General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRaising taxes on the wealthy is impossible.
raising the social security cap is impossible. doing anything about raising cap gains taxes, also impossible. Expanding Social Security is impossible. I mean it's just asking too much.
Or so I keep being told by DUers.
We shouldn't expect our politicians to advocate for these impossible things.
Politics is the art of the possible.
You know what is more unlikely than any of the above? A constitutional amendment that reverses the SCOTUS CU decision, but oddly enough, I hear people cheering that on.
A constitutional amendment takes 67 votes in the Senate and House and ratification by 34 states.
The likelihood of raising taxes on the wealthy or raising the CAP on Social Security is greater than the likelihood of a constitutional amendment, so how come the latter gets cheered on it's just childish pie in the sky to suggest that a candidate for President should propose and advocate for raising taxes on the wealthy?
Do explain that glaring contradiction.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
enlightenment
(8,830 posts)I will await an answer that doesn't involve:
"you don't understand how <politics, Congress, etc> works"
"you just hate <fill in politician of choice>"
or
"fine - let the republicans win"
cali
(114,904 posts)they largely ignore facts and evidence that doesn't fit with their HRC is a great leader and trail blazing progressive beliefs- and there is a fucking mountain of evidence and facts that contradicts them.
It's not impressive.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)
haikugal
(6,476 posts)Don't you know your a "dreamer" that wants a pony? Rainbows and Unicorn farts? Geez....
enlightenment
(8,830 posts)
cali
(114,904 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Yes, s/he has a Bully Pulpit, but beyond that and an Executive Order, not much else. New laws, new tax regulations, economic policy, who the government does business with, etc. is not in any one branch's power. The Beltway is just that...the federal bureaucats stay in power and keep the government running. It functions almost as a 4th Branch.
He's doing more with the Executive Order now because he doesn't have to run for re-election. I think he did what he could, but he isn't king or SuperPresident. The fact he was Black was clearly piled on top of the usual control agendas.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Since President Obama's reelection in 2012 the top rate of income tax on the rich has increased by 4.6%.
The top rate of tax on interest income for the rich has increased by 8.4%.
The top rate of tax on capital gains and dividends for the rich has increased by 8.8%.
You were not aware of this?
cali
(114,904 posts)actually the President has proposed actual increases in this year's budget.
Yes, I'm aware of it. My income comes solely from investments.
Oh,and you're wrong with your figures.
more:
<snip>
Higher Medicare tax on top wages: It used to be that everyone paid 1.45% in Medicare taxes on all their wages (or 2.9% if self-employed). But the Affordable Care Act added an additional 0.9% tax on wages over $200,000 ($250,000 if married).
So the highest wage earners now pay 1.45% on their earned income up to that threshold and 2.35% on the earnings above it.
New Medicare tax on investment income: The ACA also imposed the Medicare tax on investment income at a rate of 3.8%.
In this context, investment income can come from capital gains, dividends, interest, rental income and annuities.
It's not a straightforward tax in that it wouldn't necessarily apply to 100% of one's investment income. It would apply to whichever is less -- your investment income or the amount that your modified adjusted gross income (AGI) exceeds the high-income threshold.
A higher top income tax rate: For those with taxable income over $400,000 ($450,000 if married), the fiscal cliff deal raised their top income tax rate to 39.6%, up from 35% previously.
Higher capital gains and dividend tax rates: For those with taxable income over $400,000 ($450,000 if married), their rate on dividends and long-term capital gains is now 20%, up from 15% previously.
<snip>
http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/30/pf/taxes/obama-taxes-rich/http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/30/pf/taxes/obama-taxes-rich/
this is ridiculously modest.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)mostly because of Obama allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for the highest earners.
But you are right, Obama also slapped a tax on the investment income of the 1% to help pay for health care, proving that tax increases on the rich are not "impossible".
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]
cali
(114,904 posts)If you don't lead by advocating, everything is impossible.
randome
(34,845 posts)Congress makes the laws and they can damned well outlaw CU if they wanted and if it was done cleverly. But this is a historically dysfunctional Congress so nothing of importance gets done.
It remains to be seen whether or not Clinton will even have a bully pulpit or if the Obama-hatred will simply be redirected to a new target come 2016.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]
pampango
(24,692 posts)what's the point of liberals being involved in the process. If I thought nothing progressive could ever happen again, I wouldn't be spending any time here or involved in Democratic campaigns.
While "politics is the art of the possible", I think we all know that when Democrats lose to republicans, bad (conservative) things happen. But we want to know that when Democrats beat republicans, good (liberal) things will happen.
I suppose proposing a constitutional amendment to reverse CU could play a small role in building political momentum. The right does it with balanced-budget, life-begins-at-birth and traditional-marriage amendments. While none of the right's amendments have gone anywhere nationally, some have succeeded at the state level and they reasonably play a role in the larger right-wing push on austerity budgets, anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage issues. But amendments that are never adopted, whether liberal or conservative, are not going to be nearly as important as standing for something, winning elections and following through with legislation. Even the tea party understands that.
lancer78
(1,495 posts)on social security tax also raise the amount of benefits, thereby becoming a zero-sum game?
First, the benefits aren't raised by an amount in proportion to the increase in tax so in the long run it wouldn't. The formula for SS benefits is progressive so that the excess dollars would be paid out slower. Two, the short term it would be a boost and put off the problem to a time when we would be in better shape.
lancer78
(1,495 posts)it is only fair I get a higher benefit.
dsc
(52,160 posts)but you don't get twice as high a benefit. The formula give a higher percentage of the first dollars back than the last ones.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,311 posts)ie that (a) there's no way taxes can be raised and (b) reversing CU with an amendment is feasible ?
If so, wouldn't it be more productive to talk directly to them, rather than waiting for someone else to defend 2 positions they don't actually hold?
And if you've never caught anyone holding both views, then why complain as if it's inconsistent?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)extension of Social Security benefits in my lifetime when same sex couples finally became eligible to get that which we'd always been entitled to, that which straight couples have always gotten.
It's interesting to me that the people who claim to care very much about such things don't even notice when great progress is made, when a safety net is expanded, when a full fledged theft of earned benefits is put to a halt.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)I wish I could say "don't worry, you're not screwed", but as far as I can see it's not accurate - the GOP essentially has a lock-in on the House until 2020 and maybe beyond, and they're probably favourites to control both the Presidency and the Senate for much of that time too.
I think the question to ask is not so much "how much good can the Democrats do?" but "How little harm can they limit the Republicans to?", and the answer may be worryingly large.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)The problem is the loopholes. I agree they should increase or remove the cap on SS income. However, it will not matter how high we raise the federal income tax because the super wealthy avoid taxes due to loopholes.
I happen to believe that the media and corporations LOVE for people to call for higher taxes. Again, because the really wealthy aren't worried about the actual tax rate. As long as they have their loopholes they won't pay higher taxes no matter how much they are raised.
I wish DUers would grasp that fact. As it stands, my humble opinion is that you're all being played.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Bring back the Ike/JFK-era top rates. When rates on individuals are high, it minimizes incentives to loot businesses because the money the exes steal would be heavily taxed. Low rates are an incentive to top management to loot any business, especially profitable ones.
Loopholes are the big issue when it comes to corporate taxes. Many Fortune 500 companies pay nothing or get millione, even billions in refunds. 
is up with that, andyway?
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I own a small business, and ALL my total taxes combined put me at an effective tax rate of over 40% of earnings. And don't give me the song and dance about how that can't possibly be true - it is. I pay state taxes on business earnings, I pay both sides of my SS tax, and even what I pay for my health insurance is taxed as salary because I own a business.
Now I'm not asking anyone to feel sorry for me. But I am saying I am not going to bust my ass only to have the government get more than I do for my labor. Screw that. I donate enough to the military industrial complex.
panader0
(25,816 posts)Anything that makes sense at all seems unachievable.
Not sure which way to go. Hope is fading....
I'm 64, much of what will happen may not affect me going forward, but I worry about my kids.
kentuck
(111,085 posts)it will not happen in today's political climate.
It will take Democrats talking about it over months and years, in order to awaken the consciousness of this comatose nation.
Johonny
(20,840 posts)so?
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Even if the reasoning is not always 100% consistent.
Everyone does it somewhat. Some more than others probably.
They apparently learned nothing from history
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)and have done so for the last 2 years. However, I knew and know
that it is more of a pony than any change in the law.
The Dems could have raised the cap in the 20 days they were
in legislative power, but they did not do so. Reason: A lot
of them did not want to, which means again that some in
Congress have just a D behind their name, but not the conviction.
The main thing, I think, you are bringing up is the present
cheer about items which are spoken by the candidates. I
don't trust any of those with the exception of Bernie's.
I do so, because he has talked about these issues for
years and years and not just discovered them now.
Yet, he would be the first one to admit that without a
drastic change to the left in Congress nothing can
be achieved. Just my take.