Skip to comments.Senate Democrats Propose 5% Surtax on Millionaires (Rewrite Obama Jobs Bill)
Posted on 10/05/2011 1:18:26 PM PDT by tcrlaf
WASHINGTONSenate Democrats proposed a 5% surtax on people earning more than $1 million a year to pay for the $447 billion cost of President Barack Obama's job-creation bill, in a move designed to shore up their party's support for the measure.
The proposal would replace the range of tax deductions for wealthy people, oil companies and other businesses that the president had proposed to end to offset the cost of the job-creation initiatives in his plan.
WSJ Deputy Managing Editor Alan Murray and Evan Newmark discuss the politics of the proposed 5% surtax on millionaires put forth by Senate democrats. Photo of Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin: AP/J. Scott Applewhite
Democratic leaders said they hoped to bring the revised plan to the Senate floor next week for debate. But assuming they keep all of their votes, they would need at least seven Republicans to vote in favor of any effort just to start debate on the legislation.
It's also not clear that the changes would win over all the Democrats who have been opposed to the package. Sen. Joe Manchin (D., W.V.) has voiced objections to the spending portion of the bill, so changing how it is paid for would be unlikely to sway him. Sen. Ben Nelson (D., Neb.) has repeatedly said he would oppose any tax increases given the current economic malaise.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
If we still had a media that did Journalism, they would be tearing this apart right now!
What a surprise...the Rats need more taxpayer money to buy votes.
Don’t tax bills have to originate in the House of Representatives?
Does anyone know how much a 5% surtax on Millionaires will actually bring in ?
Or is this just another part of Obama’s class warfare, because it makes his entitlement people happy.
It's not about revenue. It's about "fairness," according to Ubama.
But it wouldn't even make a dent. Tax all income (not just millionaires) at 100% and we still have a deficit.
It's the spending, stupid.
REVERSE the earned and unearned income tax rates.
At the very least, REDUCE earned income tax rates.
I've been in the job market for some time now, and EVERYBODY, it seems, is out looking for a free lunch. Those who are willing to jump into a project and get their hands dirty are both rare and disrespected. That's been my experience, anyways.
My question for all: Whatever happened to the good old fashioned Protestant work ethic?
“...Dont tax bills have to originate in the House of Representatives?...”
That was way back when we actually had a Constitution.
I may be reading the Constitution wrong, but I believe it says revenue bills shall originate in the House. Yet this type of tax would be far more popular with most voters than Obama’s 200K plan. There’s not a lot of sympathy for the 236K who earn $1 million+ a year. I’m surprised Obama didn’t take this avenue in his proposal because, even though neither will become law, The GOP would find opposing Reid’s plan more difficult in a PR sense.
Read it and weep:
"The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, said the surtax would raise $445 billion over 10 years, just about the amount needed to pay for the jobs bill."
I thought I heard Chuckie Schumer on the radio saying the 5% surcharge would apply to capital gains, too.
Freakin’ communists, all of them.
Yes, tax bills do have to originate in the House. But liberals bend the law to suit themselves. Unless someone calls them on it, ( John Boehner, where are you? ) they will get away with it.
I could go along with that proposal if the 5% surcharge was limited to millionaire actors and actresses, millionaire union bosses and millionaires with the last name of “Soros”.
"Jobs" bill? The one that has fine print that will force the domestic oil drillers to go under, and add another 4,000,000 (4 Million people) to the unemployed? That "Jobs" bill?
But this I do know, and know full well. There is no guarantee, no crosscheck, no assurance that whatever the US government collects in the form of new taxes will be accounted for, reported to the electorate, and used for the purposes being identified by the politicians.
So...if there is no guarantee that the funds collected will be used in such a manner, and that the normal "misuse" of such funds would result in immediate impeachment and a stiff jail sentence (say 10 - 20 with no chance of parole), then what is the sense of the taxation in the first place?
“It’s not about revenue. It’s about “fairness,” according to Ubama.”
Actually, it not about either revenues or “fairness” - it’s about misdirection.
The deficit problem is a spending problem, not a revenue problem - you could *double* everyone’s income taxes, and we’d still be running a deficit.
But as long as everyone’s arguing about whether or not you increase taxes on the “rich”, whether the increase affects those making $200,000 or a million, whether its a 5% surtax or a 3.6% increase in the top rate, folks won’t be talking about what they should be talking about - how do we keep this idiot from spending $3.6 trillion of our money each year?
Birds gotta fly, fish gotta swim, Rats gotta tax
Just to make sure there is a link to what's stated here:
"Also repealed is the Percentage Depletion Allowance again, only for oil and gas production. For coal and other minerals the 15 percent deduction from taxable income will continue. This will hurt only the little independents because big oil companies lost this deduction 36 years ago.
"The third tax repeal will disallow oil drilling companies their Intangible Drilling Cost deductions (IDC's). At least 75 percent of drilling costs are for consumables such as fuel, mud, cement, etc. But the new law will consider these expenses the same as machines that must be depreciated over many years thereby increasing current-year taxes. This will have a serious impact on small companies that drill 95 percent of all new wells in America. They are usually not rich and often rely on IDC's to pay for the next well."
I said "It's the spending stupid."
I also provided a link to the fact that you could tax ALL income at 100% and still not have enough to cover the deficit.
First sentence of the article (in part): "Senate Democrats proposed a 5% surtax on people earning more than $1 million a year..."
Is the new definition of "millionaire" a person who earns more than a million dollars a year? It used to be a person with a net worth of a million dollars. That doesn't qualify as rich anymore, I suppose.
Idle semantics, I suppose -- the surtax is wrongheaded and counterproductive, no matter how one defines "millionaire," but it's pretty sloppy writing.
Arghhh - of course you’re right - I read your first sentence and hit the keyboard. My apologies.
(Of course it doesn’t hurt to repeat a point as important as the one you made . . . the sincerest form of flattery and all that . . .)
Why not go one more step and make it a VOLUNTARY contribution to the Treasury for millionaires only as a check-off box on their Tax Returns?
It would work like the “contribution for the Presidential Election Fund” we have to check or not check on our 1040s. Only millionaires would be authorized to do it, though. It could be targeted at debt reduction, or bridges needing repair, job creation, etc... all the stuff Obummer wants to do.
After figuring their taxes, they could cut a check for 5% of the Gross income and send it in... SIMPLE!!
I think this would make all those millionaires who what to be taxed more, quite happy (Buffet, Hollywood Democrats, etc) and give them a little control over where their money goes. I don’t think the Republicans or Democrats would complain...
I wonder why this hasn’t been done??...
In ten years we may have another 4 or 5 jobs bills.
Who will pay for those.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.