Hey a suggestion for those in the 250k to 400k bracket

[LiberalFighter]

And for President Obama to push on Boehner.

The Republicans wanted the cut off to be at $1 million instead of $250k and the President was reaching them at $400k. The President should agree to $400k but instead of reverting back to the pre Bush tax cut era. Make the tax rate 43% for income over $400k. (Make sure to call it the Bush tax since 43 is his number)

Will that encourage those in that upper bracket to call their in the pocket Representatives and tell them to agree to the President's original proposal?

[pscot]

1. The key concept there is "for President Obama to push"

That's just not going to happen.

[taught_me_patience]

2. I'm in that tax bracket and wouldn't support this

It's not fair, to me, to raise taxes by nearly 10% on only one segment of the population.

[LiberalFighter]

3. Taxes are not increased on the total income.

And I was encouraging pushing this out there for the Republicans to agree to the original proposal. With them being pushed by those in that income range calling and putting heat on the Republicans to make it happen.

Personally, I think there should be additional tax brackets besides the 6 currently active. As a suggestion: A tax rate for income from $250k to $500k, a higher tax rate for income from $500k to $1 million, a higher tax rate on income from $1 million to $5 million, and a higher one for income above $5 million.

Remember, taxes are only on the taxable amount not the gross adjusted income. In your case you will have income that is not taxed, income taxed at 10%, at 15%, 25%, 28%, 33%, and possibly some at 35%. A married person would need to have at least $236,951 in income before they would start paying their first dollar at the 33% rate even though the tax bracket begins at $217,450. More if they have other dependents and itemize their deductions.

If all of a person's taxable income was taxed 43% then I could see your point. But my incentive was for people in this range to call their representatives and get them off the kettle if they were to put this out.

To the fairness bit. It can also be said that it is not fair that one segment of the population has more of their income exempt from taxes via itemized deductions than others.

[coalition_unwilling]

4. It's not 'fair' that you pay 43% in taxes on that portion of your income above $400,000/year? When

1 in 5 American children live in poverty?

Maybe we need to have a discussion about what the word 'fair' means.

[taught_me_patience]

5. I'm in the 250-400k bracket

so this proposal wouldn't affect me. However, I'm against it because I don't think it's fair to only raise taxes on one segment of the population. I also think a 43% tax rate is too punitive. With California state taxes, the marginal rate will be well above 50%.

[DAVEDCHICAGO]

20. When Money Is Actually Used to Help Children In Poverty...

Not WAR, I Am All For Across The Board Tax Increases. End War, Then Look At The Surplus.

[world wide wally]

6. I understand this perspective, but I'll gladly trade places with you. I'm just a lowly teacher

earning about 10% of the numbers you are starting with.
PLEASE put me in a higher tax bracket!

[taught_me_patience]

7. You might want to rethink that

Things aren't always what they seem. I've moved 2,000 miles (leaving all friends and family behind) to pursue more opportunities. My wife and I have put our entire life savings on the line three times to try to improve our income. You live in constant fear that the next time won't work out. In Jan, I'm leaving a six figure job to pursue something that I think will be bigger. We have over 200k in student loan debts and got late starts to our careers, so we have almost no retirement savings at all well into our mid 30's. Because we've used our life savings multiple times we hardly have any assets. We live in one of the most expensive cities in the world and because we own small businesses, we cannot get the credit necessary purchase a house. You can see why I might find it a little unfair to only raise taxes on one segment of the population.

[cheezmaka]

8. That's the reason why...

I believe it should start at 400k or even 1 million. 250k-400k have to deal with OVERHEAD and EXPENSES of "running a business". They work just as hard (or even more so) as a person making far less but have to CONSTANTLY deal with RISK. Putting a tax burden on top of everything else would be discouraging. Corporate Executives and others making over $1 million may not have to deal with as much overhead as 250k-400k. I even consider those who make 250k-400k "Upper Middle Class" whose taxes SHOULDN'T go up. Running a small business is already TAXING AS IT IS...

[coalition_unwilling]

10. Is this a Democratic board or some sort of Adam Smithian-Ayn Randian

fantasy forum???

The national median income is $50,000/year. And you have a problem with people who make over $250,000/year paying 43% only on that portion over $250,000/year???

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark, methinks.

[taught_me_patience]

11. Yeah I have a problem with it and stated why

you don't think there are high earning Democrats? Do you want to pay over 50% marginal tax rate? Funny how there are so many people that think others should pay more taxes.

[coalition_unwilling]

12. Most high-earning Dems accept in principle the idea of a high marginal tax rate. I guess

not all do, hence the Adam Smithian-Ayn Randian flavor in these parts lately.

I'm currently liquidating my retirement accounts early because the unemployment rate in California is stuck at a dead-cat bounce level of about 10%. The only reason it slipped below 10% last month is that so many Californians stopped looking for work, not because the economy here is going gangbusters. My unemployment insurance ran out 14 weeks early in early May of this year.

So it seems you and I inhabit completely different universes. I suppose I shall not be here much longer now that the 3rd-way Blue Dogism reigns supreme. It'll be off to DemocraticSocialistUnderground.com for me.

[downandoutnow]

15. "high-earning Dems accept in principle..." - except maybe they DON'T - that's what we're learning.

I very much get the impression from life itself that high-earning Dems seem to think that as long as they shop at Whole Foods, dress like hipsters, drive Priuses, buy iCrap, watch HBO and foreign films, support gay marriage and the right to choose while looking down on the South and the Armed Forces, they've done more than enough to be liberal. But anything to do with money? Taxes? Screw the rest of us. They're JUST as comfortable with old folks eating catfood as any suit-wearing, golf-playing rich Republican.

[panAmerican]

13. Similar situation

We're in a similar income range and living situation (NJ), but aren't business owners. We've also leveraged our savings and gone into debt multiple times so that we can increase our income. The fear is definitely real that the next jump from one job to the next will fail, and we just this year started to make that kind of money. I believe that what is fair is to tax more of the people who are making money off of money, rather than earning it.

[downandoutnow]

14. "we have almost no retirement savings at all well into our mid 30's" --

Oh, you POOR, POOR DEARS!!!

[burrowowl]

16. Amen to that!

If I were in that bracket I could live the hike!
Go back to Eisenhower, 90% over 1 meg and corps reinvested in their companies and everybody was a whole better off!
Oil companies receive subsidies and pay no taxes, etc. Trillions socked away in overseas accounts, etc.

[mainer]

17. But it's OK to raise taxes on the bracket just above yours?

This is the problem. Everyone wants to tax the guy who's just a LITTLE BIT RICHER than him.

The OP is calling for everyone above $250,000 to see an increase. Without that larger pool of taxpayers, this increase isn't going to bring in significant revenue.

[taught_me_patience]

18. I strongly believe that if you raise taxes, you should raise them on everbody

Eliminate all of the Bush tax cuts across all income levels and tax capital gain as ordinary income.

[democrattotheend]

9. I would have no problem with that.

In fact I would prefer it. But unfortunately, that would be very hard to do because it would require actually raising taxes instead of just letting tax cuts expire.

[Sunlei]

19. everyones FIRST 250k (or 400k ) of income is taxed exactly the same at the lower rate.

Those making a million need to find more tax deductions..teach your horses to dance, have 20 kids, claim a giant 'office in the home'

[world wide wally]

21. The point is...................... not how much you paid... How much do you have left?