What will it take for Kerry to RAISE taxes on rich?

[wadestock]

Lots of talk....and I love the talk.....and hope it eventually builds a consensus......but what about the reality?

It depresses me to think that Clinton may be the only president in US history to succeed in raising the upper rate as a result of the 1993 Deficit Reduction Act...which just squeezed through before the Congress was dominated by the Republicans...

a good synopsis of the Clinton achievement and how the GOP fought it. Not only is this extremely sound and fair tax policy to have an upper rate at around 40%, but considering the boatload of money which has been amassed at the top....for Kerry to repeat what Clinton did in 93 would be even more effective today.....

History of the 1993 act....http://www.kellysite.net/taxes.html

"Tax on Wealthy Is Boosting U.S. Revenue
Treasury Says 1993 Increase Is Helping Cut the Deficit
President Clinton sold the 1993 income-tax increase as a way to shrink the budget deficit at the expense of the rich.

Republican adversaries predicted it wouldn’t generate much revenue because the rich would work less and take bigger deductions. Now there’s growing, if still tentative, evidence that Mr. Clinton may have been right after all."

Now we're behind the 8 ball in terms of congressional support. What are the chances of the Dems achieving a "super majority" vote on this issue after the election?

[newscaster]

1. I think it would take

just one or two people to suggest raising taxes of the rich but keep in min d, the President is not the one who raises taxes. Its congress. Thats where you have to do more than just suggest.

2. Congress-- n/t

:)

[Radical Activist]

6. A very liberal Congress that will take the lead

and make it happen. That's why I think spending time getting liberals elected to Congress this year is as or more important than electing Kerry.

[JohnKleeb]

8. thats why we need to elect Kerry

Remember Clinton pushed a liberal agenda somewhat before the republicans came to power in '94. If Kerry can have a democratic congress, he'll be more progressive, thats why we need to vote democratic so we can get democratic majorities.

9. Exactly

& work on the local level, mobilize participation by the electorate.
All those things that Nader used to talk about years ago, but seems not as concerned about these days.

[wadestock]

7. A supermajority in the senate = 60 votes....

What's the prediction about that?

I haven't heard or read anything through a number of searches that takes us down a reasonable and logical path of finally getting this type of legislation through.

My question could have been better stated as ...what are the realistic scenarios which would support such legislation?

[markses]

3. Kerry should just come out and say it

I will raise taxes on everyone who makes more than $400,000 a year. Big time. Don't like it? Don't vote for me. Make less than $400,000? Vote for me. Period.

[ButterflyBlood]

4. nah, that sounds too reminiscent of that awful Hillary Clinton gaffe

"we're going to take some things away from you for the common good."

he should just emphasize more what he's saying now: repeal the tax cuts for the wealthiest classes. Doesn't need to tell anyone flat out "I will raise your taxes"

[Mr.Green93]

5. tax wealth and income

[wadestock]

10. Yes of course a wonderful idea....

and I'll bring up again how Trump suggested that a one time "luxury tax" of all those with assets over 1 million dollars at just 10% (ONE TIME) would have created approximately 5 Trillion in assets.

Simple math thus concludes that those 1% on the top have about 50 Trillion in total assets....

Telling you that a very small marginal tax on the upper eschelon on assets would produce UNBELIEVABLE revenues.

Therefore, you might want to reduce the tax to the very upper upper and still get a good payoff.

This of course is EXACTLY why you still want to have in place the inheritance tax until you conceive of something along these lines.

But the bottom line is this....the middle class has effectively lost assets over the last 20 years in comparison to the upper 1%. Assets are a BOTTOM LINE for how well one is really doing.

So as a very reasonable tweak to the progressive tax system, the idea of a progressive asset tax has a very sound philosophical basis.

[GizDog]

11. yea right.

Um, wouldn't that mean he'd have to raise taxes on himself? Let's face it. Most politicians currently in power are all in the top 2%. I think it's time we kick all of the old cronies out of Washington and elect some new blood that will represent all of America, not just the special interest groups on both sides.

[wadestock]

12. Hey giz....welcome aboard.....

you'd think that right...the usual adage about rich people becoming cheaper and cheaper in their ways...the more they get the more they want....power corrupts, etc. etc....

That's why it is refreshing when you see TRUE Americans like Clinton, Kerry, and other champion what they know will actually make America....not necessarily their own personal bank account....that much better.

What made America what it is today is a vibrant middle class which was capable of supporting the world's finest industrial base...and engineering and science innovation. It isn't the small amount of rich that keep this going....it's the middle class.

The fact that we have the situation we have today is NOT a measure of how WELL the rich is doing....it's a measure of how much EXPLOITATION has been allowed so that they can effectively take assets out of the middle class....without returning them back in.

Works well and creats all sorts of bottom line profit numbers....but at the expense of the middle class....