It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
House Democrats' promise to permanently protect millions of middle-class families from a mostly unknown tax increase is faltering before it's even unveiled.
Senate Democrats are pressing a Band-Aid approach to delay for just a year or two the alternative minimum tax, or AMT, from adding $2,000 more in taxes on average to families with incomes between $100,000 and $200,000 a year.
That way Democrats wouldn't have to go into next year's election after having tried, and probably failed, to raise income taxes on wealthy taxpayers — those making $500,000 or more — back to almost what they were before President Bush took office.
New York Rep. Charles Rangel, chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, would like to rewrite the AMT to once-and-for-all prevent it from ensnaring about 20 million additional and unsuspecting middle-class taxpayers. He and Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass., had planned to unveil their plan in May but now that's not likely to occur before September, if then.
----------------
Baucus has shown no interest in a Rangel-Neal proposal to pay for protecting middle-class voters from an AMT increase by instead imposing a new 4 percent or so surcharge on incomes above $500,000 a year. That would effectively raise the marginal tax rate on those with half-million-dollar incomes back to 39 percent, where it was in 2000.
Source: Tax Increases Ahead
On March 29, the House passed its fiscal year 2008 budget resolution. The House's budget, if implemented, could increase taxes significantly over the next five years, in turn decreasing job growth, reducing personal income, and weakening the economy. This paper presents state-by-state and district-by-district projections of the likely impact of the House's budget resolution on the tax burden, jobs, and economic growth.
----------------------
The House leadership has proposed to increase spending over the next five years. Given the leadership's avowed commitment to paying for spending increases, tax revenues will have to rise. Which taxes will have to rise is unclear, as budget resolutions are notoriously short on details. However, the failure of House leaders to include any language addressing the expiring Bush tax cuts of 2001 through 2004 indicates that they could intend to end these tax cuts. This, in turn, means that the House leadership could be allowing American taxpayers to assume a large and expensive tax increase upon the expiration of these tax cuts.
Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
the idea of getting taxes on the wealthy back to Pre-Bush levels doesn't sound too bad...
Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
Since your comment posted only 6 minutes after my second post,
Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
the top money-earners pay little-to-no taxes? Even those wealthy who do pay taxes usually pay a lower percentage rate than those in the Middle Class or Poor.
Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
The best solution for improving the national economy, obviously, is to reduce the size of Government.
Originally posted by tom goose
the rich guy is using money to make money and he should be taxed higher for it.
why would i want to pay taxes. what am i getting out of it.
Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
Did you realize that the top money-earners pay little-to-no taxes? Even those wealthy who do pay taxes usually pay a lower percentage rate than those in the Middle Class or Poor.
i make my money with my own hands and my own tools, why should i have to pay as much tax as someone who didnt even work or produce anything, but paid someone else to do it. the rich guy is using money to make money and he should be taxed higher for it. those that work directly for their money should not be taxed very much if at all.
what am i getting out of it. im on my own anyway.
Originally posted by tom goose
why would i want to pay taxes. what am i getting out of it.
- the roads you drive on.
- the snow plows to keep them open.
- the emergency services you depend on.
- the police, fire, FBI.
- jails, prisons, the court system that keep criminals away from you.
- NASA - and all the goods that have come from the space program - including microwave ovens, velcro, etc
- National defense. The freedoms you enjoy have to be defended and that takes money.
- Schools to educate the population - would you want to live with a populaton who can't read? The economy would collapse .. and your job would be gone. (and so would the doctors, the nurses, and every other job that requires education that you enjoy the benefits of )
- Taxes pay for cancer research and other medical researches.
- etc etc
Taxes pay for many things that are taken for granted.
Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
...the rich have been paying a lower percentage of taxes on the money they've earned in comparison of the percentage that the less-wealthy pay...
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
i'd love higher taxes... if it meant no more health insurance payments. i doubt i'd have to fork over as much in taxes as i do for that.
Originally posted by Roper
This is, as usual a very large problem in the US...