I almost wish I didn't live in a BLUE state

[MissMillie]

I'd run.

I'd run and remind people that this country does better when people at the top are taxed. In the 1950s they were taxed 91%

(35% is CHEAP, and almost none of those "people" even pay that.)

I'd run and remind people that it's morally wrong to base your economy on war (especially if you're "pro-life.&quot

I'd run and remind people that 70% of the American economy is based on the middle class spending money--not on giving tax breaks to people who earn millions upon millions of dollars and then shelter themselves in some overseas tax shelter.

Seriously.... what are these people thinking? Why do they keep voting against their interests?

[RKP5637]

1. Because a good portion of this country is dumber than a bag of rocks. They are

bred and trained to be stupid! Obedient flocks of lemmings.

[Punkingal]

2. Lemmings is exactly the term...I often think that.

[stillwaiting]

3. Those are things that MANY elected Democrats don't state publicly.

If you really want to run, knock off a "pro-business" Democrat.

We need "pro-Main Street" Democrats to take back control.

Your message should be stated loudly and proudly by elected Democrats, and it's not being stated currently (with a very few exceptions).

[raccoon]

4. Where are you? Would you like to change places with me?

I live in an area red as a baboon's arse.

[LonePirate]

5. Their guns & somebody else's pregnancy are more important to them than their own financial security.

Not matter how often you or Bernie or anyone else offer reality to them, they will not accept it.

[Vincardog]

6. Why not run where you are? Just do it.

[MissMillie]

9. No need to open my life up for one dem

to replace another dem

and I have NO money

worried about being fed next month

maybe we all need to make a facebook page about people who keep voting against their interests

[MohRokTah]

7. Point of order, the top marginal tax rate is currently 39.6%.

Please, when talking in terms of figures, make sure your math is right.

Also note, this does not include payroll taxes, of which only a portion are capped in FICA, the rest is Medicare for which there is not a cap. And note that this number doubles in most instances for people who pay the top marginal tax rate due t self employment tax.

Thus, the effective federal tax rate on high incomes is typically somewhere north of 43%, which is why these people prefer to push to a capital gains tax rather than an income tax combined with a payroll or self employment tax.

[hfojvt]

8. one reason is money

You say "I'd run and remind people"

How would you remind people?

How are you going to get that message to 300,000 people in a congressional district that is bigger than the state of New Jersey? Unlike your incumbent, the taxpayers do NOT pay for you to travel all over the state. Unlike your incumbent, the newspapers do not put you on the front page when you visit their city.

Those are good messages, (except I dislike the part about the "middle class" because people making $200,000 a year often think, or are told, that THEY are part of the middle class. Whenever a politician talks about middle class it seems like their policies mostly help the 80th-98th percentile of income)

BUT

it takes a lot of money to get a message out. And expect your opponent to already have

1) district wide name recognition
2) the ability to travel and send letters to everybody in the district - on the taxpayers dime
3) a fair amount of status - they are a congressperson, you, on the other hand, are pretty much Jane Average (unless you are one of those celebrity candidates like Arnold or Al Franken)
4) a couple million already in the bank
5) a rolodex (or the modern equivalent) of big money donors they can tap
6) a large part of the media in their corner. Did you know the incumbent Congressperson often writes a weekly column in small town newspapers?

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to spend thousands dollars of your own money and hundreds of hours of your time trying to topple this juggernaut.

Good luck, and may the force be with you.

This message will self destruct in sixty seconds.

[pennylane100]

10. I live in a red area of a blue state

and it is so very depressing. Our congressman does not live in our district and is a loyal member of the tea party.

[FrodosPet]

11. It is a bit more complicated than that

Yes, the marginal rate was 91%. That does NOT mean someone earning $1 Million paid $910,000. There were a lot of tax shelters and loopholes that drove down your tax bill.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324705104578151601554982808

~ snip ~

In 1958, an 81% marginal tax rate applied to incomes above $140,000, and the 91% rate kicked in at $400,000 for couples. These figures are in unadjusted 1958 dollars and correspond today to nominal income levels that are about eight times higher. That year, according to Internal Revenue Service records, about 10,000 of the nation's 45.6 million tax filers had income that was taxed at 81% or higher. The number is an estimate and is inexact because the IRS tables list the number of tax filers by income ranges, not precisely by the number who paid at the 81% rate.

In 1958, approximately two million filers (4.4% of all taxpayers) earned the $12,000 or more for married couples needed to face marginal rates as high as 30%. These Americans paid about 35% of all income taxes. And now? In 2010, 3.9 million taxpayers (2.75% of all taxpayers) were subjected to rates that were 33% or higher. These Americans—many of whom would hardly call themselves wealthy—reported an adjusted gross income of $209,000 or higher, and they paid 49.7% of all income taxes.

In contrast, the share of taxes paid by the bottom two-thirds of taxpayers has fallen dramatically over the same period. In 1958, these Americans accounted for 41.3% of adjusted gross income and paid 29% of all federal taxes. By 2010, their share of adjusted gross income had fallen to 22.5%. But their share of taxes paid fell far more dramatically—to 6.7%. The 77% decline represents the single biggest difference in the way the tax burden is shared in this country since the late 1950s.

~ snip ~

For instance, a doctor who earned $50,000 through his medical practice could reduce his taxable income to zero with $50,000 in paper losses or depreciation from property he owned through a real-estate investment partnership. Huge numbers of professionals signed up for all kinds of money-losing schemes. Today, a corresponding doctor earning $500,000 can deduct a maximum of $3,000 from his taxable income, no matter how large the loss.

~ snip ~