pushing the plan through Congress. Instead, they are looking to craft an alternative to GOP plans to cut tax rates for the top earners, and to shape a new Democratic agenda for 2016 that offers voters the promise of genuine change.
In other words, this is a game to Democrats, who could have attempted this when they had full control of Congress from 2007 through 2010, as well as pushing it during the past 2 years when they had full control of the Senate.
“We need a pro-growth economic agenda,†said Rep. Richard E. Neal (Mass.), a senior Democrat on the influential House Ways and Means Committee. “We need to embrace the traditional Democratic positions of optimism and aspiration.â€
In Liberal World, pro-growth means taking from some and giving to others, rather than creating the atmosphere where people can succeed. All we need to do is look to Detroit and other Liberal cities to see how these policies work. This is class warfare from a party that receives vast amounts of funding from 1%ers and is mostly run by 1%ers.
If the democrats provide and more of their “help” to the middle class, the middle class will soon cease to exist.
Do you think it is a good idea Teach? Do you think that billionaires should pay more?
or pay less?
Sooooo the 1% who run the Dem party want to increase the taxes they must pay, please contrast this with the 1% that run the GOP who do NOT want to have to pay more taxes.
sham theater b? how about 50 bills to stop Obamacare ?
I thought tax cuts were always good. Why would you oppose tax cuts to those making less than $200,000 a year?? Because the super wealthy will pay a bit more?? These are the true colors of the modern conservative movement.
Do you find it at all interesting that the Republican Party opposes tax cuts for the middle class? I don’t. Anyone paying attention recognizes that the GOP is a wholly owned subsidiary of Wealth, Inc.
Jeff and John,
Imagine, if you had an education and some knowledge, you would find the problems with what is being proposed by the Dems. As it is, neither of you are much more than hot air. I wonder if that is bad for the climate?
How would you combat inequality in wealth and income? Or do you not think it’s a problem? Working class wages have been stagnant since the Reagan Revolution (a coincidence?). Although worker productivity has steadily increased the rewards of productivity accrues to the wealthy.
This is not by accident and is not “natural”. Our governments (Reps and Dems, both) enact policies to transfer these gains to the investor and political donor class. Our “trade” policies put our working classes in direct competition with low paid foreign workers, but benefitting our capitalist class. Our energy policies subsidize fossil fuels keeping international transportation costs artificially low. Our anti-union policies at both the state and federal levels keep downward pressure on wages. The Federal Reserve combats even reasonable inflation at the expense of employment. Our politicians don’t understand even basic fiscal responsibility during a recession and punish millions of potential workers by keeping unemployment unnecessarily high. We tax unearned income at lower rates than we tax income from labor!! Our payroll taxes are regressive, taking a higher percentage from the working classes than from the monied elites.
It’s about time Democrats started acting like Democrats instead of Republican-lite. Over 3 decades of Reaganomics has brought our economy to where it is today. If you wanted to prime a workers’ revolution you couldn’t have designed a better way.
Here’s what billionaire Nick Hanaurer wrote:
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014.html#ixzz3OdRorPew
The social network of America cannot survive this trajectory. If it makes you feel any better, this kerfuffle will occur before the worst of global warming.
one note dave,
You never seem to make a comment relevant to a topic, only that others are dumber than you are.
Why is that?
Do you think that worsening income inequality is a problem? If not, why not?
Hey, Jeffery, how’s the wife?
downingpuppies,
Rich and beautiful. How’s your life partner doing?
J-“Our energy policies subsidize fossil fuels keeping international transportation costs artificially low.” What? No, our energy policies subsidize “green energy”, many of which aren’t paying taxes to begin with, because they aren’t viable entities. “Subsidies”, by definition are money given to corporation or individuals by the government. Tax breaks, of course, let you keep more of what was already yours. What fossil fuel companies mostly receive are tax breaks, the same kind of tax breaks available to other companies. “Over 3 decades of Reaganomics have brought the economy to where it is today.” More BS from J. We have the one of, if not the most, progressive tax system among of the Western World. Hardly any free country relies on a relatively small amount of taxpayers as the US does. As stated many times, the total share of the tax bill paid by “the 1%” has actually gone up as tax rates came down. In 1980, when Reagan came into office, the top 1% of wage earners paid 19% of the total tax bill. In 2011 (most recent), the top 1% paid 35% of the total tax bill. In 2011 the top 50% of wage earners paid 97% of the total tax bill, the bottom 50% paid only 3% of the total tax bill. Seems “Reaganomics” makes the rich pay more.
j,
You can’t redefine words. A subsidy is a subsidy.
I assume you agree with the other policies since you only seem to care about making certain the wealthy keep their subsides, er, tax breaks. Even after I’ve explained your flaw in conflating the percentage of total income taxes paid by the wealthy with the actual tax burden (and we’ll overlook your ignoring payroll taxes as part of total taxes)… I just can’t. How can payroll taxes account for nearly 40% of federal revenue if the wealthy are paying 97% of “total” taxes? (Hint: The wealthy do not pay 97% of total taxes.) I doubt you do any original research, so you should find out who is lying to you.
Reaganomics raised payroll taxes and cut income and unearned tax rates for the wealthy. The top marginal rate on income dropped from 70% to 28% under Reagan. Does it make sense to you that you can cut taxes on the wealthy so drastically and their taxes actually go up? Does that arithmetic make sense to you? Have you ever even thought about it or do you take someone’s word that those tax cuts resulted in the wealthy paying more?
No one is redefining words- look up the defintion of subsidy- you’ll find it’s not the same as tax break. I explained the difference earlier- on is giving money to you, the other lets you keep more of your own. I’m sorry this simple concept is over your head. “If the wealthy are paying 97% of the taxes.” Of course I’m talking of income taxes, but since when did the top 50% of wage earners become “wealthy”? What’s your definition of wealthy this week?. “Does it make sense to you that taxes were cut on the wealthy and their taxes actually go up?” Yes, to people that can understand math. The numbers don’t lie. There can be many reasons- they made more money, there’s more of them. If the 1% of wage earners becomes a larger number of people, might not that be a way for them to pay a larger share of the total income tax bill? Yes, it could. If the same number of 1% ers now makes more money to be taxed, might not that be a way for their share to go up while the top marginal rate goes down? Yes, it would.
the rich have gotten much richer under obama because he wants to destroy the middle class and empower an elite ….. liberals are like anybody else they will do whatever it takes to pay less in taxes. to say otherwise is idiotic
J-“how can the payroll tax collect 40% of federal revenue.” Actuall, the latest figures I saw were for 2013, in which 34% of revenue was from payroll taxes. But what you and most liberals forget when showing this figure is that the payroll tax is split in half between employers and employees, so the worker portion is half of that 34%. And, as the payroll tax funds Social Security, unemployment insurance and Medicare hospital insurance, it’s hardly regressive.
Jeff,
I have never alluded to your being dumb, although I think it. I think you and John are ignorant. That is because you make assumptions on the basis of a minimal amount of information that you glean from obviously left leaning web sites. Neither of you have much in the way of original thought.
Now as to income inequality, who give a damn!! It is not your problem, if you leave everyone alone, it will work out. What we need is less taxes for everyone and less government spending and intrusion into our lives. But you can’t understand that as you have no background in important conceptual studies.