White House Rethinks Tax Hikes

[Frank Booth]

Source: Wall Street Journal

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama is meeting strong Democratic Party resistance to his proposal to reduce tax deductions enjoyed by upper-income Americans and could be forced to drop or modify the idea.
------

Sen. Max Baucus (D., Mont.), the Senate's top tax writer as chairman of the Finance Committee, told Mr. Geithner he was especially concerned about paying for expanded health coverage with a deductions curb that "has nothing to do with health care." He added: "I'm wondering about the viability of that provision."

"We recognize there are other ways to do this," Mr. Geithner responded during a hearing Wednesday. "We are willing to listen to all ideas that meet these broad principles."
------

Mr. Geithner also faced questions from lawmakers about how Mr. Obama's plan to let the top two tax rates increase to 39.6% and 36% in 2011 would impact small businesses. Republicans challenged Mr. Geithner's assertion that those increases wouldn't affect 97% of small businesses, saying the tax increases would put a new burden on businesses that create jobs.

Another Democrat, Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington, questioned why the administration wouldn't look for savings in the tax code through a comprehensive overhaul. "Why not look at a broader approach to tax policy, than coming in with this proposed change to marginal rates?" Ms. Cantwell said.

Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123621392108135233.html

---

Here's the bipartisan consensus everyone's been asking for. Finally, something both Democratic and Republican Senators can agree on: Protecting the rich.

[PM Martin]

1. Taxes should be raised on those making 1 million +!

[msongs]

2. maybe that corpulent junkie wingnut radio host runs the dems as well nt

[DeepBlueC]

3. a small business that makes more than 250K can be incorporated

problem solved, no?

[ShortnFiery]

7. Only 2% of small businesses make over $250,000. Moot point to benefit the WEALTHY.

:puke:

[DeepBlueC]

30. yeah, I know

ergo the "damage" to small business is illusory.

[yurbud]

4. your last line is sadly accurate

[ananda]

5. Doesn't that just make you wanna SCRREEAAMM!

Arrgghhh!

What the FUCK!

[defendandprotect]

6. They have to return to progressive taxation -- higher rates for wealthier .. . period!!

And, we should be assessing pollution taxes on corporations -- all of them!!

We're bailing out capitalists and they don't want their taxes increased!!!

BS -- !!!

[Skink]

8. Democrats/progressives are in no way the majority party.

atleast Obama is on our side mostly.

[Mind_your_head]

9. Are you *SURE* he's on 'our' side, or does he just give that 'look'?

I dunno for sure myself, but I'm watching......

[Zhade]

11. Bullshit. Most Americans support democratic policies.

bvar has the list.

Stop making excuses for the inexcusable.

[alittlelark]

15. You said it!

...and you said it well.

However, the media makes it seem otherwise... good for their owners $$$$$.

[corruptmewithpower]

10. Why is there no way to distinguish the idle rich from small business?

[sandnsea]

18. There is

But when you refer to the real small business structure, the S Corp, then they start comparing major corporations to small business. It's just more right wing claptrap that a few corporate Dems have swallowed along the way as well. We've got to be organizing in our towns in order to fight this stuff.

[MrsBrady]

12. raise taxes on the rich!!!!

[PSPS]

13. Translation: Millionaires in congress don't want to pay an extra 3% in taxes.

[Genghis]

14. Damnit, how did Bush's tax cuts become the status quo?

[annabanana]

29. the WSJ will ALWAYS frame it that way. . . .n/t

[MrSlayer]

16. Hold the line Mr. President.

Fuck those guys, they've had a free ride long enough.

[sandnsea]

17. The broader approach means the middle class

and that's why Democrats lose.

What the hell is wrong with these people. Those with incomes over $250,000 voted FOR OBAMA. They are fine with this tax hike.

Gaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!

[bluestateguy]

19. This does not surprise me

The fact is that in 2008, a good many high income earners in blue states actually voted for Democrats--not just Obama, but down ballot too. Hence we should not be surprised to see Democratic senators respond by being squeamish about raising taxes on the wealthy.

[DUlover2909]

20. Since the President can do anything he wants during wartime,

Tax the hell out of the wealthy, but make donations to a Dem political campaign tax deductable. Tax the churches too. All in the name of fighting terra.:P

[keopeli]

21. My senator, Cantwell, is an aristocrat and a marginal Democrat. Time for another call...

She was elected initially by a razor thin margin of about 1000 votes. Last election, she would have lost if Bush hadn't been such a disaster. Reluctantly, we supported her reelection in 06.

Please call your Senators and tell them to stop voting their own interests and their friends' interests and start voting OUR interest.

REMEMBER: It's not a tax hike. It's letting the rates return to the 90's rate before Bush f&%ked everything up!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

28. She put her only viable primary opponent for re-election...

...on her re-election payroll!



http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/277260_senate12.html

[Norrin Radd]

22. dupe

[Norrin Radd]

23. We need a better Senator than Cantvotewell.

[Norrin Radd]

24. We need a better Senator than Cantvotewell.

[Politicalboi]

25. But if we tax the rich

Who's gonna give to charity? :sarcasm:

[pnwmom]

26. One question is how much lowering the itemized deduction rate will reduce

charitable contributions. I assume they're figuring that into the equation.

[mainer]

33. That, I think, is a valid concern -- certainly for most charities

If they disallow charitable deductions, there truly will be a drop in giving.

Too many people seem to think that donating to charity is a no-loss proposition for rich people. But in fact, it is still a loss. The charitable deduction simply allows you to take the deduction off your gross income. When you're in the top tax bracket (say 40%), and you give away $1,000, you drop your gross income by $1,000. Meaning you've saved yourself $400 in taxes -- but you're still out $600.

[byeya]

27. Wealth needs to be taxed. Individuals with $25 million{say} in

wealth, need to pay 1 - 3% annually on their booty.
There needs to be a sales tax on the sale of stocks & bonds also.

[Downwinder]

31. Would some one explain to me.

Sen. Max Baucus (D., Mont.), the Senate's top tax writer as chairman of the Finance Committee, told Mr. Geithner he was especially concerned about paying for expanded health coverage with a deductions curb that "has nothing to do with health care."


What do cigarettes have to do with children's health care?

WTF, children need health care -- I'll pay the tax, somebody has to do it.

[Thrill]

32. Never get a real Progressive Agenda with these piece of shit Democrats

Thom Hartman isn't going to be happy

[DLnyc]

34. Wouldn't making the cutoff higher, say 500,000 or 1,000,000, and going to

higher rates, say 40% or 41%, generate just as much money, be equally progressive and meet a lot less resistance?

Just my 2 cents (which is a fairly significant percentage of my total income).

[Mind_your_head]

35. .

"Just my 2 cents (which is a fairly significant percentage of my total income)."