Pelosi suggests top earners pay even more in taxes

[DonViejo]

Source: AP


BY ASSOCIATED PRESS


WASHINGTON (AP) — House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi isn’t ruling out pushing for upper-income earners to pay more even after the “fiscal cliff” deal that raised their taxes.

She tells CBS’ “Face the Nation” that “I’m saying that’s not off the table.” The California Democrats isn’t getting into specifics but she does discuss changes to tax law that might involve deductions and other breaks.

The former House speaker also says the current Republican Party isn’t the “Grand Old Party that did so many things for America that commanded so much respect.” She says the country needs a strong GOP but she describes the current party as a “really over-the-edge crowd” that’s dominated by an element of “anti-government ideologues” committed to opposing President Barack Obama.

-30-

Read more: http://www.salon.com/2013/01/06/pelosi_suggests_top_earners_pay_even_more_in_taxes/

[ashling]

1. GOOD !

[Cal33]

25. Yes. During FDR's time, the top taxes were in the 90% range. The right-winger corporatists were

the ones who caused our national financial disaster in the first place. They should be the ones who
should be taxed the most to correct the situation which they have created. To be really fair, they
should be paying ALL of it.

[samsingh]

2. kick

[Angry Dragon]

3. go back to 70%

close loopholes of hedge fund managers
close corporate loopholes
no more corporate welfare

[coldbeer]

4. a couple counties away a toddler died from malnutrition

If I can prevent this kind of death by paying more
taxes so be it. Taxes kill my budget and I ain't rich.
I would choose to pay taxes instead of donating to
any charity. I used to love the meals at school but
learned to pocket my lunch money and eat at home.
I was so fortunate!

[freshwest]

6. Good post, thanks.

[alp227]

16. What have the local pro life zealots done for children like the toddler?

[marshall]

5. Pay more or move to Russia!

You want flat tax, they got it.

[samsingh]

7. i'm still willing to pay a bit more

[dotymed]

8. I support Thom Hartmann's idea of

Last edited Mon Jan 7, 2013, 01:19 PM - Edit history (1)

a 100% tax on income over one billion $. It would affect a very few and it will keep money in circulation. Yes, I also support higher, graduated taxes of the pre-reagan era.

on edit- please see my apology, two posts down... 100% tax on wealth over 1 billion $$ is what I meant...

[ricardA]

11. the CAP

to capitalism has been used by other countries, so it would be useful to know how they did while in play, and how it would survive against other countries and groups extreme apetite.

[SnakeEyes]

17. It will affect 0 people

Who is making a billion of income a year?

And if anyone would be affected by this they are also smart enough to start making $999,999,999 a year or just not work/invest once they reached a billion. Why would you when the gov't would be taking every dollar you made?

I'm not sure where the rich tax rate should be but I think 70% might be too high (too much disincentive) while 39% is too low.

[dotymed]

22. I apologize,

I meant to say a "wealth tax", not an income tax.
We have over 400 billionaires in America. These billionaires own more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans, combined.
The wealthiest 6 billionaires (Sam Walton heirs) are wealthier than the bottom 30% of Americans, combined.

Here is a link to the proposal, both written (transcribed by fellow DU'er JUNKDRAWER) and the original Thom Hartmann broadcast.
again, I apologize and ask that you read or watch this common sense proposal from Thom Hartmann.

[Overseas]

9. 3% more is all Democrats wanted from the 250K+ crowd. A measly 3 percent.

It was outrageous that there was such a clamor because among the wealthy, 250K is not considered upper class. It is appalling that asking the very comfortable to give 3% more in taxes is A Big Concession by Republicans.

It is also appalling that protecting the poor is considered Republicans Giving Something to Democrats.

Why isn't asking the Top 2% nationwide (top 4% even in New York City) to give 3% more to help protect the middle class, poor, infirm and elderly considered as Both Parties Giving Something to Our Country?

That would just be legislators of both parties conceding to the majority of voters. A majority of voters understood that Supply Side economics is a big fat lie. Multiple tax cuts at the top did not create jobs. We remember what pundits on corporate media prefer to forget-- the millions of jobs lost during the Bush Regime and the great deficits run up by Republican presidents without much Republican outrage. A trillion dollar war pushed on us that enriched war profiteers like Dick Cheney's Halliburton. Admitting the truth should not be considered A Major Concession.

The Democrats fell for the O'Keefe Scam and jumped on the Outrage Bandwagon and got rid of ACORN which had been helping the devastated poor in our country register to vote for the party that protected them, so Protecting the Poor no longer gets Democrats the voting blocks it could have if ACORN was still around.

And both parties still need the very wealthy to support their campaigns, so it is tough for both parties to ask them to pay more.

What a pity that both parties don't consider it important to respect the majority of voters.

What a pity that Republicans and the media elite don't have the courage to openly acknowledge and actively discuss the fact that if the Teabaggers had not been funded by the Koch Brothers and other billionaires for several years now, we would not be having this discussion.

What a pity that Billionaires in favor of hoarding more wealth are so much more aggressive than those with a bit of compassion and interest in building a stronger country here at home. I guess the ones who have some compassion left just do some private philanthropy to feel okay while more and more Americans fall into poverty and more of our roads, bridges and public infrastructure collapse.

[Coyotl]

10. If it is spent on education instead of warfare, then O.K.

If the idea is to keep the empire running, then USG is just a tool of the Plutocrats!

[RoccoR5955]

12. Go back to what it was in the Eisenhower years

91%!

Nobody needs the insane amounts of money that some of the 1% are making to live on.

Besides, if they are taxed that much, they will have much more incentive to "create" jobs, and invest in infrastructure for their businesses.

[SnakeEyes]

18. See when its that high I disagree

Why would someone have more incentive to grow their business if the government takes $.91 for every $1 of that return on that investment? Additionally, you'd start seeing people making just under the tax bracket for the year. You'd see many more shifting to making all their money on investments. You'd have to start taxing capital gains at that rate. I guess what we need is a progressive capital gains tax rate too.

[RoccoR5955]

24. I see that you just don't understand the concept

When taxes were that high, it was cheaper for folks to use what would otherwise be profit to upgrade their manufacturing, and other infrastructure. That way, their business would show less profits. The same goes for workers. More worker, less profit, less taxes.

And yes, they should have an equal tax on capital gains.
Not to mention a one cent tax on stock, and other such transactions.

[supercats]

13. Thank You For Speaking Truth To Power Ms. Pelosi

I agree with your idea here. Why not have SEVERAL upper income tax brackets, for say people who make 1 million, 5 million, 50 million, 100 million, and so on? Is it fair that Mitt Romney who makes tens of millions a year, allowed to pay at the same rate as someone who makes 400 thousand? I think not. I hope Nancy Pelosi can bend enough ears in congress to bring up legislation for some kind of tiered upper income tax reform....AND get it passed!

[marble falls]

14. And lets put legisalators' income and benefits subject to voters approval, too.

[jtuck004]

15. Is that top earners or takers? Did they labor for a dime of it or take it from someone who did? n/t

[alcibiades_mystery]

19. 37.5% for $250,000 - $450,000

[Dkc05]

20. Reinstate the estate tax over 1,000,000

This was a give away that Obama gave away. Didn't have to so hopefully by the end of the year Pelosi can bring a bill to get it back

[Morganfleeman]

21. That will never happen

Because of the sheer number of millionaires in Congress. Even many democrats argued that a million was too low a threshold.

[Dkc05]

23. So this country is run by the Millionaires and not the people

What is wring with that picture. Anything over 1,000,000 should be redistributed back to the people thru the government. How much do bill gates and warren buffett need. You make more then a million it should be given back to the people. You can't take it with you to the grave. We need the resourses more to help others.