The inherent problem with allowing the Bush-era tax cuts expire for Americans earning more than $250,000 a year -- let's call them $250k+ Americans -- is that not all $250k+ Americans are created equal.
Within hours of the conclusion of the 2012 election, partisan leaders began drawing lines in the sand with respect to tax policy, and tax rates in particular. But history tells us that dramatic change is unlikely.
All conservatives seem to talk about is Reagan, so I just naturally assumed that taxes were really low during his presidency. Then I made the mistake of looking stuff up.
If a temporary personal income tax hike is the price we pay for long-term reforms that enhance infrastructure, encourage job growth, and make the tax system more equitable, then it is a price worth paying.
WASHINGTON -- Newly released U.S. Census data reveal that poverty levels have skyrocketed, but in most states, the tax systems disproportionally burde...
Taxpayers with income of more than $1 million for 2011 would still receive on average a tax cut of about $6,300 compared with what they would have pai...
This discussion of whether to get rid of the Bush tax cuts for the rich has been a learning experience. I have been listening on the radio and readin...
The "small" businesses that Republican lawmakers say will suffer if the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy expire are not so small after all, MSNBC's "...
Anyone in the media talking about raising income tax rates on the top two income brackets should disclose their possible conflict of interest. "Full disclosure, I fall into the top tax bracket myself, so I would personally be affected by changing this rate."
If you raised the tax rates from thirty-six percent to forty-one percent, no entrepreneur worth his salt would close up and go fishin'. They'd grumble about it, then they'd play for less.