Only 44%?

I think that means that th antitax propaganda has made deep inroads.

Anti-tax propoganda has been very very effective. Many of my trad-dem friends *agree* that tax rates shouldn’t be raised because it would be “unfair” or similar nonsense.

By an almost two-to-one margin Americans think raising taxes on people making over $250,000 a year would both help the economy and make our tax system more fair. This is the result of a new Pew Research poll.

per ecahn above, this percentage would be FAR higher if the question were actually posed correctly;

“do you think the wealthy should pay at least as much in taxes over all as those making less then 250k, and if they don’t should their taxes be raised to equalize the burden”

there you would see something closer to 80 percent approval

were you this progressive when you were a wall street commentator?

perris, yes indeedy, you have (as usual) hit the nail on the head. Is there any political party in the US who is of the same mind? Oh, ‘third’ parties, all.

Republicans in America are the modern-day locust, scourge of the earth.

In my local ongoing School District tax saga I had the opportunity today to chat with a teacher who teaches in our district. Her pay has been frozen for two years because the district is underfunded. She argued that tax increases were bad.

I was flabbergasted.

Most of the issues discussed now were only tangentially on my radar.

IOW, it wasn’t my job to evaluate policy, only to fold it into what it meant for the forecast.

I did notice many of the major issues of today. I always knew labor didn’t have any power, unless the unemp rate got so low (as it did briefly in Clinton prez) that employers were forced to bid workers away from each other, roughly 4%. There is no linear relationship betw wages & unemployment & wrote that many times. What I did not realize that the hidden agenda of such shibboleths as the Taylor rule was to keep workers down.

That’s just one example. I could cite others.

For example, I wondered about the wisdom of euro right from the outset, but didn’t have time or skill set to figure that one out.

What I have learned since I am retired is all the hidden agendas that I missed before. Plus, while I may have moved somewhat more leftward since I have the time to figure what I missed while I was occupied, the U.S. has moved MUCH MUCH MORE RIGHT.

Perfect example of how brainwashing works.

typical. I hear it all the time. My friend is a teacher, who thinks that public sector worker pensions “cost too much” and should be less. When I point out that *she* is a public sector employee getting a public sector pension, she blithely says: “that’s different.”

Go figure.

The 1% has done an amazing job at both dumbing down the populace while getting segments of the 99% to be pitted against one another, while ignoring the raping, plunder & pillaging ongoing by the 1%.

Yep.

You’ve got to hand it to the 1%, onitgoes.

Otherwise, they’ll just … take it.

DW

For some people, a light soak and rinse will work.

You’ve got to hand it to the 1%, onitgoes.
Otherwise, they’ll just … take it.

Your tongue and cheek must be getting sore this week.

I think we all could agree that people with income over $250K a year should have their overall Federal taxes raised, right?

Now how do we raise these taxes?

Perris asked a very good question:
“do you think the wealthy should pay at least as much in taxes over all as those making less then 250k, and if they don’t should their taxes be raised to equalize the burden”
It sounds like Perris is describing the AMT which already exists in the income tax code to make sure that high income people do not get to deduct away too much of their income and end up paying a lower tax rate.
The AMT tax rates are:

26% on the first $175,000 of AMT taxable income, and
28% on the remainder of AMT taxable income.

So we already hit the high income earners with a higher tax rate, and reduce their deductions through AMT’s.
The problem is that the Capital gains tax rate was reduced to 15%, so income that high earners get from Capital gains is still only taxed at 15%.

I think instead of calling for increased tax rates on the rich, we should call for a increase in the Capital gains tax.
We should create 2 Capital gains tax brackets the lower one could stay at 15%, but the higher one, of say 25%, should start around $175K.
This would make the tax code much more fair, and raise revenue, if you just raise the income tax rates, the high earners will just convert their income to capital gain income and pay the 15% tax rate. See Mitt Romney as example #1.

I was also talking about regressive taxes, we need to find a method for equalizing those, as a matter of fact, the primary purpose of a progressive income tax code is an attempt to equalize the regressive nature of most other taxes

For the past 18 months, ever since the December 2010 giveaway by the White House on the “Bush” tax cuts and on the estate tax, I have felt exactly like Jon said, that preznit

completely failed to enact this change during his first term, because he barely even tried

But I missed this: Congress and preznit did in fact raise the marginal rate on investment income (defined as dividends, interest, net capital gains, and net rental income) when they passed the reconciliation act that was used to ram through health insurance reform.

Section 1411 of the tax code (26 USC 1411) was added by section 1402 of the healthcare reconciliation act in March 2010. Starting January 1, 2013, the marginal rate on investment income jumps by 3.8%. I completely missed this when it happened, hat/tip to WaPo real estate section for bringing it up recently.

The problem is that the Capital gains tax rate was reduced to 15%, so income that high earners get from Capital gains is still only taxed at 15%.

This was true during all of preznit’s current term but will jump to 18.8% on either net investment income or modified AGI over $250,000 for joint returns. For other than joint returns, the 18.8% rate applies to net investment income or modified AGI over $200,000. See my comment @16. See also 26 U.S.C. section 1411.

The word “capital gain” does not appear in the black letter of that new section, but I think it is probably included within the term “net gain . . . attributable to the disposition of property . . . .”

The new section 1411 of the tax code reads, in part, as follows:

(a) In general
Except as provided in subsection (e)—
(1) Application to individuals
In the case of an individual, there is hereby imposed (in addition to any other tax imposed by this subtitle) for each taxable year a tax equal to 3.8 percent of the lesser of—
(A) net investment income for such taxable year, or
(B) the excess (if any) of—
(i) the modified adjusted gross income for such taxable year, over
(ii) the threshold amount.
(2) Application to estates and trusts
In the case of an estate or trust, there is hereby imposed (in addition to any other tax imposed by this subtitle) for each taxable year a tax of 3.8 percent of the lesser of—
(A) the undistributed net investment income for such taxable year, or
(B) the excess (if any) of—
(i) the adjusted gross income (as defined in section 67 (e)) for such taxable year, over
(ii) the dollar amount at which the highest tax bracket in section 1 (e) begins for such taxable year.
(b) Threshold amount
For purposes of this chapter, the term “threshold amount” means—
(1) in the case of a taxpayer making a joint return under section 6013 or a surviving spouse (as defined in section 2 (a)), $250,000,
(2) in the case of a married taxpayer (as defined in section 7703) filing a separate return, 1/2 of the dollar amount determined under paragraph (1), and
(3) in any other case, $200,000.
(c) Net investment income
For purposes of this chapter—
(1) In general
The term “net investment income” means the excess (if any) of—
(A) the sum of—
(i) gross income from interest, dividends, annuities, royalties, and rents, other than such income which is derived in the ordinary course of a trade or business not described in paragraph (2),
(ii) other gross income derived from a trade or business described in paragraph (2), and
(iii) net gain (to the extent taken into account in computing taxable income) attributable to the disposition of property other than property held in a trade or business not described in paragraph (2), over
(B) the deductions allowed by this subtitle which are properly allocable to such gross income or net gain.
(2) Trades and businesses to which tax applies
A trade or business is described in this paragraph if such trade or business is—
(A) a passive activity (within the meaning of section 469) with respect to the taxpayer, or
(B) a trade or business of trading in financial instruments or commodities (as defined in section 475 (e)(2)).
(3) Income on investment of working capital subject to tax
A rule similar to the rule of section 469 (e)(1)(B) shall apply for purposes of this subsection.
(4) Exception for certain active interests in partnerships and S corporations
In the case of a disposition of an interest in a partnership or S corporation—
(A) gain from such disposition shall be taken into account under clause (iii) of paragraph (1)(A) only to the extent of the net gain which would be so taken into account by the transferor if all property of the partnership or S corporation were sold for fair market value immediately before the disposition of such interest, and
(B) a rule similar to the rule of subparagraph (A) shall apply to a loss from such disposition.

This new 3.8% income tax surcharge which takes effect 1/1/2013 is known as chapter 2A, the “UNEARNED INCOME MEDICARE CONTRIBUTION (§ 1411),” according to Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute.

“I always knew labor didn’t have any power, unless the unemp rate got so low (as it did briefly in Clinton prez) that employers were forced to bid workers away from each other, roughly 4%.” Ah, yes, the guy in the gorilla suit that nobody sees while watching the film of people passing a basketball. I’ve been wondering for a couple of years now why nobody has been pointing out that the reason the Fed doesn’t do anything to end this depression is because they want to reinforce the anxiety that all workers must feel. Same with Paul Volcker back in 1979-83; one of his purposes was to traumatize workers to destroy the unions and reduce pay. It has really puzzled me that this is never mentioned when economists discuss why the Fed sits on its hands. I’m also puzzled that nobody points out that one of the things Marx got tight was that Capitalism requires a vast army of starving unemployed so they can exploit under-compensated workers. I think they plan to take us a lot further toward “starving” than we are at now.