Progressives don't hate the middle class. They don't hate anybody, except those who are trying to tear down America. Our gov. is starved for tax dollars, and taxes have never been lower. We are also in recovery from a horrible recession. A modest tax increase won't hurt us now, and would pay for gov. spending, a novel idea for conservatives. All I got from the bush tax cuts was a muffler for my car, they can have it back if they want it. It would also stimulate the economy by allowing the gov. to put more money into circulation. I also don't know why people hate big gov., which provides gov. jobs to ordinary middle class people. Big gov. also is inherently more efficient than free enterprise, as there are no high-flying CEOs or other executives that bleed money from the system, a profit margin that has to be heeled to or exorbitant pay schedules, like contractors serving as soldiers in Iraq that make 5 times as much as a soldier. Medicare is administered by somewhere between 3 and 6 cents of every dollar, while private insurance, as now limited, can only take 20 cents out of every dollar. They used to take more. The gov. taking over what contractors are doing now makes more sense to stretch tax dollars, and out of the many studies on healthcare, the only thing that has been shown to reduce cost is to open Medicare for everyone.

why do conservatives hate americans?

That question in and of itself is UN-American.

You should have a bar off soap shoved into your teeth.

That is utterly pathetic that you even put it in print.

Just more gas for you liberals to throw onto the fire.

Because we let them get away with it.

Stest-

No offense...

But...most First Read bloggers are primarily engaged in participating in a "cult-of-personality" where President Obama is concerned. If President Obama says that a compromise with the GOP to extend all of the Bush tax cuts is a good idea...I'm afraid you won't be able to make a living here by opposing that notion.

Don't waste your time.

make a living?

The wealthy don't work?

What is your definition of wealth, and what do you suppose will happen to all that investment income if it gets taxed at a highter rate? COme on, think it through. You can do it.

It's a metaphor, Stest...

"Make the argument".

How's that?

Investment income being taxed at a higher rate should go along with our taxes to pay the debt. Do you think the wealthy go to work 9-5 monday through friday? I am not talking about those making 250,000 going to work everyday like you and I. I am talking about the wealthy that inherit their parents estate with little to no estate tax thanks to bush and have lived off of trust funds.... How many of them do we have in this country? While they may own corporations or are board members with stock holdings, do they work 9 to 5?

Earned income is income earned from a job. The so-called wealthy make their wealth from investments.... 15% seem fair to you?

I repeat, Stest-

If you intend to oppose President Obama's agreement with the GOP to extend ALL of the Bush tax cuts...you came to the wrong place.

This isn't primarily a left-wing blog...it's a pro-President Obama blog.

When President Obama decided to compromise with the GOP...at First Read, all other considerations became largely irrelevant.

Try HuffPo, DailyKos, or Firedoglake.

it's only ever been the conservatives who hold us hostage!

Stest,

I feel sorry for you. You need an anger management class...and a class in Economics too.

Your "solution" will only cause further recession and increase the deficit.

Here is some education for you tax211hurts:

During World War II, Congress introduced payroll withholding and quarterly tax payments, Franklin D. Roosevelt tried to impose a 100% tax on all incomes over $25,000 to help with the war effort. For tax years 1944 through 1951, the highest marginal tax rate for individuals was 91%, increasing to 92% for 1952 and 1953, and reverting to 91% for tax years 1954 through 1963.

For the 1964 tax year, the top marginal tax rate for individuals was lowered to 77%, and then to 70% for tax years 1965 through 1981. The top marginal tax rate was lowered to 50% for tax years 1982 through 1986.

For tax year 1987, the highest marginal tax rate was 38.5% for individuals. It was lowered to 33% for tax years 1988 through 1990.

For the 1991 and 1992 tax years, the top marginal rate was lowered to 31% in a budget deal President George H. Bush made with the Congress.

In 1993 the Clinton administration proposed and the Congress accepted (with NO Republican support) an increase in the top marginal rate to 39.6% for the 1993 tax year, where it remained through tax year 2000.

In 2001, President George W. Bush proposed and the Congress accepted an eventual lowering of the top marginal rate to 35%. However, this was done in stages: with a highest marginal rate of 39.1% for 2001, then 38.6% for 2002 and finally 35% for years 2003 through 2010. This measure has a sunset provision and is scheduled to expire for the 2011 tax year, when rates will return to those adopted during the Clinton years unless Congress changes the law.

The National Bureau of Economic Research has concluded that the combined federal, state, and local government average marginal tax rate for most workers to be about 40% of income.

SOCIAL SECURITY:

The next largest TAX is Social Security tax formally known as the Federal Insurance and Contributions Act (FICA). This contribution or tax is 6.2% of an employees' income paid by the employer, and 6.2% paid by the employee (12.4% total). Self-employed workers must pay both halves of the Social Security tax because they are their own employers. This tax is paid only on earned income and, as noted above, only up to a threshold income for calendar year 2010 of $106,800 called the "Social Social Security Wage Base" (SSWB), for an maximum individual contribution of $6,621.60 ($13,243.20 combined). The SSWB increases every year according to the national index average of wages which also indexes the bend points in the Primary Insurance Amount (PIA) computations. Unearned income like interest from bonds, money market and bank accounts, dividends from REITs and common stocks, rents, and royalties are not subject to the Social Security tax. Thus, by simple arithmetic, higher earners pay a lower average tax rate than those with earned income at the upper end, making this an extremely regressive tax. Thus, earners above the SSWB pay a much lower combined marginal federal tax rate, when including Social Security and Medicare taxes, than those at the SSWB.

MEDICARE:

The Medicare tax funds the Medicare program, a health insurance program for the elderly and disabled. 1.45% of the employee's income is paid by the employer as Medicare tax, and 1.45% is paid by the employee. Unlike Social Security, there is no cap on the Medicare tax.

For self-employed people, Medicare taxes are fixed at 2.9% on all earnings (can be offset by income tax provisions.)

As in FICA, unearned income is not subject to the Medicare contribution.

Together, Social Security and Medicare taxes compose the payroll tax. These taxes are based on income, but unlike the Federal income tax, they are set aside for their specific purposes. That is, there is a statutory requirement that expenditures on these programs Medicare and Social Security come out of current taxes or accumulated trust funds, so if they go broke, the Social Security Administration and Medicare would be without the authority to pay benefits. Unlike Congress, they cannot borrow on the federal government's creditworthiness to fund operations from the credit markets.

CORPORATE INCOME TAX:

In the United States, the federal corporate income rate for the year 2006 varies between 15 and 39% depending on taxable income. But since 1999, when Treasury announced the "check the box" system, many corporations can elect to be treated as a pass-though entity, thereby skipping the entity level 35% tax and having all income pass through to the shareholders. This is the tax treatment that the much discussed "S" corporations receive; but now many more types of state-law corporations or and limited liability companies may avoid double taxation by "checking the box". Certain dividends are also subject to a lower rate of income tax than other kinds of ordinary income in the United States.

TRANSFER TAX (better known as "Death Taxes):

The transfer tax generates roughly 1.5% ($30 billion) of the federal government's annual revenue ($2 trillion). It consists of the gift tax, the estate tax and the generation-skipping tax ("GSTT"). Opponents of the transfer tax label these taxes "Death Taxes". The term "death tax" was popularized by Fank Luntz, a Republican political consultant, but its use goes back to at least the 19th century.

The gift tax is a tax levied on wealth transfers during the transferor's life while the estate tax is levied on transfers made after the transferor's death. The GSTT is a tax in addition to the gift and estate tax and is levied (in rough terms) on transfers made during life or after death to individuals removed by more than one generation from the transferor, for example, from a grandmother to a grandson. Usually transfer tax liabilities are paid by the transferor or the transferor's estate. Payment of transfer taxes by the transferor when the liability is due from the recipient is also a taxable gift.

As of December 2002^, tax rates for gift and estate taxes begin at 18% and rise to 50% for gifts over $12,000 or taxable estates over $2.5 million under the Unified Transfer Tax Rate Schedule. The GSTT is a flat 50%. Each individual is granted a Unified Credit (currently $345,800) the effect of which exempts estates under $1 million. Each individual is also granted an annual exclusion amount the effect of which exempts total gifts to any one individual during the year up to the annual exclusion amount (As of 2009, $13,000 per person per year). If the transferor does not elect to pay the gift tax on the value of gifts totaling more than the annual exclusion amount, the individual is deemed to have used a portion of his Unified Credit. An exemption (currently $1.1 million) for transfers subject to the GSTT is also granted to each individual during his lifetime. The Unlimited Marital Deduction allows (non-foreign) spouses to transfer any amount of wealth with no transfer tax consequences.

REFORM:

In 2005, the President's Advisory Panel for Federal Tax Reform criticized the tax system as being extremely complex, requiring detailed record-keeping, lengthy instructions, and complicated schedules, worksheets, and forms. They stated that it penalizes work, discourages saving and investment, and hinders the competitiveness of American business. The tax code is commonly riddled with provisions that treat similarly situated taxpayers differently and create perceptions of unfairness. The panel's major reform push was for the removal of the Alternative Minimum Tax, which is not indexed for inflation. Several organizations and individuals are working for tax reform in the United States including Americans for Tax Reform, Citizens for an Alternative Tax System, Americans for Fair Taxation, and Libertarian Party (United States). Various proposals have been put forth for tax simplification in Congress including the Fair Tax and various Flat Tax plans. Proposals have also been put forth to completely abolish the Federal Income Tax for individuals.

FAIR TAX PLAN:

The FairTax is a proposed change to the federal government tax laws of the United States intended to replace all federal income taxes with a single broad national consumption tax on retail sales. The plan has been introduced into the United States Congress as the Fair Tax Act (H.R. 25/S. 296). The tax would be levied once at the point of purchase on all new goods and services for personal consumption. The proposal also calls for a monthly payment to all family households of lawful U.S. residents as an advance rebate, or "prebate", of tax on purchases up to the poverty level. The sales tax rate, as defined in the legislation for the first year, is 23% of the total payment including the tax ($23 of every $100 spent in total—calculated similar to income taxes). This would be equivalent to a 30% traditional U.S. Sales Tax ($23 on top of every $77 spent—$100 total). The rate would then be automatically adjusted annually based on federal receipts in the previous fiscal year.

With the rebate taken into consideration, the FairTax would be progressive on consumption but would also be regressive on income at higher income levels (as consumption falls as a percentage of income). Opponents argue this would accordingly decrease the tax burden on high income earners and increase it on the middle class. Supporters contend that the plan would decrease tax burdens by broadening the tax base, effectively taxing wealth, and increasing purchasing power. The plan's supporters also argue that a consumption tax would have a positive effect on savings and investment, that it would ease tax compliance, and that the tax would result in increased economic growth, incentives for international business locate in the U.S., and increased U.S. competitiveness in international trade. Opponents contend that a consumption tax of this size would be extremely difficult to collect, and would lead to pervasive tax evasion. They also argue that the proposed sales tax rate would raise less revenue than the current tax system, leading to an increased budget deficit.

TRUE FLAT RATE INCOME TAX:

A true flat rate tax is a system of taxation where one tax rate is applied to all income with no exceptions.

In an article titled The Flat-Tax Revolution, dated April 14, 2005, the Economist argued as follows:

If the goals are to reduce Corporate Welfare and to enable household tax returns to fit on a postcard, then a true flat tax best achieves those goals. The flat rate would be applied to all taxable income and profits without exception or exemption. It could be argued that under such an arrangement, no one is subject to a preferential or "unfair" tax treatment. No industry receives special treatment, large households are not advantaged at the expense of small ones, etc. Moreover, the cost of tax filing for citizens and the cost of tax administration for the government would be further reduced, as under a true flat tax only businesses and the self-employed would need to interact with the tax authorities.

Critics of the flat tax argue that the marginal dollar to the low income is vastly more vital than that of the high income earner, especially around the poverty level. In their view this justifies a progressive taxation system as the added income gained from a flat tax rate to the rich would not be spent on vital goods and services for survival as they might at the poverty level with reduced taxation. However, true Flat tax proponents necessarily contest the concept of the diminishing marginal utility of money and that a marginal dollar should be taxed different.

HOWEVER PLEASE NOTE THERE ARE A FEW DIFFERENT FLAT TAX PLANS....

are you and lucky hi? i saw reports indicating republicans complaining about working during a holiday and what an effrontery for christiasn to consider working on christmas

Progressives will throw the middle-class and the poor under the bus if it means stopping the death tax reduction for those same middle class businessmen.

Progressives are the enemy here. I will actually go on record for giving Obama some credit for making this compromise...even though it isn't quite finished yet.

Yeah, they care. They care about keeping the lower 98% of Americans too poor to do anything except work for them.

I fear you're right, and this vote is just a sham. God willing I'am wrong. I can't see pushing money at the very people who need it the least.

then please explain why the blue collars seem to support conservatives who want to destroy the unions that protect your working life?

Unions are the downfall of corporate America.

They hurt the businesses that SUPPLY the jobs...to the point of losing those jobs altogether.

They hurt the workers they are "supposed" to represent...by squandering their "dues" on worthless lobbying that further hurts the companies that employ those same workers.

You people cannot see past your noses.

Unions should be permanently outlawed if you ever want to see the really big manufacturing companies even want to come back here from wherever they went.

It won't happen anytime soon, that's for sure.

Excuse Me, Isn't UPS a union company. And haven't they been doing great all these years. Their drivers are a big part of our remaining middle class or upper end of our lower class depending on what you consider the middle class.

sandra jones - you are not wealthy. you are rich, but not wealthy. i think wealthy people don't use the word "myself" when the work "I" or "me," will suffice. that comes from having a great education -- you know where teachers actually correct one from going forth in the world and sounding like a poser.

Sandra Jones -

I am sorry that you have once again misunderstood!

Get it right: Wealthy means people who DO NOT work! There are 400 Billioniares in this Country. They all reside here in the U.S. They pay out a total of 15% of taxes on their income because it is INVESTMENT INCOME!

Sandra Jones you are rich, not wealthy!

So you would pay tax on the little bit you make over the 250k threshold. You don't think that's fair? Trymaking 30 k ayear and paying the same tax rate.

actually, uions are great now because the corporations of this country seem to have the temerity to behave in a most licentious manner --that created the great depression of the last century. only this time they have gained legal measures through our public servants and the supreme court system.

are you sure you should be putting through your half penny's worth??????????????????

jane you simply must join us more often.

Yeah.

Maybe she should.

I enjoy reading posts from poor, jealous, unemployed liberals who know that within hours their President's Party is going to make history by SIGNING ON to the George W. Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003.

They are now going to be known as the 2010 Obama tax cuts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is even a MAJOR reduction of the death tax in there.

Progressives are peeing in their pants over that one! HAHAHAHAHA.

Sandra is rich guys! A couple of posts above she states that she makes 250,000. Although with her grammer I think she is lieing. I can't believe someone would be paid that much when she can't speak proper English.

Sandra - No one is bad mouthing companies that are employing thousands of employees. They are bad mouth the government because they have been bought by corporations and are now just puppets.

As far as why all the jobs have left this country is because big corporations got big tax breaks and saved a sh*t load of money on payroll by shipping "our" jobs over seas.

Yes we need to bring them back. And we need to do pronto. I would back a bill to give corporations a tax incentive to do so!

As far as Obama creating jobs.... Well he hasn't! LOL... If Obama is hiring off the street I didn't find that Job Listing on the Job Boards, because I would have applied!

Would you have us go back to the late 1800, early 1900 where even children had to slave all day just to help their familys make a living ? Is that what you want for your 4 children ? Back to the sweat shops that the union's destroyed. I think you need to relax, take a deep breath, and really,really form in your mind what you mean to say before typing it out.

so are you saying it's ok for them to not pay much? does it occur that we have a hugely depleted workforce? maybe in good times when the population was working, as in there was enough of us to bear the brunt, the corporations and wealthy could skip off with paying 2% of their taxes. but with corporations getting greedy and outsourcing, there's no healthy workforce to bear the brunt.

these are not the times...

why don't the republicans support poor americans

They have been, still are, and will continue to do so.

It's called CHARITY.

Try it sometime. You might learn to like it.

I for 1 hope they do vote it down. Let the Republicans shut down the goverment. I can't wait until along about April of next year when you people turn on your own party for failing to do what they said they would do when you elected them in the Midterms.

Go Nancy GO. don't let it pass. Show them at least some of us Democrats still have b@lls.