How the taxes on the wealthy have fallen over the past 70 years (USA)The rest of the story: "The Rich Really Do Pay Lower Taxes Than You" by David Leonhardt (New York Times)
Showing posts with label progressive taxes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label progressive taxes. Show all posts
From the "Suckers!" desk:
The rest of the story: "The Rich Really Do Pay Lower Taxes Than You" by David Leonhardt (New York Times)
Can we have less "lesser"
Good candidates are running across the country, and pretty much every Democrat is better than his or her opponent. But the national leadership has not crafted a compelling program comparable to the New Deal or the Great Society (to say nothing of MAGA). They haven't even tried, the closest thing being the proposal to use the tax cut to pay teachers, a pr stunt not a program.
Many of the most compelling candidates (in Texas, Florida and Georgia, for example) owe little or nothing to the national party. In many cases, the "great candidates" the DNC and DCCC did recruit are ex-military and veterans of the security state apparatus, which means they will not be of great help in turning swords into plowshares, an essential project if we are to find solutions to our festering problems in such areas as poverty, infrastructure, housing, education, and health care.
When Republicans got the polls, they know what they're going to get, as awful as that is. The same cannot be said for Democrats, who once again are being asked to vote against rather than for something. Will the Democrats as a party fight for infrastructure spending, progressive taxes, Medicare for All, a living wage and universal basic income? Who can say? Are they going to take on the military-industrial giants and the security state? Not likely, but who really knows.
The House and maybe the Senate are at stake; it would be helpful to know what the stakes really are.
And, parenthetically, in a census year, the outcomes in races for governor mansions and state legislatures will determine the makeup of the House for at least a decade.
Bookkeeping
Spend like there is a tomorrow.
Liberals and progressives should be wary of making an issue of deficits, despite the imbalance resulting from the GOP's hypocritical tax cuts. The federal debt, per se, is not a problem. If the government used deficit spending to invest in the nation's future prosperity, as it must and should, there would be no occasion for complaint. What needs to be attacked is our retrogressive tax system, corporate welfare, and military waste and adventurism. Deficit funding -- on efficient and economically competitive infrastructure; health care; lifetime education (not just pre-K to college and technical school, but skill-maintenance and retraining to avoid obsolescence); housing; and guaranteed basic income -- would be a bargain in the long run.
quote unquote: Teddy Roosevelt
As conservatives and neoliberals continue their subversion of progressive taxation, it's worth remembering words on the subject
by the well-known socialist, Teddy Roosevelt:
"We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community.... The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and … a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate." -- Theodore Roosevelt, the "New Nationalism" speech, delivered 1910/08/31 at the dedication of the John Brown Memorial Park in Osawatomie, Kansas.
Money for Nothing
One bulwark against the rise of oligarchy is the estate tax, a progressive tax on property (cash, real estate, stocks and bonds and other assets) left by dead people to their heirs. Only the wealthiest estates are affected because it’s levied only on the property in an estate that exceeds a specified exemption -- right now, $5.43 million per person (effectively $10.86 million per married couple). The estate tax helps to limit, a little, the large tax breaks that the extremely rich get on their wealth as it grows, income which otherwise can go untaxed.
Besides being an important source of revenue, estate taxes are intended to prevent gross economic inequality which, if left unchecked, can
poison a society. (Conservatives make a big deal about the “death tax,” but it affects very few people -- last year, because of the current high exemption, 99.8% of estates owe no estate tax -- by way of context, the exemption jumped from $650,000 per person in 2001 to $5.43 million per person now; even so, conservatives repeatedly try to get rid of it entirely).
The current exemption is too high, reflecting the influence of money on Congress, but, that aside, estate taxes are also too narrowly defined. If inequality is to be reduced, the tax on the transfer of wealth should be broadened to cover all wealth received in one’s lifetime, and taxed as income. This would reward people who give away their wealth broadly -- a social good -- and act as a brake on it piling up in the hands of the few.
If we as a nation want to counter inequality even more aggressively, we could use wealth transfer revenues to fund a minimal inheritance for every citizen to be paid when they come of age. Providing a more level starting point would result in a society with much greater opportunity.
Reading List:
-> "Let's be clear on this point. The tax burdens those who inherit the wealth, not those who produced it; it is a tax on Paris Hilton, not Conrad Hilton. And it does not conflict with the values of hard work, entrepreneurship and thrift.": It's Fair, and We Need the Revenue by Michael J. Graetz (Wall Street Journal).
-> The Three Fundamental Reasons Why We Need a Robust Estate Tax by Richard Phillips (Citizens for Tax Justice).
-> To Whom Much Is Given: Why We Need to Tax Inheritance by Jeffrey Mikkelson (Truthout).
-> Taxing Privilege More Effectively: Replacing the Estate Tax with an Inheritance Tax by Lily L. Batchelder (Brookings).
-> "Inheritance not only hands people valuable income in return for something we don't really want to further reward -- being born lucky -- but also, in doing so, it entrenches the least attractive feature of our economy: the fact that people who are born to affluent parents are much more likely to themselves be affluent than children born to the less well-heeled. Lack of economic mobility is generally regarded as a bad thing that we should combat.": Why Do We Allow Inheritance at All? by Megan McCardle (The Atlantic).
Extra Credit:
By not dealing promptly with his Cliven Bundys, Founding Father #1 wound up with the Whiskey Rebellion: How Former President Washington Dealt With The First Real Tax Crisis In America by Kelly Phillips Erb (Forbes).
The Whiskey Rebellion: Frontier Epilogue to the American Revolution by Thomas P. Slaughter (Amazon).
Besides being an important source of revenue, estate taxes are intended to prevent gross economic inequality which, if left unchecked, can
The current exemption is too high, reflecting the influence of money on Congress, but, that aside, estate taxes are also too narrowly defined. If inequality is to be reduced, the tax on the transfer of wealth should be broadened to cover all wealth received in one’s lifetime, and taxed as income. This would reward people who give away their wealth broadly -- a social good -- and act as a brake on it piling up in the hands of the few.
If we as a nation want to counter inequality even more aggressively, we could use wealth transfer revenues to fund a minimal inheritance for every citizen to be paid when they come of age. Providing a more level starting point would result in a society with much greater opportunity.
Reading List:
-> "Let's be clear on this point. The tax burdens those who inherit the wealth, not those who produced it; it is a tax on Paris Hilton, not Conrad Hilton. And it does not conflict with the values of hard work, entrepreneurship and thrift.": It's Fair, and We Need the Revenue by Michael J. Graetz (Wall Street Journal).
-> The Three Fundamental Reasons Why We Need a Robust Estate Tax by Richard Phillips (Citizens for Tax Justice).
-> To Whom Much Is Given: Why We Need to Tax Inheritance by Jeffrey Mikkelson (Truthout).
-> Taxing Privilege More Effectively: Replacing the Estate Tax with an Inheritance Tax by Lily L. Batchelder (Brookings).
-> "Inheritance not only hands people valuable income in return for something we don't really want to further reward -- being born lucky -- but also, in doing so, it entrenches the least attractive feature of our economy: the fact that people who are born to affluent parents are much more likely to themselves be affluent than children born to the less well-heeled. Lack of economic mobility is generally regarded as a bad thing that we should combat.": Why Do We Allow Inheritance at All? by Megan McCardle (The Atlantic).
Extra Credit:
By not dealing promptly with his Cliven Bundys, Founding Father #1 wound up with the Whiskey Rebellion: How Former President Washington Dealt With The First Real Tax Crisis In America by Kelly Phillips Erb (Forbes).
The Whiskey Rebellion: Frontier Epilogue to the American Revolution by Thomas P. Slaughter (Amazon).
Where is Horatio Alger when you need him?
The Economist ranks US 16th best place to be be born: above us on the list are nothing but socialist hellholes with confiscatory taxes.
Sen. Bernie Sanders on the Independent in Politics
Bill Moyers interviews Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who’s been an independent in Congress for 21 years — longer than anyone in American history. Sanders talks about jobs, the state of our economy, health care, and the unprecedented impact of big money on the major political parties.
“What you are looking at is a nation with a grotesquely unequal distribution of wealth and income, tremendous economic power on Wall Street, and now added to all of that is big money interests, the billionaires and corporations now buying elections,” Sanders tells Bill. “I fear very much that if we don’t turn this around, we’re heading toward an oligarchic form of society.”
From Moyers and Company 2012-09-10
“What you are looking at is a nation with a grotesquely unequal distribution of wealth and income, tremendous economic power on Wall Street, and now added to all of that is big money interests, the billionaires and corporations now buying elections,” Sanders tells Bill. “I fear very much that if we don’t turn this around, we’re heading toward an oligarchic form of society.”
From Moyers and Company 2012-09-10
Too controversial for TED: "The rich should pay more in taxes"
“Ideas Worth Spreading.”
Some, not so much.
If you need more evidence of how difficult it is for ideas that challenge the reigning political Weltanschauung to gain traction in mainstream media, take a look at this video of a presentation at TED, the conference that GOOD business editor Tim Fernholz describes as "for creative techies and do-gooding hipsters that vaulted the 18-minute lecture into an art form."
Like fish trying to make sense of water, it is impossible for most of us to comprehend how much misinformation we take for granted swimming as we do in the ocean of propaganda -- American exceptionalism, the greatest nation in history, fortress of democracy, Christian state, yadda yadda -- that envelops us.
At TED, Fernholz writes, "you’ll find speakers discussing everything from 'Sculpting Waves in Wood and Time' to 'Building U.S.-China relations … by Banjo.' What you won’t find is a recent TED talk by Nick Hanauer, a wealthy venture capitalist, that argues income inequality is a problem that threatens the economy, and that higher taxes on the wealthy are part of the solution."
"So here's an idea worth spreading," concludes Hanauer:
In a capitalist economy, the true job creators are consumers, the middle class. And taxing the rich to make investments that grow the middle class, is the single smartest thing we can do for the middle class, the poor and the rich.A transcript of Hanauer's speech is available here.
See, also: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality by Jim Tankersley (National Journal 2012-05-22).
TED's Taboo: What's Too Controversial for the Hipster Confab? by Tim Fernholz (GOOD 2012-05-17)
In response to the brouhaha over his website's suppression of Hanauer's talk, TED "curator" Chris Anderson posted the video to Youtube himself, with a link to an apologia: TED and inequality: The real story (TEDChris: The untweetable 2012-05-17). However, Anderson's claim that the talk was rejected because it "framed the issue in a way that was explicitly partisan" is contradicted by the fact that TED has posted other "partisan" presentations, such as scoldings by Al Gore on the need to fight climate change or the Gates Foundation's Melinda Gates call for handing out contraceptives across the globe. These challenges to the status quo are apparently less bothersome to the wealthy attendees at TED than the simple idea that they should pay their fare share of taxes.
Federal Budget: "I would rather have no deal than a bad deal"
Wolf Blitzer appears never to have met a principled liberal before.
They're rare enough. Maybe he never has.
They're rare enough. Maybe he never has.
Politics: The Obama-McConnell tax plan
"The tax cut deal rewards Republican obstructionism by giving the wealthy the tax breaks they demanded. It throws away precious resources needed for investments in jobs and our economy on upper income tax cuts that will do very little to propel economic growth—setting up excuses for the deficit hypocrites to argue for even more cuts to programs serving working families. It lards the tax cuts for the top 2 percent with an indefensible cut in the estate tax – giving yet another bonus to the super-rich. Taken together, this package locks in the growing income inequality that has plagued our country for at least another two years – and quite possibly much longer.
"It is unconscionable that the price of support for struggling middle class families and workers who have been unable to find jobs for months and months and months is yet more giveaways for our country’s wealthiest families. Millions of jobless workers have lived in fear for months while Senate Republicans had the gall to use their hardships as political leverage for the benefit of the rich.
"The gains for the middle class and jobless workers in the deal come at too high a price." -- AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka
"It is unconscionable that the price of support for struggling middle class families and workers who have been unable to find jobs for months and months and months is yet more giveaways for our country’s wealthiest families. Millions of jobless workers have lived in fear for months while Senate Republicans had the gall to use their hardships as political leverage for the benefit of the rich.
"The gains for the middle class and jobless workers in the deal come at too high a price." -- AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka
Busting the Filibuster: The Democrats should call the GOP's bluff
The Democrats are still letting the minority Republicans control the U.S. Senate.
In two votes this week, a majority of senators -- 53 -- voted to advance the Democratic agenda on revenue. The first would have let expire the so-called Bush tax cuts for individuals with incomes above $200,000 (and for couples filing jointly and earning more than $250,000 a year). The second, even though, ridiculously, it would have extended the middle class tax cuts to those making up to $1 million a year, also fell 7 votes short of 60. Because neither bill achieved the magic number needed to stop a filibuster should there be one, they were considered unpassable.
Apparently, the Senate leadership never even considered forcing the GOP to put up or shut up. Would the Republicans really bring their thermoses and sleeping bags into the upper chamber to fight for tax breaks for the super-rich and against tax relief for the middle class? Maybe. But even if they did, it's hard to envision how it could hurt the Democrats. Anymore than it is hard to see how the Democratic Party would suffer if Pres. Obama were to announce today that he will veto any tax bill that includes extending the giveaways to the rich.
In a better world, the Senate would adopt the House bill providing tax cuts for middle and working class Americans, filibuster be damned.
(Update: Sam Stein thinks "that the president is not only done ceding any more policy turf to the GOP with respect to tax cut negotiations but willing to let rates expire if Republican don't temper their demands" (Obama Tells Dems He'll Oppose Tax Cut Deal Without Unemployment Benefits, Other Relief -- Huffington Post 2010-12-04). Let's hope the president does get tough finally, but I'm glad not to have any money riding on it.)
In two votes this week, a majority of senators -- 53 -- voted to advance the Democratic agenda on revenue. The first would have let expire the so-called Bush tax cuts for individuals with incomes above $200,000 (and for couples filing jointly and earning more than $250,000 a year). The second, even though, ridiculously, it would have extended the middle class tax cuts to those making up to $1 million a year, also fell 7 votes short of 60. Because neither bill achieved the magic number needed to stop a filibuster should there be one, they were considered unpassable.
Apparently, the Senate leadership never even considered forcing the GOP to put up or shut up. Would the Republicans really bring their thermoses and sleeping bags into the upper chamber to fight for tax breaks for the super-rich and against tax relief for the middle class? Maybe. But even if they did, it's hard to envision how it could hurt the Democrats. Anymore than it is hard to see how the Democratic Party would suffer if Pres. Obama were to announce today that he will veto any tax bill that includes extending the giveaways to the rich.
In a better world, the Senate would adopt the House bill providing tax cuts for middle and working class Americans, filibuster be damned.
(Update: Sam Stein thinks "that the president is not only done ceding any more policy turf to the GOP with respect to tax cut negotiations but willing to let rates expire if Republican don't temper their demands" (Obama Tells Dems He'll Oppose Tax Cut Deal Without Unemployment Benefits, Other Relief -- Huffington Post 2010-12-04). Let's hope the president does get tough finally, but I'm glad not to have any money riding on it.)
Economy: Does renewing Bush tax breaks for the richest Americans make sense?
Not so much.
Since the 1970s, the rich have gotten vastly richer, the poor have become more numerous, and the middle class has shrunk in size and net worth. At the same time, Americans of all classes, hypnotized by propaganda about the "greatest country in the world," continue to misjudge wildly how inequitably wealth is distributed in this country. And when you ask how wealth should be allocated, Americans come up with something that looks a lot more like western Europe than the United States.
[The top row depicts actual U.S. wealth distribution. The middle row shows what we imagine wealth distribution is. And the bottom row reflects what we think wealth distribution ought properly to be. On the first line, by the way, the .3% of the nation's wealth that is in the hands of the bottom 40% of the population is too insignificant to be represented on the chart. Source: Building a Better America – One Wealth Quintile at a Time by Michael I. Norton and Dan Ariely.]
"There Is a War Being Waged Against the Working Families of America"
Absent a realistic understanding of how our nation's wealth is distributed, it isn't entirely surprising that we continue to vote in to office politicians who fail to represent our interests, who in fact for decades have pursued policies that have made the situation worse. How badly most of us are represented was made apparent the other day when Bernie Sanders, the independent socialist from Vermont, rose to address the U.S. Senate:
See, also: Anti-poverty effort good for everybody by David DeWitt (The Athens News 2010-11-11).
Since the 1970s, the rich have gotten vastly richer, the poor have become more numerous, and the middle class has shrunk in size and net worth. At the same time, Americans of all classes, hypnotized by propaganda about the "greatest country in the world," continue to misjudge wildly how inequitably wealth is distributed in this country. And when you ask how wealth should be allocated, Americans come up with something that looks a lot more like western Europe than the United States.
[The top row depicts actual U.S. wealth distribution. The middle row shows what we imagine wealth distribution is. And the bottom row reflects what we think wealth distribution ought properly to be. On the first line, by the way, the .3% of the nation's wealth that is in the hands of the bottom 40% of the population is too insignificant to be represented on the chart. Source: Building a Better America – One Wealth Quintile at a Time by Michael I. Norton and Dan Ariely.]
"There Is a War Being Waged Against the Working Families of America"
Absent a realistic understanding of how our nation's wealth is distributed, it isn't entirely surprising that we continue to vote in to office politicians who fail to represent our interests, who in fact for decades have pursued policies that have made the situation worse. How badly most of us are represented was made apparent the other day when Bernie Sanders, the independent socialist from Vermont, rose to address the U.S. Senate:
See, also: Anti-poverty effort good for everybody by David DeWitt (The Athens News 2010-11-11).
Economy: In the middle of the worst economic decline in over 80 years, we need fiscal stimuli, not fiscal austerity
In the political current climate, mainstream Keynesianism, as espoused by economists such as Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz, has come to seem almost left-wing. Is the Keynesian critique of austerity correct, and is a return to Keynesianism what we need?
Must read: Freezing Out Hope by Paul Krugman -- After the pummeling in the midterm elections, has President Obama suffered a moral collapse?
Keynesianism only seems left-wing because the center has caved rightward. First, even a Nobel Prize does not protect one from ostracism by the mainstream of the economics profession today if you persist in dispensing Keynesian wisdom and challenge the assumption that unfettered markets always know best. As hard as this may be for non-economists to believe, Stiglitiz and Krugman are now persona non grata within the economics profession. Second, in the 1950s and 60s even Tories and Republicans had to begrudgingly accede to the wisdom of financial regulation and Keynesian fiscal and monetary policies. But that day is long past. Now even Labour and Democrats buy into the myth that markets, including financial markets, can be relied on to self-regulate, and governments must engage in fiscal austerity when recessions create temporary budget deficits. When the center caves right, center left appears to be left.The rest of the story: Digging In A Hole -- Robin Hahnel, economics professor at American University and author of Economic Justice and Democracy: From Competition to Cooperation and, with Michael Albert, of The Political Economy of Participatory Economics, discusses the continuing mismanagement of the economic crisis in the UK, Ireland and the US with Alex Doherty of New Left Project.
There are two important lessons to be drawn. (1) While socialists should not have to lead the charge for Keynesian policies to ameliorate capitalist crises, unfortunately that is the position we find ourselves in. Right now we must not only do our own work – explaining why all versions of capitalism are far less desirable than participatory, democratic socialism – but do the work of Keynesian reformers as well who have lost influence in all major political parties. (2) There is no point in trying to explain to Tories and Republicans why their policies are flawed. They have chosen to embrace ill-advised, discredited, nineteenth century economic policies because these policies serve their most important purpose – further pressing the class war they have been winning for more than three decades. Their first instinct when a crisis hits is not to search for policies that would actually solve the crisis. Instead they search their “wish list” for ways to take advantage of the crisis to press for changes that serve their class interests – further cuts in social spending, further concessions regarding wages, benefits, and working conditions, more tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, and of course more corporate welfare like the bailouts doled out to the financial industry. The fact that every one of these policies will only deepen the current crisis is of no concern to them.
When capitalism proves completely incapable of putting our productive potential to good use what is called for is replacing capitalism with socialism. A return to Keynesianism would be to settle for only part of a loaf, and leave us vulnerable to another counter revolutionary roll back of hard won gains, like the one we have been living through. However, unless I am pleasantly surprised, and leftists can win the loyalty and support of a majority of the population for replacing capitalism with socialism much sooner than I foresee, there is no road to participatory, democratic socialism that does not run through many successful reform campaigns to bring Keynesian policies back in vogue.
Must read: Freezing Out Hope by Paul Krugman -- After the pummeling in the midterm elections, has President Obama suffered a moral collapse?
Politics: Bluedog Day Afternoon
Here are some of the Democratic voices plumping for continuing the Bush tax giveaway to the richest 2% of Americans. If you want to know why the base is alienated from the party, give a listen. Many of these folks are running for reelection. Don't help them; there are plenty of progressive Democrats in tough races who need your money and time.
Letter from Reps. James Matheson (D-UT), Melissa Bean (D-IL), Glenn Nye (D-VA) and Gary Peters (D-MI) to Speaker Pelosi: "In recent weeks, we have heard from a diverse spectrum of economists, small business owners, and families who have voiced concerns that raising any taxes right now could negatively impact economic growth. Given the continued fragility of our economy and slow pace of recovery, we share their concerns."
Rep. Ron Klein (D-FL): “Every day, I hear from families that are still struggling with bills and people who can’t find a job no matter how hard they try, so I believe right now, our top economic priority has to be job creation. In order to achieve that, we need tax credits for small businesses that will help create new American jobs, while also promoting investment and growth. As we work to rebuild the economy, I support a one-year extension of the so-called Bush tax cuts.”
Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT): "The economy has by no means fully recovered, so my bias is that those high-end tax cuts should be extended."
Rep. Bobby Bright (D-AL): “I don’t care if it’s the wealthiest of the wealthy, you don’t raise their taxes,” he said. “In a recession, you don’t tax, burden and restrict. The economy is like a ship, and if you sink the ship, all the good you might do goes down with it.”
Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA): “We are managing a very fragile recovery, and now is not the time to raise taxes on anyone. The timing is wrong and we should not do anything at this juncture that could jeopardize or slow the nation’s economic growth.”
Rep. Gary Peters (D-MI): “Extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for all earners is the right thing to do as anything less jeopardizes economic recovery.”
Rep. Harry Mitchell (D-AZ): “I strongly believe that this is the wrong time to let key tax cuts expire. We need to encourage investment, not discourage it by letting these cuts expire. Extending these cuts would bring some much needed certainty and predictability to our tax code."
Rep. Michael McMahon (D-NY): "We're not creating jobs, and raising taxes now would not be a great idea."
Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-IN): "I think in this fragile economy, now is not the time to send that message to business owners and those who are fortunate to have the wealth in this country, because indeed they are the ones that make investments, that start businesses investing in companies."
And we shouldn’t forget the Senate Democrat opposition:
Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND): "The general rule of thumb is that you do not raise taxes or cut spending during an economic downturn. That would be counterproductive."
Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA): "I don't think they ought to be drawing a distinction at $250k.”
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE): “I support extending all of the expiring tax cuts until Nebraska’s and the nation’s economy is in better shape, and perhaps longer, because raising taxes in a weak economy could impair recovery.”
Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN): “The economy is very weak right now. Raising taxes will lower consumer demand at a time when we want people putting more money into the economy.”
Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT): “I don't think it makes sense to raise any federal taxes during the uncertain economy we are struggling through.”
You'll find progressive candidates who need your help at ActBlue.
Letter from Reps. James Matheson (D-UT), Melissa Bean (D-IL), Glenn Nye (D-VA) and Gary Peters (D-MI) to Speaker Pelosi: "In recent weeks, we have heard from a diverse spectrum of economists, small business owners, and families who have voiced concerns that raising any taxes right now could negatively impact economic growth. Given the continued fragility of our economy and slow pace of recovery, we share their concerns."
Rep. Ron Klein (D-FL): “Every day, I hear from families that are still struggling with bills and people who can’t find a job no matter how hard they try, so I believe right now, our top economic priority has to be job creation. In order to achieve that, we need tax credits for small businesses that will help create new American jobs, while also promoting investment and growth. As we work to rebuild the economy, I support a one-year extension of the so-called Bush tax cuts.”
Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT): "The economy has by no means fully recovered, so my bias is that those high-end tax cuts should be extended."
Rep. Bobby Bright (D-AL): “I don’t care if it’s the wealthiest of the wealthy, you don’t raise their taxes,” he said. “In a recession, you don’t tax, burden and restrict. The economy is like a ship, and if you sink the ship, all the good you might do goes down with it.”
Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA): “We are managing a very fragile recovery, and now is not the time to raise taxes on anyone. The timing is wrong and we should not do anything at this juncture that could jeopardize or slow the nation’s economic growth.”
Rep. Gary Peters (D-MI): “Extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for all earners is the right thing to do as anything less jeopardizes economic recovery.”
Rep. Harry Mitchell (D-AZ): “I strongly believe that this is the wrong time to let key tax cuts expire. We need to encourage investment, not discourage it by letting these cuts expire. Extending these cuts would bring some much needed certainty and predictability to our tax code."
Rep. Michael McMahon (D-NY): "We're not creating jobs, and raising taxes now would not be a great idea."
Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-IN): "I think in this fragile economy, now is not the time to send that message to business owners and those who are fortunate to have the wealth in this country, because indeed they are the ones that make investments, that start businesses investing in companies."
And we shouldn’t forget the Senate Democrat opposition:
Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND): "The general rule of thumb is that you do not raise taxes or cut spending during an economic downturn. That would be counterproductive."
Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA): "I don't think they ought to be drawing a distinction at $250k.”
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE): “I support extending all of the expiring tax cuts until Nebraska’s and the nation’s economy is in better shape, and perhaps longer, because raising taxes in a weak economy could impair recovery.”
Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN): “The economy is very weak right now. Raising taxes will lower consumer demand at a time when we want people putting more money into the economy.”
Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT): “I don't think it makes sense to raise any federal taxes during the uncertain economy we are struggling through.”
You'll find progressive candidates who need your help at ActBlue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
