The Senate this week faced a choice between two starkly different tax plans -- one, authored by Democrats, which would protect tax cuts for every American family, and another, authored by Republicans, which raises taxes on working-class families to fund special breaks for the very wealthiest Americans.
It really wasn't much of a choice.
I'm proud to say that 50 of my colleagues agreed, and we passed a fair and responsible tax plan that will allow us to responsibly reduce our deficit while also investing in the next generation of the American dream. Unsurprisingly, not a single Senate Republican voted for this plan, and it is sure to die a slow death in the Republican-controlled House. So committed to preventing the richest two percent of Americans from paying their fair share, Republicans are willing to hold middle class tax breaks hostage.
This political obstructionism is even more disappointing given the broad, bipartisan agreement that our national debt and annual deficits are dangerous and unsustainable.
We all know that too much debt leads to lower growth and starves critical investments of the resources they need to help our communities grow. We all know we have to take steps to bring our budget back to balance, but I believe the key is that we do so responsibly, fairly and in a way that reflects America's values.
It's time we recognize the sobering reality that if we're going to plug the hole in our national balance sheets while still continuing to invest in our future, we have to find a balance between spending cuts and revenue increases. We simply cannot achieve the level of savings we need through spending cuts alone. Revenue must also play a meaningful role.
A balanced approach is the only way to responsibly reduce our deficit while still maintaining America's future competitiveness. We have to invest in education, infrastructure, research and development if we hope to innovate and cure our way out of the great challenges of our time.
Balancing our budget by shredding the vital safety net for our most vulnerable citizens is not consistent with American values. Essential programs have already sustained deep and painful cuts. Programs important to my home state of Delaware, like heating assistance to low-income families, Community Development Block Grants and the HOME program, have already been cut by as much as 30 percent.
Programs like these can't afford additional cuts, so this week, Senate Democrats turned to the revenue side of the equation, voting to reduce our deficit by $1 trillion while still protecting critical tax credits for the middle class and working poor families that need them most -- simply by asking the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans to pay their fair share.
In response, our Republican colleagues offered a plan that would raise taxes on 25 million working families still struggling to get through this difficult recession. At a time like this - when poverty in this country is at the highest rate since the 1960s, affecting one in six Americans -- we are called to do better.
My faith tradition, along with a broad range of other faith traditions, challenges us to show our values in our budget. Psalm 72 teaches that to defend the cause of the poor and give deliverance to the needy is one of our highest callings. That call is repeated throughout books of the Torah and the New Testament -- in many faith traditions across this country -- so to reject this deliverance to the needy, to reject the circle of protection, and instead say we will extend ad infinitum the tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans defies our most basic values and our greatest tradition of creating and sustaining opportunity while protecting the most vulnerable amongst us.
This bill is not a substitute for the comprehensive tax reform our nation truly needs -- tax reform that simplifies the code and closes unsustainable and costly loopholes while lowering rates and broadening the base -- but in the current political environment, this bill is our best chance at retaining critical middle class tax credits and opportunities for the working poor, while still responsibly reducing our deficit.
As my friend, Senator Patty Murray, said shortly after Wednesday's vote, Speaker Boehner is all that stands between 100 million middle-class families and the tax cuts the Senate voted to preserve. She's right, and Speaker Boehner needs to get out of the way. The House ought to take up this bill and extend these tax cuts for America's middle class.
Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) is a member of the Senate Budget Committee.
Follow Sen. Chris Coons on Twitter: www.twitter.com/chriscoons
Tax income including capital gains 50% over a million, and 90% over a billion, with inflation adjusted basis and 10 year income averaging.
That's fair.
"When economic power became concentrated in a few hands, then political power flowed to those possessors and away from the citizens, ultimately resulting in an oligarchy or tyranny." John Adams
There is an apocryphal story of a bank robber when asked why he robbed banks answered: "That's where the money is." Why tax the 1%? The answer is that they have most of the money.
Assume a single deduction of $5k/adult and $2.5k/child. A family of four would deduct $15k. A tax rate of 30% a family making $36k would pay 17.5% a $1million would pay very close to 30%.
The politicians can argue about how big to make the deduction and how high to set the income tax %, but a flat tax if applied to all earned income eliminates the complexity of the income tax system.
CAPITAL GAINS
A capital gains tax is a different issue. As an example if you purchased and sold a home, how should the increased value of that home be taxed? (Other than as low as possible) The answer depends on the real return you received. If you sold the home for $100k more than you paid for it but spent $50k to remodel then most people agree that you should only be taxed on $50k. What about inflation? If the home cost you $200K and you sold it for $300K but inflation averaged about 2% then all your investment did was keep up with inflation and any tax would be taxing inflation.
So instead of arguing over real inflation rates, and double taxation the rate is just set lower than standard income tax rates.
B . A far more compelling reason for a more steeply graduated income tax is to keep too much wealth from accumulating in too few hands which in turn keeps the economy from functioning properly..
C. It is not as if God has determined that CEOs and top management has contributed to the value chain of goods and services at a level worth many hundreds of times more than the workers who actually produced tose goods and services.
D. The middle class needs money to buy those goods and services.
E. At some point the top 1% feel as if they need more money because "That is how they keep score.
We will generate considerably more revenue if we start taxing non-profits. Do you have any idea how much money those so-called "non-profit" religious organizations make?
I have been saying for a long time that we need to tax religious organizations, but there is no reason that we cannot extend that to all non-profits. There should probably be a few exceptions to this idea, but we can address that on a case-by-case basis.
That would be closer to 'fair'. This is a time where our economic situation doesn't call for any spending cuts, unless something was obviously harmful or unnecessary in the first place. All of the spending cuts we've done since the crash have just drained yet more $$ out of the economy. You don't cut spending during economic downturns, this is econ 101. Yet that's what we've been doing.
The government should be spending $$ on directly hiring out of work people. And we're nowhere near having that debate, unfortunately. Our biggest problem right now is not the budget deficit or the national debt. Those are 2nd tier problems. And we certainly shouldn't be allowing conservatives to rule the day on this when they were all too happy to cheer when Dick Cheney said "Reagan proved deficits don't matter", they have zero credibility on the issue.
All that 'stimulus' money should have been spent on real jobs, not "research". It was wasted, for the most part. Think what the trillion could have done in real infrastructure, including both union and non-union projects.
But a tax structure that is fair, should have much lower thresholds, with corresponding lower rates.
EVERYONE, (most everyone), should participate in funding the Federal Income Tax program.
Even if the one at $18,000 pays 1% or 2%.
But, alas, another of your points alluded to the unlikeness of Congress actually doing something constructive.
And thanks for the opportunity to call them a collection of drunken thieves this morning.
For the sake of transparency, this new type of Capitalism would rule that each single transaction must be reported on the Net to become visible by anyone (just like an invoice made public) and taxable at the origin with a fix percentage for everyone.
In such system, all private properties and their owners like also all money transactions and trades of private property must be publicly reported on the Net. This is to prevent unlawful transactions and root out corruption through the immediate confiscation of those goods that have not been reported.
Moreover, to reduce Greed and restore the financial equilibrium worldwide, it will be enough to eliminate the concept of inheritance. The private property of the people will return to the State after the death of each person to be auctioned among all citizens. People could spend as much as they want to educate their children but inheritance and donations would not be allowed.
Once the survival is guaranteed for everybody there will be no need to be as tolerant with crime as we are today when the crime is a consequence of our corrupted system.
http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Commutalism
www.wavevolution.org