Kerry Asking Wealthy to Pay Old Tax Rate

How many dumbass Republicans will believe this statement.

the $200,000/yr would be more effectively sold as $4000/WEEK?

Most people make FAR LESS than $200,000 a year but they also live closer to paycheck to paycheck, so I think it would be more effective to bring the idea home to those earning $35,000/yr($700/wk), or $50,000/yr($1000/wk) and certainly to those that make less like $20,000/yr($400/wk).

I think it's much easier to feel the disparity. Kinda like bush*41 and the price of a gallon of milk thing.

There are a lot of the masses that make 0-$75,000 that think that someone who makes $200,000/yr must be doing something much more important than themselves and say well they DESERVE a greater share of tax cuts(In my theory anyway). So someone living on $400/wk can more clearly tie in with $4,000 a WEEK and they want even MORE of a tax cut?

Make sense, no?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

ya don't suppose...?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

funny that both of you would arrive at the same description of our nominee that nobody else has...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

i had only heard it uttered by the bigpig.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

(not making that much money) would dream of the opportunity to pay a higher tax rate. I sure would.

Cheers
Drifter

:-)

It needs to be presented to the wealthy as their duty to help the country out of its current crisis, pointing up the disparity and the suffering of so many for the comfort of so few. Presented properly, this message has great appeal. Not all rich people want everybody else to be doing so badly and some actively want this situation changed, even if it will cost them. I haven't heard Kerry speak to this personally, although of course he has, but I have heard Wes Clark do it and I've seen him convincing very wealthy Americans of the sense of it.

That may the way the candidates need to present it? But we sure don't have to. Its a class war and Bush started it the moment he got in office. We got a couple of bucks back on our taxes and the people in Chimpy's income bracket got tens of thousands. And because money for the tax cut came from loans from Bush's rich pals and our kids get to pay it back soon. With interest too. Never run away from the truth.

Don

I'm talking about how it is framed by the candidate addressing those in the upper bracket, not by us at DU.

It's their duty! Their dues for being an American! Why wouldn't they want to pay their share of the dues?

Ask the wealthy if they were better off paying Clinton's tax rate in Clinton's economy or Bush's tax rate in Bush's economy.

However, it makes up a very small % of the population. So, it is probably a safe proposal. Because of corporate tax law, many people who make over 200k in professional careers such as dentists, doctors, lawyers etc. don't pay any income taxes at all.

whoever they are, is that there are not enough of them to raise the amounts of money needed by the government. So the level at which someone is considered rich is pushed down, down, down, unitl it encompasses the entire middle-class. Because the government, like John Dillinger, must go where the money is. So, there are numerous reasons to vote for John Kerry, but a pledge to just raise taxes on the 'rich' is not one of them. He may fully intend to hold that line. He may fight to hold that line. But there are other people with power in Washington besides the President. Once the issue of raising (or restoring) the tax rate on people over $200K is opened, you and I are fair game. So the question really is, does what he wants to do with the additional money justify the cost that will be coming out of your pocket?

As one small indicator, since the 80's and the reduction/ or elimination of taxes for the wealthy, the number of opulent mansions in So Cal dramatically increased. This sort of thing simply didn't exist to this extent in all the years prior to Reagan.

really care about the opulent mansions so much. It doesn't harm me if somebody else has something that I can't afford. what I am worried about is the prospect of being included in 'the rich'. Everytime a tax proposal is put forth, I find myself in this select category, and I am not rich. I'm not saying that JFK will propose that my income level get increased taxes. I'm just saying that after the wheeling an ddealing is done, I'll be paying more. And if you are self-supporting, so will you, most likely.

That's how Kerry needs to frame this. We're in a war, we're running a deficit, and we're not creating jobs, so we need those that can bear the brunt of a tax hike to pay their share. Also, Kerry could attach a tax credit for the wealthy that invest in domestic businesses that create jobs in the U.S.

throughout the Eisenhower years, from 1949 and continuing up to 1963; it was 70 percent from 1965 to 1981--including all of the Nixon years; it went to 50 percent from 1982 through 1986 (first Reagan administration)."

http://www.democracycollaborative.org/publications/books/alperovitz_winter02.html

We could raise tons of federal revenues just by returning the level of taxation to the good old days of Ronnie Raygun!

We could also raise tons of money by demanding our federal government spend its money WISELY instead of on $6,000 toilet seats and pork barrel legislation. No tax hikes would be required if we could get our elected officials (i.e., the SERVANTS of the people) to do the job in the way they do it in private business, instead of looking at tax money as some huge trough they can dig in for their own political gain.

Just those making over 200 thousand dollars a year. That includes only the top 5% of wage earners. They are the ones that can afford it. Financing Bush's war should not be on the financial backs of the poor and middle class taxpayer. They already supply most of the soldiers to go off and die and get maimed with their sons and daughters. Let the rich kick in financially. It will make them feel good knowing that they are doing their part for the country.

Don

do you have a link with actual information to back up an assertion like that?

or a receipt?

It's a matter of tax fairness. The country really needs to have the debate as to whether or not we want to produce a standard of living for all Americans or whether we want to produce more millionaires. Speaking as someone who comes from a family that is quite well off, I must confess that we find it shameful that politicians are creating this class warfare by reducing our taxes. The truth of the matter is that money finds it way to money. There is an inherent tendency on the part of the wealthy to enrich one another.

We have been HOSED on this-the changes in tax structure have shifted wealth to the rich by 36% in the last year alone-this is nonsense and robbery- if we cut the pentagon budget for all the useless weapon programs noone needs , quit interfering in other countries except to send doctors and food and necessary help they ask for, we could get rid of the deficit and fund Universal Health care, free college, mass transit and affordable housing with money to spare. There are simple creative ways to reward businesses and individuals who invest in job creation-they get a CREDIT-why give everyone the money and just hope they do the right thing-it is madness. sorry just had to rant...

makes more sense.

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aN97R3D0nqJw&refer=us

March 10 (Bloomberg) -- Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said tax cuts enacted under President George W. Bush have cost middle-income U.S. residents $3,500 in higher state and local taxes, health care costs and college tuitions.

``Rain or shine, surplus or deficit, George Bush's economic plan begins and ends with tax giveaways to the wealthiest Americans with special connections,'' Kerry said in remarks delivered from Chicago via satellite to a meeting of U.S. labor union leaders in Florida. ``I intend to return tax fairness to America.''

Kerry said he will raise income taxes on those with more than $200,000 a year in income, returning tax rates to where they were during the 1990s.

...more...

I think this a better frame for the picture - the tax cuts that idiotboy pushed through have INCREASED the cost of life for all those at the middle and bottom.

:thumbsup:

We could also raise tons of money by demanding our federal government spend its money WISELY instead of on $6,000 toilet seats and pork barrel legislation. No tax hikes would be required if we could get our elected officials (i.e., the SERVANTS of the people) to do the job in the way they do it in private business, instead of looking at tax money as some huge trough they can dig in for their own political gain.

There used to be a Fairness doctrine-they had to air different sides of an issue to keep their licences (gone) we need Public Broadcasting bandwidths accessable to everyone for a nominal fee, in all media.
and when you think aabout how all the millionaires are in the congress, senate and white house, there are qualified brilliant minds with demonstrated ability frozen out of the process simply because of the way the media and campaigns work. If we were truly a democratic society, there would be as many plumbers and letter carriers, teachers and nurses in the House and Senate as millionaires yet somehow only millionaires seem to get there-this is not democracy. I think they sould peg the minimum wage and health care and retirement benefits for the whole country-to the salary and benefits of the politicians-ie let them live on the medicare prescription benefit and not be able to have anything else, let them have a pension like the average worker or depend on a 401-k + social security-you would see mandated defined benefit plans makeing a comeback in a week!

an assertion like that needs something to back it up...gotta link?

Under Clinton the economy had one of its longest post war expansions,
federal budget went into surplus, low interest rates, low inflation and
low unemployment.

But what can Bush say this about his tax policies?

Obviously, tax policies impact business profits and there is real uncertainty as to who will be in the White House in 2005 - 08 and what tax policies will be implemented.

Perhaps businesses are holding back on making big investments decisions until the election is over. That may explain why BLS didn't record any new private sector jobs.