Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Senate Democrats Propose 5% Surtax on Millionaires (Rewrite Obama Jobs Bill)
WSJ ^ | 10-5-11 | Corey Boles

Posted on 10/05/2011 1:18:26 PM PDT by tcrlaf

WASHINGTON—Senate 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 ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bill; crushfedgov; deemocrats; democrats; liberalfascism; obama; reid; schumer; taxes; taxincreases; taxtherich; waronliberty
Democrats don't want to go down on the ObamaTitanic, and rewrite the Bill to appease their Uber-Rich Wall Street Banker funders...

If we still had a media that did Journalism, they would be tearing this apart right now!

1 posted on 10/05/2011 1:18:38 PM PDT by tcrlaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf

What a surprise...the Rats need more taxpayer money to buy votes.


2 posted on 10/05/2011 1:24:17 PM PDT by TheDon (The Democrat Party, the party of the KKK (tm))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf

Don’t tax bills have to originate in the House of Representatives?


3 posted on 10/05/2011 1:24:37 PM PDT by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf

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.


4 posted on 10/05/2011 1:24:41 PM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf
5% on what they pay, does not mean anything, the demorats are using it as a bluff to stop them from calling for a vote,, vote on it.
5 posted on 10/05/2011 1:27:37 PM PDT by org.whodat (Just another heartless American, hated by Perry and his fellow democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Venturer
Does anyone know how much a 5% surtax on Millionaires will actually bring in?

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.

Raising income taxes on the rich is not the solution

It's the spending, stupid.

6 posted on 10/05/2011 1:30:50 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum ("Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them." --Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf
If they wanted to do this right and sell it to the public, they'd do it this way:

REVERSE the earned and unearned income tax rates.

At the very least, REDUCE earned income tax rates.

ENCOURAGE WORK.

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?

7 posted on 10/05/2011 1:31:05 PM PDT by Lexinom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine

“...Don’t tax bills have to originate in the House of Representatives?...”
-
That was way back when we actually had a Constitution.


8 posted on 10/05/2011 1:32:04 PM PDT by Repeal The 17th
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf

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.


9 posted on 10/05/2011 1:34:05 PM PDT by xkaydet65 (IACTA ALEA EST!!!')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Venturer
Does anyone know how much a 5% surtax on Millionaires will actually bring in ?

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."

10 posted on 10/05/2011 1:37:56 PM PDT by Mygirlsmom (Am I too old to ask for emancipation from the "Federal Family"?? Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf

I thought I heard Chuckie Schumer on the radio saying the 5% surcharge would apply to capital gains, too.

Freakin’ communists, all of them.


11 posted on 10/05/2011 1:40:46 PM PDT by july4thfreedomfoundation (Obama inherited a mild recession from George W. Bush and turned it into a major depression.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th
That was way back when we actually had a Constitution.

My bad.

12 posted on 10/05/2011 1:41:23 PM PDT by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine

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.


13 posted on 10/05/2011 1:44:49 PM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf

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”.


14 posted on 10/05/2011 1:46:13 PM PDT by Stosh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf
the president's jobs bill...

"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?

15 posted on 10/05/2011 1:50:21 PM PDT by C210N
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf
OK...I'll admit it freely....I don't know how many "rich" there are, nor do I know how much $$$ would come from a surcharge of 5% assessed against them.

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?

16 posted on 10/05/2011 1:51:26 PM PDT by Logic n' Reason (The stain must be REMOVED (ERADICATED)....NOW!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

“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?


17 posted on 10/05/2011 1:52:20 PM PDT by Stosh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf

Birds gotta fly, fish gotta swim, Rats gotta tax


18 posted on 10/05/2011 1:52:52 PM PDT by Marathoner (Before I die I just want to see a real American back in the White House)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C210N
add another 4,000,000 (4 Million people) to the unemployed?...

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."

19 posted on 10/05/2011 1:54:38 PM PDT by C210N
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Stosh
You evidently didn't read what I said.

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.

20 posted on 10/05/2011 1:57:59 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum ("Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them." --Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]




Click the Pic               Thank you, JoeProBono

Follow the Exciting Adventures of Gary the Snail!

Abolish FReepathons
Go Monthly

Planning to donate $10 or more?
YOU can sponsor a New Monthly Donor
FReepmail TheOldLady

21 posted on 10/05/2011 2:20:43 PM PDT by TheOldLady (FReepmail me to get ON or OFF the ZOT LIGHTNING ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf
Headline of the article: Senate Democrats Propose 5% Surtax on Millionaires

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.

22 posted on 10/05/2011 2:44:58 PM PDT by southernnorthcarolina ("Better be wise by the misfortunes of others than by your own." -- Aesop)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

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 . . .)


23 posted on 10/05/2011 2:49:31 PM PDT by Stosh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf

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??...


24 posted on 10/05/2011 2:59:38 PM PDT by coldoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mygirlsmom

In ten years we may have another 4 or 5 jobs bills.

Who will pay for those.


25 posted on 10/05/2011 4:31:10 PM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson