Let's Talk About Taxes

Tax season is upon us, and while no one likes paying taxes, we can all agree it'd be a little easier to swallow if the system wasn't rigged for the super rich.

This tax season, we're going to change the conversation. With a strong, dedicated progressive community, we'll stand together and raise awareness on an issue conveniently ignored by the right-wing radicals and privileged elite: tax fairness.

We have an opportunity to change the narrative. We're tired of seeing Tea Partiers and right-wing radicals rail against taxes without talk of solutions. They're missing a key point: thanks to loop holes and an unfair tax system, the wealthiest Americans are paying lower tax rates than many middle class families. It's outrageous!


That's why I'm standing with President Obama, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, and a coalition of over 20,000 grassroots activists who are calling for passage of the Buffett Rule for Tax Fairness -- because its common sense. Millionaires and billionaires like Warren Buffett shouldn't get tax breaks and loop holes. For too long in America, there's been two tax systems: one for the middle class and another for the very wealthiest.


This year, let's make tax season about restoring tax fairness for America's working families.


Over the next month, we all will face the inevitable: tax talk. Let's make it about an important issue that the extreme conservatives and super rich don't want to talk about -- restoring fairness.


Click here to learn more about the tax debate and join the fight for tax fairness.

 

Follow Tammy Baldwin on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TammyBaldwinWI

Comments

[FullThrottle64]

03:03 PM on 04/10/2012

Bad proposal, for a number of reasons. Unless we eliminate the federal tax-exempt status of local bond income, it won't change anything. If we do, the necessity of increasing those rates to remain competitive will simply transfer the taxes to local government, where taxes are inherently regressive. Thus, this would actually end up either being completely ineffective, or it would end up as an increase in local taxes on the lower and middle income taxpayers.

Either way, it won't generate enough revenue to have any real impact on the deficit.

[3RawBob]

09:49 PM on 03/25/2012

There has to be a minimum and maximum effective tax rate based on Adjusted Gross Income. Most importantly, the $150k to $250K should pay a maximum of 15%.

[FullThrottle64]

03:04 PM on 04/10/2012

I would love to get my taxes reduced to 15%! It's not realistic, though - not unless the bottom 48% start paying some real taxes as they did in the 50s and 60s - prior to the Bush tax cuts.

[realitytrumpsbull]

09:16 PM on 03/25/2012

10% across-the-board, make a dime, pay a penny, 10% all the way up?

[oldgeek1]

07:29 PM on 03/25/2012

The tea party does not see any tax as fair. The Republicans see any tax that they don't have to pay as fair.

[RichThomk]

08:46 PM on 03/25/2012

Start taxing the bottom 47% will you please! The top 10% hate paying 70% of all federal income taxes every year.

[3RawBob]

09:54 PM on 03/25/2012

I'll agree to taxing the poor when the super rich start paying gift and estate taxes. When Sam Walton died, how much was paid in estate taxes? 99.9999% of people do not pay substantial estate taxes.

[VikingQuest]

06:29 PM on 03/25/2012

"Tax season is upon us, and while no one likes paying taxes, we can all agree it'd be a little easier to swallow if the system wasn't rigged for the super rich"

Actually no, I don't feel that way at all.

I would feel better if the folks in DC weren't throwing money down the drain on a daily basis. There is a reason people don't mind paying local taxes, they TRUST the local government more.

[RichThomk]

08:48 PM on 03/25/2012

"Rigged for the super rich" Are you kidding me!!!!

The "super rich"... the ones in the top 10% of income pay over 70% of all federal income taxes. So tell me.... WHEN will eveyone else start paying their "fiar share"????

[saldog]

06:25 PM on 03/25/2012

We should also have a minimum tax on the middle class. Say 10% of all AGI above the poverty level. Our tax code is structured wher many in the middle class pay almost nothing in federal income taxes. This would broaden the base and bring in more revenue. Most importantly, it would enable some of these liars to write these articles without having to lie about the middle class struggling under this heavy income tax burden. IT IS A FALSEHOOD. Either cut our government spending and entitlements or everybody better get ready to pony up more in taxes.

[shessomoney]

05:03 PM on 03/25/2012

How much did you get from the two bush tax cuts which we can all acknowledge caused the bulk of the deficit? The poor and elderly get $0, middle class get $400.00 and the wealthy get and average annual tax cut of $133,000.00. Paul Ryan's budget would increase the wealthy tax cut to around $175,000.00 per year while shifting the burden to the middle class, poor and elderly in one way or another. Since the wealthy just add this to their camen or swiss bank account it takes all of the cash out of our capitalistic system. Capitalism only works with buyers and sellers. How low can the average persons take of the economy get before capitalism ends?

[m vickless]

07:33 PM on 03/25/2012

Considering the bush tax cuts you are railing against in this asinine post are income taxes, how can you cut taxes on people who don't pay income taxes to begin with? Almost 50% of this country pays nothing in income taxes, so it is impossible to "cut" their taxes any lower.

[griffey]

03:39 PM on 03/25/2012

I don't know where some of these statistics come from. My wife & I are retired with a few modest investments that put us solidly in the middle class, & paying taxes in the 25% bracket. Our property taxes are our only deduction, unlike corporations & the elites who have unlimited tax deductions, as well as hiding money offshore & in overseas bank accounts. My personal feeling is that the resistance of the wealthy to pay their fair share is greed at best & unpatriotic at worst. There is a meaness in this country that is shameful.

[pshakkottai]

03:20 PM on 03/25/2012

See the interesting article on taxes by Mitchell
http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/01/01/the-other-reason-federal-income-taxes-should-be-eliminated/
which answers the question "why are there taxes at all?" for a monetarily sovereign country with enormous resources.

[AndrewDover]

04:38 PM on 03/25/2012

Yes, federal taxes are "unnecessary as a source of federal spending funds." But unless you want the value of a dollar to shrink even faster than it already does, you need to keep the supply of dollars somewhat limited. Consequently, printing money fails in the long run.

See Zimbabawe.
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/01/world/fg-zimbabwe-bank1
http://www.newzimbabwe.com/pages/inflation66.14226.html

[pshakkottai]

05:13 PM on 03/25/2012

http://pragcap.com/zimbabwe-weimar-how-mmt-deal-with-hyperinflation-hyperventilators-part-1
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=17006 Wir wollen brot Germany
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=13834 Printing money does not cause inflation | Bill Mitchell – billy blog are references from MMT perspective. MMT is real being supported by a lot of data.

[LeftRight]

02:48 PM on 03/25/2012

I disagree Tammy, I think that there DOES need to be two tax systems in America: one for the middle class much like it is now (with perhaps some additional brackets...) and another for the very rich wherein they pay in relation to how much government money they get, namely INFINITELY more than the middle class!

[LeftRight]

09:24 PM on 03/25/2012

@RichThomk

Well let's see here, they get the bulk of the protection from the military, they get the bulk of the protection from the police, they get the bulk of the protection from the fire department, they get all the benefits of the education system, they get the roads to move their goods and services around, they get TRILLIONS of dollars in government spending.... Shall I go on?

And what do the middle class get? Virtually NOTHING. The poor get a little bit more, but considering how many of them, the BILLIONS that they get are spread too thin....

You conservatives kill me with your combination of ignorance and HAPPINESS about your ignorant state....

[ConservativeConservative]

02:41 PM on 03/25/2012

The author may be tired of the Tea Party driving the narrative. However, if one examines the goal of both the Tea Party and the Progressives, it is one and the same -- tax fairness. The only difference is that the Tea Party wants the fair tax to be low; whereas, the Progressives [liberals] want it to be a high tax.

Since both sides complain about the progressive tax rate system that exists today, it is time that all of us acknowledge that the progressive tax rate system is an abject failure. Both Democrats and Repullicans should be pushing for a flat tax. The libs can propose their high rate and the conservatives can propose their low rate and, then, let the voters decide.

If one considers the 2010 election, the voters have already decided which direction this country will take. More Americans want to save the country from insolvency than want to drive the country to insolvency. The libs and the author desire insolvency through higher taxation, less prosperity, few jobs and more gov't dependency.

[GoldenGateCA]

04:02 PM on 03/25/2012

More conservative self delusion. High or low taxes don't matter - the discussion should be about high or low government services. What the GOP does is cut taxes without cutting spending. Before Obama, the pres who INCREASED the debt the most as a percentage of GDP were Reagan, Bush I and Bush II. The Tea Party also wants want high gov services without high taxes - remember the "Keep your government hands off my welfare" comment? Pay for your benefits or tell me which ones you don't want - don't pretend you don't get any.

[ConservativeConservative]

05:08 PM on 03/25/2012

It is not self delusion. I am a proponent of getting rid of all federal gov't except the enumerated powers.

I am the Conservatives' Conservative. I only vote Republican as the lesser of two evils. Reagan was the only President that I was for; and, he disappointed me in many ways. One of those ways was not getting tougher with the liberals that ran Congress and ran up those deficits that you mentioned.

I don't recall the Tea Party comment that you mentioned. However, what I do know is that social security needs to be terminated -- along with all the rest of the government services that have been created by legislation over the past decades.

[FearlessFreep]

07:43 PM on 03/25/2012

If progressives complain about "the progressive tax rate system that exists today," that's because it isn't progressive enough!

[ConservativeConservative]

08:56 PM on 03/25/2012

Therein lies the rub -- it is already far too progressive [unfair] as far as conservatives are concerned. It costs the same to protect the border or defend the nation for a rich person as it does a poor one. It is unfair for the rich person to pay a higher percentange of her/his income in tax.

[humpfree]

01:50 PM on 03/25/2012

Thanks to all these loopholes 48% of wage earners pay almost nothing in fed income tax. 99% of that 48% are low to mid income. This constant harping about the rich paying less than the rest of us really neglects the fact that it's the exception. Not the rule. Very few of the rich actually pay less income tax, as a percentage of gross, than average Americans. Even those getting away with just 15% cap gains typically pay a higher percentage. The effective income tax rate for the average wage earner is about 12%. The effective rate for the lower 50% of earners is less than 2%. This is all easily fact checked. Look it before you get angry.

[LeftRight]

02:49 PM on 03/25/2012

Not INCOME taxes, TAXES as a whole, which the poor DO pay more than the rich as a percentage of their income!

[humpfree]

06:23 PM on 03/25/2012

That moves the goals around. When the rich are brought into the debate the figure constantly cited (as in the Buffet rule) is cap gains. No one is talking about what the rich pay in consumer/property taxes but somehow it gets figured in when we start talking about the bottom 50% because, as I pointed out, they don't pay anything substantial in income taxes. Using two sets of figures to make your side of the argument more advantageous doesn't fly. Then we have the problem of assessing those figures to begin with. They vary massively by state, county and city. Those who live in regions with no sales tax (like my state) aren't paying much of anything aside from fuel and misc. taxes. In high sales tax states they'll pay a lot more. Regardless, these types of assessments aren't compulsory.

[m vickless]

07:41 PM on 03/25/2012

So why cry over the bush tax cuts, which were income taxes. Why not seek to address the real problems in this country instead of demonizing a certain class or level of success? The buffet rule is a joke. The people who claim the bush tax cuts are what exploded the deficit are a joke. The tax cut for the wealthy is about 70 billion a year. In case anyone missed it, our deficit is at least 1.6 trillion, probably higher

[econ1]

01:02 PM on 03/25/2012

Our tax code, most of its 16,000 pages, is a mess. Filled with deductions, credits, "subsidies" etc. that politicians have ladled out over decades. I wish the administration hadn't ignored Bowles Simpson which at least took a swing at separating out raising revenue from policy. A great example is the highly non-progre-ssive mortgage deduction (worth 10x on a $1,000,000 house what it is on a $100,000 house). If the government wants you to own a house, it can send homeowners a $5,000 check each year...same for the guy in the $1,000,000 house as in a trailer. Just raising tax rates on anybody encourages more effort in tax planning (an estimated 6 billion hours spent in tax compliance in the US....which produces exactly nothing). Time for a fresh start not twiddles.

Washington doesn't really want this, of course, since it allows then to hand out benefits. When the administration talks about a simpler code and then goes on to talk about cuts for electric cars or ethanol you know it isn't serious.

[m vickless]

07:43 PM on 03/25/2012

But when someone like Paul Ryan puts out a tax plan dealing with deductions, write offs, and subsidies he is attacked by the left. Don't say no one in Washington wants this.

[econ1]

11:56 AM on 03/26/2012

Well not those that want to direct what citizens do.

[FearlessFreep]

07:45 PM on 03/25/2012

If someone who buys an electric car gets a tax credit, how does that make taxes any more complicated for someone who doesn't?

[econ1]

11:55 AM on 03/26/2012

It doesn't in the same way that not doing bond amortization doesn't make it complicated....just means you have to pay the tax earlier.

[David in Dallas]

12:09 PM on 03/25/2012

Adding to my previous comment -The one part of paying taxes that I truly detest is that I have to pay $800 to an accountant to get me the best deal of the year. I favor a simple tax code whereby even maga-corporations could hit the "Tax Button" on their PCs on December 31, and no accountants would need touch/manipulate the numbers.

As a kid in Maine, we had a saying: "Figures lie and liars figure." Our tax system is one of the best examples of this perversion. Legal tax avoidance may be OK, but the structure of our tax code forces us to creatively cheat (?) without setting off an IRS flag in order to not pay more than our fair share. Should we need to redefine every year what "fair share" is?.

[freak4life]

12:08 PM on 03/25/2012

Tammy did the WH write this for you ?

[gateking]

01:48 PM on 03/25/2012

"Write" would be very generous.