Skip to comments.Speaker looking for way to pay for tax cuts for middle-class (hang onto your wallets)
Posted on 01/07/2007 5:49:14 PM PST by Uncledave
By John Heilprin ASSOCIATED PRESS 9:20 a.m. January 7, 2007
WASHINGTON Democrats are not ruling out raising taxes for the wealthiest people to help pay for tax cuts for middle-income families, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said. She spoke of pursuing an estimated $300 billion that people owe in back taxes, eliminating deficit spending and reducing wasteful federal spending.
As we review what we get from ... collecting our taxes a reducing waste, fraud and abuse, investing in education and in initiatives which will bring money into the treasury, it may be that tax cuts for those making over a certain amount of money, $500,000 a year, might be more important to the American people than ignoring the educational and health needs of America's children, Pelosi, D-Calif., said in an interview aired Sunday. A budget rule, known as the pay-as-you-go rule, that was approved by the Democratic-run House on Friday requires that tax cuts have corresponding cuts in government spending or tax increases elsewhere to pay for them.
What we're saying is Democrats propose tax cuts for middle-income families. And we want to have 'pay-go,' no new deficit spending. We're not going to start with repealing tax cuts, but they certainly are not off the table for people making over half a million dollars a year, Pelosi said.
The Senate's top Republican said most GOP senators oppose this budget rule because it almost guarantees that the majority, if it enacts it, will try to raise taxes.
The last thing we need to do is to be raising taxes in this country, and 'pay-go' is the first step toward raising taxes, said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. I think there will be very few, if any, Republicans who will support raising taxes.
Last week, the president challenged Democrats to join him in balancing the budget within five years and urged them to cut thousands of pet projects from future spending bills.
If the president's willing to join with us to fight waste, fraud, and abuse, collecting the taxes, closing the loopholes, we can start there, Pelosi said. What we'd like to do is come to the table as I say, put all our priorities on the table.
Bush's spending decisions also came under fire from the new chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Rep. David Obey, D-Wis.
How can you ever expect to get to a balanced budget if you're spending $100 billion a year on Iraq borrowing the money to do it, if you're giving $50 billion a year in tax cuts to people who make over a million bucks a year and paying for that with borrowed money? Obey said.
Elsewhere on the legislative agenda, the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is getting ready to investigate suspected government fraud, particularly in federal contracts in Iraq and the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina struck. But Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., is not preparing to hand out subpoenas at first.
I don't think you issue a subpoena first. You negotiate, and you try to get the information you need, said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif.
Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, the new chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, is seeking GOP cooperation in making inroads on bloated tax laws.
We have to look at all of the deductions, all of the credits, and to come up with what we think we can do, he said. Is it going to be difficult? You bet your life.
Pelosi appeared on CBS' Face the Nation. Rangel, Waxman and Obey were on This Week on ABC while McConnell spoke on Fox News Sunday.
That's a joke everywhere, not just NJ.
$10,000 a year to the NEA now, an entitlement (D) voter forever thereafter.
QUOTE OF THE DAY CANDIDATE!!!!!!!!!!!
When I go to the Wal Mart in the prosperous town(ship) of Princeton, I find myself surrounded by folks speaking Spanish, Guajarti/Indian English, Polish, Russian, and Ebonics. Recent arrivals to this country, legal and illegal, seem to love Wal Mart more than us natives, it seems.
...Mrs. Kerry paid only a token Social Security tax. That's because the payroll tax is assessed on wages, and Mrs. Kerry declared very little wage income. She gets most of her income from dividends and interest...[The] vast majority of Americans...must (with their employer) cough up the 15.3% payroll levy.That last bit alludes to my point: The super-wealthy can and do manipulate the super-complex tax code through lobbyists and tax attorneys to create special shelters to avoid taxation. I propose dramatically simplifying the tax code to eliminate these shelters. As a bad American, I do not comprehend the tax code--and I can't afford enough tax attorneys to find my way into paying such a minuscule portion of my income to the federal government.
...Mrs. Kerry...avoided taxation by investing in tax-exempt [generally municipal] bonds of various kinds. ...
...[Most wealthy Americans] haven't had time--or been lucky enough to marry rich--to build up the assets to be able to live off tax-free investments the way Mrs. Kerry can. The super-rich, as opposed to the merely successful, are the ones who are really able to avoid taxes....
...Mrs. Kerry paid an average tax rate of 12.4% on her declared income of $5.07 million. In 2002, even after the first round of Bush tax cuts, the average rate paid by all taxpayers was still higher than that at 13.03%.
As for the folks in her wealthy neighborhood, in 2002 the top 1% of taxpayers paid an average rate (also known as the effective tax rate) of 27.25%....
But back to Mrs. Kerry: Some readers wondered how she could be worth nearly $1 billion (as the Los Angeles Times has estimated) and earn only $5.07 million in 2003. Good question, that. It's impossible to tell given that Mrs. Kerry has disclosed only two pages of her 1040 form and declines to explain how her assets are deployed. But we agree with those readers who suggest that much of her wealth must be tied up in trusts and estates that don't require a declaration of income. Like many of the super-rich, Mrs. Kerry can afford to hire lawyers and accountants to create these shelters for her and her heirs.
Imagine a world without liberals....
When the last 1960's hippie dies, I am gonna have a huge party....you are all invited...
Did you read the article? Here let me help you:
As we review what we get from ... collecting our taxes a reducing waste, fraud and abuse, investing in education and in initiatives which will bring money into the treasury, it may be that tax cuts for those making over a certain amount of money, $500,000 a year, might be more important to the American people than ignoring the educational and health needs of America's children, Pelosi, D-Calif., said in an interview aired Sunday.
Right there, queen Nancy has defined the upper level of the middle class. The place where more taxes kicks in.
Now do I trust her, or believe her? Absolutely not, but if she can define the middle class as being incomes below $500k per year she may very well get her tax increases.
It gives conservaties a bad name when the Rats define something for us and we don't pay attention and whine that they haven't defined it.
She is a dangerous opponent, don't play into her hands by complaining about something where she has already answered your complaint.
My own recommendation would be to outsmart her and challenge her that if the donkeys will freeze tax rates on all families below an inflation-adjusted $500k per year, reform the AMT so that all below an inflation-adjusted $500k are exempt, and give us a permanent estate tax reform on inflation-adjusted estates of some number commensurate with $500k of annual income, say $3-5 million, we will make it a unaminous vote.
It sounds to me like she has just offered us 98% of what we want on a silver platter. Now we just have to hold her to it.
We don't need to worry about Pelosi.
The other day Laura Ingraham gave her the perfect name. She called her the "San-Fran-Granny-Nanny".
That sounds purty harmless. :)
The single wage earner will see a $50 increase in his taxes at a minimum. Bet on it. The RATS watch these things very close, Barney.
You got it right. The tax burden on the economy includes the 80 hours or so that the average American dedicates to complying with the tax law and almost certainly would prefer to use doing other activities. It also includes the entire tax preparation industry. The complexity of the tax code confuses and frustrates me and perhaps a few other imbecile-Americans lucky enough to land a paying job.
Middle Class was once defined by Algore back early in the Clinton days and it was laughable to say the least. I think if you or your family made over $60,000, you were rich in the Clinton/Gore book.
What's ironic about this is if you believe the polls, more people in the upper income limits (probably above $500,000) voted for Rats more in the last elections than the GOP. Not sure if they had a majority of votes for the Rats, but I believe the number was increasing. Most of these types live in the weathly burbs or big cities in the Northeast or on the West Coast.
and when you try to call her on that 500K IMHO she and/or her Dem handlers will Kerry it as a mispoken number.
Well, I would a lot rather call her on it now, and get her on record as to where "wealthy" starts, than just whine about it being some undetermined, and probably too low number.
She has given us a golden opportunity and all the Republicans with national stature are going to just let the ball she dropped lay on the ground untouched.
And by the way the quote is original - I said it first.
I've always liked the quote (I don't recall who said it first)
If you think that health care is expensive now, just wait until it's free.
The state income tax deduction is simply a way by which taxpayers in states with low (or no) state income tax can subsidize taxpayers in states with high state income taxes.
The only justification is that we should not have to pay taxes on taxes. It would be fairer if all states had the same tax rate. Then the state income tax deduction would not be a subsidy.
The Wicked Witch of the West.
RE: complying with tax prep.....our Accountant is beginning his move to retirement....one reason....he's SICK of all the rules......he got 400 pages of stuff to read for something this year......